3 ms·
I will second “The Eighth Day of Creation” (which despite its cool title, has nothing to do with religion). I can’t agree with your conclusion, though. It’s ve
by Pulcinella 6y ago
I will second “The Eighth Day of Creation” (which despite its cool title, has nothing to do with religion).
I can’t agree with your conclusion, though. It’s very clear she should have been awarded the prize, not Wilkins (who I think should not have received the prize even “in place of” Franklin). The book paints a picture of Wilkins not doing much more than management work and training Raymond Gosling (Franklin’s PhD student who did the actual work and probably should have won in her place, if not Chargaff or someone else).
Of course, the book also makes it very clear that John Randall told Wilkins one thing and Franklin something very different about their working relationship that caused their relationship to be very tense and Franklin to largely cut Wilkins out of her work. Why Randall did this and never clarified or why Wilkins or Franklin never sought clarification from him is unclear.
- dekhn 6y agoBut... what exactly did Rosalind Franklin do in this case, other than collect the raw data (not Nobel-worthy) and notice that it was consistent with a helix (not enough of the elucidation to be useful for molecular biology)? She didn't come up with any of the subtle guesses about nucleic acid pairing, antiparallel strands, or the exact atomic positions (later shown to be mildly erroneous due to the water/alcohol content). it's clear Franklin was mistreated, but far from clear that there is evidence of Nobel-worthy work by Franklin in this case.