 So greetings everyone and welcome to the first of the I guess we call this the spring series of history bike I know it's not snowing. I'm Gigi Barnhill the board member of the Historical Society and I want to thank George Naughton for arranging the seasons programs and he's come up with some really amazing topics and I think today is a wonderful beginning to the history bike series. Our speaker today is Marjorie Sanichal the Louise Wolfe Khan professor of emerita in mathematics and the history of science and technology emerita. That is the longest title I've ever seen after anyone's name. Our speaker grew up in Lexington Kentucky and received a B.S. from the University of Chicago and her graduate degrees from the Illinois Institute of Technology all in mathematics. Although retired now Marjorie remains active in her fields of interest and she's editor-in-chief of the International Quarterly Journal of Mathematical Intelligencer. Her most recent books were published in 2013 and they include shaping space exploring polyhedra in nature art and the geometrical imagination and I died for beauty Dorothy Wrench and the Cultures of Science which is the topic of today's talk. Dorothy Wrench actually held research positions at Smith I had to look up a little bit about today so I think it's particularly terrific that you can speak about her and have such a close relationship to her. So let's go and thank you. Welcome. It's a real pleasure to talk about Dorothy. I knew her very well and just in the last years of her life and she lived in Amherst for a long time and that under circumstances I will explain and anyway she's a past day in character and some of you here I know knew her and others if you don't didn't and but all of you please stop me at any time any comments questions remarks hoots whatever I want this to be a discussion and not a lecture so the title here is the Protein War and what you see here is Dorothy Wrench who you see here she was at that time in her 40s I think and soon after she moved to America she was British come back to that in a minute and this is her model of a protein and if any of you've seen any pictures I'll show you some protein molecules you'll know they don't look like this but she thought they did but she was very first person to have any idea that proteins have a structure and that there was a molecule to be deciphered for that people had thought first they were just collards which meant just a lot of atoms that were sort of jumbled together then they just realized they were molecules but no one had a clue as to what they were like and she's the first person to come up with a model that actually answered a lot of the questions that were being asked at that time experimental facts are so called vaccines and this is the same model this model is made of metal paper I think and this one was made for her by the physicist Neil Moore and supporters she had a lot of enemies and she had a lot of supporters Neilsboro was on her side in this war and this photograph was taken I think in his in his lab also I actually have one of these she gave it to me and there are a few more in her papers in her collection Smith and what you see here is important to realize is a lantern slide she did she all her work much of her work you can see the pictures of the illustrations of it online and slides which is how she gave what she gave lectures with in those days and lantern slides with photograph between two plates of glass and then taped together around the edges and this was a predecessor to the road you know to the predecessor to the predecessor to the predecessor to PowerPoint so they had these enormous enormous projectors and these things were in there and they had to do them by hand but in my this is her this is her lantern slide of her of this so so just a little bit about what the problem was at the time they were trying to understand not only what the structure was but how the structure worked and what it how it did what it's supposed to do and one of the things that protein protein do is they fold and they unfold and if you follow any of the scientific discovery controversies now you realize that protein folding is still not well understood how protein folds up and unfolds so one thing that happens if you drop an egg in boiling water you know it comes hard boiled what's happening is the egg white is turned into congealing into a solid white mass and that is a protein that has been unfolded it's a natural state of this folded up and it's unfolded and so but it does this one does not go backwards you can't reverse that operation but in some protein you can they go back and forth and that was the question that everyone saw everybody's mind and that question she was trying to answer and she was a mathematician not a not a biologist and her will see that she was at her joint appointment here to Amber Smith and here she is arriving at Smith and I have asked in the archives but everywhere nobody has a clue what and nobody knows who's driving her or who's meeting her but this you can recognize is the alumni house at Smith and here is Dorothy leaving out with her glove pants this is perfect so anyway someone not identified a car I forgot so that's what 1941 but anyway she did what she and this is 25 years later this is what she looked like when I knew her she worked with students and that she died in 1966 so the question was what protein molecules look like and how do we know but she didn't start with that question I'll come sorry just show you another picture this was this is her model again that I showed before this is what it really looks like and between there is 30 years and those 30 years and she was at the real forefront of all this she was in all newspapers she was written up she was considered to be you know