The Messy Story behind the Most Beautiful Experiment in Biology
“The most beautiful experiment in biology.” That was how John Cairns described it: the 1958 experiment that showed how the genetic material, DNA, replicates. The work is still widely celebrated, sometimes in introductory biology textbooks. This esteemed experiment by Matt Meselson and Frank Stahl (described more fully below) and others like it reflect an ideal in science, one marked by an intuitive aesthetic response. The test was simple. The results were clear. The method and reasoning seemed obvious. Theory and evidence complemented each other elegantly. That seems to be how science works—or should work. However, this view of biology, so common as to be beyond question—another sacred bovine?—can be misleading. Appearances can be deceptive. Delving into the history of this now-famous experiment fosters a very different image. Behind the apparent simplicity hides extraordinary—and fascinating—complexity. A glimpse of the messy world of investigation indicates how science really happens, quite apart from the tidy scientific method that one finds in standard textbooks. Ultimately, the messy story behind the most beautiful experiment in biology offers a quite different, and deeply informative, way to appreciate science. The experiment developed from a puzzle about how DNA, the genetic molecule, replicates. In 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick, building on data from Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, presented a model of DNA’s molecular structure. It was two threads that coiled around each other, they claimed. Like two intertwined strands of rope. That double helix model has since been widely celebrated and inspired much art. But how did the DNA molecule replicate? When any cell divides, each new cell receives a complete set of information. Duplicate copies of DNA are assembled. Watson and Crick had only hinted at how that might occur. The genetic information was a sequence of units, called nucleotides, that bridged the two strands. They occurred in pairs. The shapes in each pair were complementary. So the shape of one side would determine which missing base would pair on the other.