top of page
nuriataberner

The ¨right¨ degree of accuracy

I saw this open source image and I had to say ¨Ough!¨.



Yes, my fast brain system sees a metaphor for DNA as building blocks forming a staircase, finds it beautiful and loves it. And then, after a second, my slow thinking brain aches to see that nothing about it actually looks like DNA.


The most common form of DNA is B-DNA, which consists of a double helix that turns towards the right side (like when you open a bottle). Following the staircase analogy, B-DNA makes a full turn every ten steps, which is much steeper than in the image.


As a disclaimer, DNA can actually form a left-sided messy looking double helix structure, called the Z-DNA. However, it is rare, if actually occurring naturally (until it will be found otherwise).


So I decided to make my own version of the image with what I think is a better degree of accuracy. I tried to keep the metaphor and the feel while improving the accuracy.



It was a nice exercise where I learned tools from the original artist to make a composition more beautiful and evoking. And I kept my scientist's soul.


What do you think?

Where is the thin line between compelling communication and scientific accuracy?

Comments


bottom of page