great genius and here is this I got from Rockefeller Foundation archives woman Einstein and what's important she's a full-grown exciting battle in science that's come from here believe she's taken the first steps are discovering the secrets of the structure of protein molecules all this great science agree with her others say and a lot of scientists were furious that she got so much publicity that is something that hasn't changed so one tree do you imagine that they were furious because she was getting publicity or because she was a woman getting publicity or both both that's what you think she got no but I think it didn't hurt I mean it made it all more dramatic but it wasn't wasn't just that I mean Dorothy Ridge let me say one thing about the woman question because it comes up all the time with her there were other women doing working in the same field they had they knew their place and if they if a senior scientist said to them you were wrong they would say oh thank you very much I will go back to my land makes the corrections Dorothy said go hell so he really did not appreciate that she didn't take criticism very well and she was and she was usually often right you know the criticism was very often wrong but she didn't take it gracefully she didn't fulfill the role that they expected a woman to do so first of all there weren't many women in science but those who were were supposed to behave in certain ways and she didn't do that so it's a complicated story it's not just that she's a woman but also anybody getting this complicit is enough to send a lot of people off the wall that sounds a bit like Einstein doesn't it? Einstein didn't take criticism very well a lot of people and from one of the funniest characters this is nothing not really involved here but the philosopher Karl Popper was famous for criticism as the growth of science and they wrote a whole book on criticism he couldn't take it either anyway scientific method is one thing and theory quite another thing in practice so here we go back to the beginning so she was born in Argentina actually in 1894 and her parents were British and they were working a lot of British were in Argentina at the time running this or that and her father was a water works engineer running water systems and when she was three years old they came back she was the first child and they came back to England and settled in servant and reek he control he was the director of the water works there for most of London and she went to a school called servant high school even though what it wasn't what we think it was a high school it started in kindergarten and went through 12 and the thing to remember about it this is a picture of her that we found there when my husband I went to see the school and there's I asked if you had any records of her any knowledge of no then we look on the wall and there's a poor picture from the old days and there she is so there's unmistakably Dorothy right there but they didn't have this isn't dated but I think it's about 19 to and servant in high school was a very good school run by a very modern teacher but it was also very very very Anglican and the the headmistress's duty was not only teach them the subject matter but also to instill fear of hellfire which she was very good at and so they both terrorized by her just the sign of her walking down the hall was enough to send the moment to tizzy they've written they were very this isn't this one but anyway there she is at that age but the same headmistress was a passionate suffragist and she her sister in fact had landed in jail for the being part of the mass demonstration which the suffragists smashed buildings and things in in London and this is her sister that this is the headmistress Alice Proctor and her sister wrote a book about her own experiences and she says I heard the clock struck six and immediately afterwards there sounded the crash was shattered last from the direction of the Coonard company's office and I hastily turned the corner and swung my hammer against several of the small things in a gold-fishing silversmith shop and she was then hauled off to jail and uncle these were all well-connected people and she had uncle who was a lawyer he came to help her and she's told she's proud to be in jail and so that meant the whole school was galvanized to bringing flowers and fruit and everything to the to the suffragists in jail so that's part of Dorothy's background and part of her termination came from then she went to Gerton College in Cambridge which was one of the two women's colleges at the time and she went to study math and there she is they in 1913 and she finished with very high honors at Cambridge although at that time they didn't recognize even Cambridge didn't recognize women's colleges so she didn't get an official degree from Cambridge University because women's colleges weren't recognized as part of the university but they were never less allowed to take exams and so on so she did that and then she decided she had decided what to do and there weren't many options open to her and certainly not many jobs or anything like that and she decided to just keep on studying and she was very interested in Berkman Russell philosopher partly because he she was interested in philosophy but partly because he was a radical activist against World War I and she was she was too and also he was a committed atheist and she enjoyed that she was raised in this Anglican setting and he told the students at Cambridge that who were used to examining exams were to say do any six of these problems and he said not think of the 10 Commandments like that any six you only six need be attempted so they love that so she by he had been kicked out of Cambridge University by then for his anti-war activities but she asked him if she could study privately and he took her on along with several other students and she studied in London with him and her work is still cited by logicians what I was writing about her people were getting a touch of me say I know her as a logician and she her work prefigured this and prefigured that she didn't stay in logic she moved on she did this all the time until she got this is before that she was moving the field of field she joined the Aristotelian Society which is still going strong and lectured there she received a master of science and doctor of science at the University of London and then she was the first woman to ever receive a doctor of science from Oxford and all of this in mathematics in that period here and that in that period also she married another mathematician and they had a child and then she got interested surely long story which we don't have time for here but she got interested in biological problems this was a time of just right after the first World War with the Rockefeller Foundation and other groups were urging physicists and mathematicians to take a look at biology as a field that their insights could be useful they thought and biologists themselves were feeling too that they spent too much time classifying things and doing genealogical trees they needed to understand basic processes and basic basic theory and so various groups formed and she joined this one she helped to found it called the theoretical biology club which is still considered very important today to getting being the founders of molecular biology and there she is with people who things you may not know but anyway J.B. Bernal and Joseph Needham who later went to China became a historian of science in China and his wife and here's kind of Waddington so on but the main question that they were trying to answer is what is the relation between those large particles which we call elephant trees or men and those extremely small ones we call molecules or electrons and they wanted to understand this chain of structure and at what point do the molecules and electrons group themselves into something that's alive that's the question we still don't know the answer and still what we were trying to do so she worked on that for a while she worked with them and she made an effort to explain chromosomes to have a structure of chromosomes and she had there were some errors in there but she had some insights at the time that were very valuable and became part of molecular biology and rock and roll foundation got excited about her work and gave her a five-year grant she didn't even have to work was she an independent scholar all this time or did you have an academic no she didn't she did there was no academic position for her and what they're working for anyway I mean we have they would get fellowships here there and she would get fellowships she had one from Gertin College and another one from somewhere else and then she got this but the reason that they noticed her was that the whole group the theoretical biology club and applied to rock and roll for a institute interdisciplinary institute where they could work together and rock and roll and look said we don't do buildings we do brains and they look to see who had the brains and they figured she did so that's they gave it to her and so she got the five-year grant to apply mathematics to biology and at that time people were just beginning to be interested in proteins because it was realized that first of all they're very important they knew their biological importance and secondly they realized they were molecules and that their molecules that they have a shape and a size and you should be able to tell where the amazons are and how they interact and what happens and nobody had to include to that and so what shapes and sizes and so this is the way that the people thought at the time but they didn't have any proof and now they do approve that actually the proteins are very long chains that fold up and they can fold up into what they used to call globular meaning to some sort of round shape and then under heating or whatever whatever you do to them called the maturation that they unfold into a long chain and then they can refold back up to the way they came and this is the way it's understood today but nobody knew where the atoms were where the different amino acids where he was in here this is all complete mystery and Dorothy so before I get to what she did this is a picture of the egg whites which I mentioned before so this is the folded state this is the unfolded state but Dorothy said that they're not long chains this was her idea she said that everything told her all the facts that she knew of suggested that they're not long chains they may start that way but then they don't hold up into balls first they first fall into rings and the rings then make a sort of lacy and so this can continue out you can see there's a sort of hexagon open here and then goes out and there's beautiful beautiful lacy pattern and she said then that is what falls that falls up like origamis so we know the origami we just take paper and we pull it up and make a beautiful thing she said that's what happens here too so it's not a chain holding up it's a piece of lace open up and this is her idea so this is the picture I showed you before and this is the unfolded piece of it with these same things moved around and you can see that this then you just fold it along these dotted lines and it holds up and that's very easy I can make you one of these in two minutes but the question was how does nature do it and why would nature choose to cut it off like this and then we can pull along those lines and she couldn't answer that nobody could so this is a hypothesis but only a hypothesis and so anyway this is this is the unfolded state of that and this is I said was moved on was born and her model implied that proteins see she could do this in many different sizes so you could take a bigger piece and fold it up and get a bigger one or a little piece and get a little one and she showed you could make several different ones wheels and more babies for two different sizes this is the one that I showed you for here is smaller one even smaller here's a bigger one and that seemed to fit the facts because of the facts they as they had the men they thought proteins came into a number of weight classes so they were this size or this size or this size this size not a continuous range and some whatever theory you had had to explain that and her theory did explain children's have not true that weight classes but that was the experimental data at the time we have to always remember that the data is the experimental facts can change as more you have better instruments better technology but everybody believe that at this time you mentioned amino acids did they know that amino acids were part of this yes they did and part of the discussion and debate about her is where are they on here you know because they were hanging out or hanging in or where were they this is supposed to be not this wasn't everything this was sort of like the skeleton and then amino acids and so on were tucked in somehow inside there so she had a lot this really caused a big uproar and she had supporters lots of them because they saw the possibilities if she's right then we could have designer drugs and how does that happen well you have this lovely little skeletal shape and you can attach things to it and they knew how to do that so they could have designed your that which we now protein folder to seem to explain that explain the molecular weight and so people these were all Nobel Prize winners who were saying these things then you also had Nobel Prize winners complaining saying this was nonsense because it wasn't room the atoms overlapping the amino acids will be too crowded they were on the inside if they're on the outside where are they going hanging out there like what and then also that to make those those loops those greens required that there be a chemical bond which nobody had ever heard of before and she claimed that it must exist and that's why it does that and other opponents including foremost Linus Pauling who was leading chemists of the time said there's no such bond there's no possibility such bond and so this is this was what the battle was about there were people seeing all kinds of things the glory of geometry notice that's geometry it's mad that some from so few principles so much can be derived all these wonderful things will happen if she's right and they're saying but she not right so this is this was the battle and raged on and on here this is from the Rockefeller archives more than we were with the head of the natural science division of the Rockefeller Foundation and he quoted this is in his own memoirs he quoted to two people talking about her within the same week this is somebody else I don't know who was I forgot it was a British chemist he said I was calling on Pauling in Ithaca he was a member the cold and the commonwealth fellow from Oxford was also calling on him that's the one I meant when Dorothy Rich's name was mentioned he that's the Oxford guy blushed furiously and had to draw on the decos reserves of the English character to keep her being profane and Mrs. Pauling's presence concerning what the Oxford chemistry guy was referring to and then about the other side of the story and this is what we were going on on the other end I was talking to Yuri who had won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1934 and commenting on a woman in his laboratory he said that she was seemingly good but of course not Dorothy Rich and when I asked him what he meant by that he said well I mean of course she isn't an outstanding genius going on to explain that he's supposed to be no serious difference of opinion that that is what Dorothy really is so he seems a really different opinion this was and she was nominated for a Nobel Prize by another Nobel Prize winner Irving Lang Bear in 1939 she didn't get it but she was nominated and he was one of her staunchest supporters throughout this and this is the picture that showed you the very beginning of her with he told me that she had made a paper so this was on and on and on and then Pauling in the middle of all this Pauling wrote a paper which was later called by everybody the debunking of rich in which he claimed you know step-by-step why everything she was saying was wrong and Alexander Todd one of his colleagues said I must say I derived enormous enjoyment for reading the debunking of rich as far as I can see the case is unanswerable and everybody's life and her daughter they had by that time in beginning of the world war two she moved to the United States she her husband didn't have a mental breakdown this hospitalized permanently they divorced and she moved to the United States with her daughter and daughter must have been about 10 11 12 and she wrote this letter to why is Pauling here dear dr. Pauling your tax on my mother have been made rather than you frequently you both think each other is wrong it's best to prove it instead of writing disagreeable things about each other in papers I feel you'd best to have it out and see which of you's really right there are many quarrels of the world oh last don't please the backers we want is these things that helped to make the world I don't say Dorothy didn't send it but anyway good things happen to they move to Amherst because a supporter of hers at Amherst College named Otto Blazer who was breast for biology was very excited and urged her to come to the valley and thought that she could do a lot of good here because of all the colleges here there weren't hamsters didn't exist and we mass was mass Aggie but there were three colleges and he arranged a joint appointment for her and all three colleges in 1941 and then he asked her to marry him and she realized this was a love of her life and she married him and they did live happily well they lived happily things were not always happy at all just touch on that in a anyway she she came and they were married this is now in front of their house on down the street and she gave a course at all a joint course at all three colleges she traveled to each one every week and it was great success but it was not continued because the World War two started and all the colleges went on war footing and they something like this was they just couldn't do and most many the faculty had left on to work and on the war work and so they just they just couldn't possibly but Smith kept her so of the three colleges she was invited to stay honest and permanently and it was in some sort of visiting positions ever been through me exactly what it was but it was some busy position in so she commuted them and then that's what that simple bill was about she can mean from average to Smith and stay there for the rest of her life then it by 1962 the actual structure of proteins were deciphered and this is this first was hemoglobin and this is a lot of that and this was my world model that and none of them look anything like her well and she refused to even look at these she was at conference when he was showing we didn't go in the room with them she was so upset but she also thought she was right so why didn't what was this about why was she so stubborn because she was stubborn but it was more to it than just that because her her critics arguments against hers were provenly flawed and and hers were too they were all wrong I mean one person who'd been through all this personally he was part of all this at Caroline and Gillery a Dutch crystallographer told me that everybody was wrong and that's why they fought so viciously she said you know when people know what they're talking about they don't fight like this it's just when every other defending position that they're unsure of themselves so her the argument including Polish were wrong but so were hers and so that but she knew that theirs were wrong and so she didn't get it and as one person put it you know if someone holds on to an idea and everybody attacks it for years and then if you're right do you think what a genius for holding on to it but if someone holds on to an idea for years and years and then if you're wrong you think what a waste of time what a stupid person to do this so you know how do we judge within the middle of all this how do you know anyway she she knew that their arguments were wrong and also she was a mathematician and she wasn't a chemist and she wasn't biologist and really these these fields these are all called disciplines and what are they what does a discipline mean means they discipline their students to think in certain ways and they do think differently it's not that they can't communicate but they they really don't speak the same language and that was part of her problem because she saw everything from mathematical view and that wasn't how the game saw and in particular she saw the simplicity and beauty of her model as being a thing in favor whereas they just thought that was silly so anyway I'd like to compare this to King James because he wrote a most wonderful thing called the counterblasted back on in which he proved that tobacco is bad for your health that you shouldn't smoke and he was sending this to the colonies he was sending all over England he was very upset about the smoking and he says bad for your health he was right but why is it bad for you because our health depends on the balance of the four humors wet dry cold and warm and we have to ever delicately set up so that the balance these things all balance but when you smoke you're taking in dry hot air into your cold wet lungs and you're messing up the humors and the balance and therefore this is bad for you so you know he he this is Pauling's style I mean he was right he smoking is bad for you but not for that reason and the same thing would turn out to be true with Pauling's arguments against her cycle bond her bond that she had he was right that about the proteins but he was wrong about about that and it turned out in fact in 1951 that the structure was found and was found in which I think is perfect but it really is there and her bond everything it has not been found in proteins and never been found in proteins and the pooling up was different but the bond itself was found and this Arthur Stoll who found it in this paper he said this was that he knew that this had credited her he said this had been her idea and he knew that a lot of rejections had been raised to have been nevertheless here it is and then in cycle chemistry became a respective field chemistry and still is and she was now traveling to conferences doing her life came back did she like the idea that was not in proteins but was indeed well I never asked her about that but my guess is that she was to her answer would be it will be done and you know the there's now a protein structure data bank of hundreds of thousands of proteins and some of them are wrong they actually go through looking for mistakes that were made early on in these years by people who didn't understand the structure so you know but probably the events not there but she probably would have just and she had modified reviews and she made it more sophisticated more subtle as time went on to so she said what she said to me she said first they said my structure couldn't exist and then when it was found in nature they said it couldn't be synthesized and then when it was synthesized they said it wasn't so I just want to end with this picture because you know this was her view the pictures I showed you before of some of the protein molecules just look what I guess but I found in looking at them on the internet and looking for pictures of proteins that people are going out of the way to look for symmetries to look for the most beautiful way that they can be presented and here's one this is of the insulin molecule look at that I mean that is that's you know it doesn't have to look like that if you look at this mother view it looks all gargle but that they would choose to do this means that they're also driven by that same desire to make things simple and make things clear to make them beautiful that she was and I think that's a basic part of science and I feel this Emily Dickinson's poem speaks to her situation so well I died for beauty but the scare suggested in the tune one who died for truth was laying in the joining room he questioned softly why I fail for beauty I replied and I for truth the two or one who brethren are he said and so as kinsmen men and I we talked between the rings until the moss had reached our lips and it was when I heard that set to music I was in a concert music and someone had seen this it was absolutely something that I thought that's the time of my book because I was writing a book about her and I didn't tell that I wasn't sure I was wondering what I could call this but I got the beauty really just and that is what it's all about because that's what the mathematician is looking for and all this and so that is a picture from the Smith archives of her and it's so yes I'd be delighted to answer questions and how did she and her tears and successors find the structures I mean it's pre micro that I mean right well that's it we're glad we asked because that ties into the story about what happened earlier in Amherst so the only way to do it was through taking crystals and x-ray diffraction experiments with them so a crystal acts as a diffraction rating for x-rays just as you can have a diffraction rating for light and you can hold up you see the little screen and you can see the diffraction pattern x-rays and crystals work the same way and so what they were doing in those days and they still do is to find the structure of some molecule something is to crystallize it and then pass s-rays through it and the x-rays can you can't see the x-rays but you can get them on a photograph plane they will show up there and then you look at that plate now it's automated but in those days it was really hard for a photograph and they were trying to see what the dots meant and where they were and read that backwards and she became that this was her post her Amherst phase in her Amherst phase one of the world's experts on reading those backwards and she wrote a brilliant book about that which helped the whole field and that had nothing to do with prokinks per se but it did help everybody in every structure analysis unfortunately you know there were this is where the prejudice against her came out very strongly but you know her husband at that time was the head of biology department and he was the committee of six at Amherst which is very powerful and he was the acting president all these kind of things but he had a grant from the rock and roll foundation to study genetics and he part of that included having an assistant to help with models and things like that and then a system of something her with some of this infrared diffraction work and when the president of Amherst found out about that he had a fit and he fired everybody all concerned and because the grant wasn't being used for exactly what it had been down to use for although it was close enough anyway it was it was very sad her husband lost his position as head of the department and it was inexplicably all but there I think the prejudice against her being a woman was great for him Are there anti-nepetism rules that play into that too? No I don't think so because that had never come up because there were no women on the faculty at all so there couldn't be any nepotism laws yet but but they had asked before she had been offered money from the Burke Foundation they would set up a lab for her and and so they asked if Amherst would give them space for this and Amherst the same person he said no we won't and you can give lectures here but you can't teach here anymore and they didn't want women to teach you there were no other women at all and they felt she was a troublemaker and her reputation had followed her so contentious and so she wasn't allowed to have the Merck lab and she didn't have any lab actually but eventually it's missed she was able to do some research for her So did she face her structures on anything experimental or was it just sort of a really nice mathematically nice idea that she thought should govern the structure of the protein? Well it was sort of cool. She did admit that there were chains and those chains were more or less what people thought they were except that she said that they didn't fold it up into rings and the rings then folded into a certain way so that idea of the fold of that bond was not originally hers either, someone else had thought it up because they were trying to understand how does it happen that wool crimps? If you have a piece of wool and you put it in water it's like what's going on with the molecules there so they thought the molecules is somebody getting you know shrinking and some bond was forming there and that was the idea someone heard that Electron suggested her and she said you know I bet that's it that's what's happening with proteins in general and that would explain the fully so that was coming from that and that was FC Frank who was a well-known physicist in chemistry at the time So the idea was in the air but she made more use of it than anybody else had and then her idea that you make this lace that folds up into these origami like things that was all hers. So it's a nice and mathematical idea. Yeah that's where the math came in and the simplicity of it and the beauty and also the fact that she just had this beautiful design it looked like. There are all those amino acids and other things that she didn't bother to account for. She knew they were there but she figured you put them in there. What we're looking at is the overview. You want to see what's big picture here. I'm sorry Crystal wonder if there's a salmon field with Roslyn Franklin? Roslyn Franklin was just much younger and Roslyn Franklin was working with those X-ray diffraction. So it was related there and Roslyn Franklin was actually taking, this was DNA what she was looking at and looking at the diffraction patterns. And if you've seen that so-called photograph 41 or whatever it's a big round picture with spots that's exactly the X-ray. X-rays being caught on a photographic plate and she was trying to work backwards and to work backwards and figure out that was a helix and so forth. That was what Roslyn Franklin was trying to do. And they knew each other but they didn't particularly bond. But don't forget in her own lifetime Roslyn Franklin didn't know that she was being attacked by a lot of them. That was only later. She died very young in cancer. So they didn't see themselves as both the leaders. I love the idea that she was such a multidisciplinary and that she came from this background where there had been cross organization. And it seemed that even in her marriage she must have had that at home. Did she have any other local groups that she could work with or was it mostly just the appointment that she had at Smith? Well, I don't know. She was a loyal Amherst College wife and was in the Ladies of Amherst Club. Which is, you can't believe such a thing. And she went to the meetings. She even gave some talks. She put a few after-game talks that I was supposed to just listen to. And she also played the piano and she was a company of concerts and people. And she also was interested in art. When I came to Smith and Metter, I first heard about her from somebody in the art department. I don't know how I would have met her otherwise. There was someone there who saw me looking at patterns. And I was trying to understand patterns of crystals and so on. He said, oh, you know Dorothy Lynch. I said, no. He said, well, you should. Because the very book that I was looking at was this huge, huge thing called, Grandma Lorna, the 100-year-old woman. Oh, that's a great one. Yeah, gorgeous book. And I was looking at that and he said, she has a copy. I said, oh, wow. So I went and I got touch with her and asked if I could meet her. And, well, anyway, it made the law very long. So I have her copy now. It's a treasure of my life. She was very excited about symmetry. Very excited about patterns. And she was very reverious. It seemed to me, Nancy, you knew her. So it's me. Did you feel vaguely? Yeah. She was just there. Just there. Always loose and controversy around her. Well, when I, you know, I gradually learned there was controversy. She was always really nice. I found her extremely nice. I mean, a little strict. She didn't like something. She didn't like it. She asked me to help her with the book. And she was not good. Not with the ideas, but making models and illustrations. And they had to be perfect for us. But, you know, it taught me to make them right. So I appreciated that. And I enjoyed her company. But I gradually heard people say, mm-hmm. But a lot of it had to do with the stuff that Amherst taught me. And nobody really knew what it was. It was just something that had gone wrong, something. But she had a few friends, people who stuck up with her to the end of the quarter. And Milden's offer was one of them. And he's the one that let me know. He was a professor of chemistry there. And he's the one that said, we know about her stories. He said, you're spending a lot of time with her. Well, you know about her. I said, mm-hmm. Very nice lady. I said, oh, well, you should know. And he told me some of this. And then most of it, I got it later after. She left her papers to Smith. And I found more things elsewhere. So she didn't talk about it. Any other questions? There are other scientists who are brilliant and cast their lot with the wrong idea and defending it. Are there other people? Oh, many. Many that are really peppering the idea, the biographies. Well, there's a book about, about, I forgot the name of it, unfortunately. There is a book about scientists who got onto wrong theories. But a perfect example is Linus Pauling with vitamin C. Well, vitamin C. But that was out of his field. That was out of his field. But the same thing. But it was out of his field. It was out of his field. But he thought, no, this is a very good example of what she was like. Because she would say, I know I'm not a chemist, but I'm a mathematician. Mathematics comes first. And Pauling's not a chemist. I know I'm not a medical doctor or biologist, but I'm a chemist in cell chemistry, isn't it? And you know, vitamin C has to be what I say. He really was taking the same position in his own way as she did with the math in his biology. But so he's a good example. But there are many others that I've just forgotten. But sometimes it's very hard to let go of something. When you've done all the work and got, you know, written papers and books about it, you still believe it's right. It's very hard to let go of it. True for many people and most people. That's right. That's great. Thank you so much.