3 ms·

That's reframing things too much. There's the experimental data, and then there's the theoretical model. Watson and Crick were already working on a theoretica

That's reframing things too much. There's the experimental data, and then there's the theoretical model. Watson and Crick were already working on a theoretical double helix model prior to discovering Franklin's x-ray crystallography data, but at the time their model was wrong. Franklin produced the x-ray crystallographic data that completed the picture and produced the correct working model. Franklin could have also figured out the double helix model herself using her own data and extensive crystallography background, but Watson and Crick were laser focused on only this one problem and beat her to it. Franklin was robbed of the recognition she deserved, and Watson and Crick should have co-credited her at minimum. But it's incorrect to say that Watson and Crick weren't about to figure it out themselves. Franklin tragically died of cancer a few years after the discovery and was ineligible to receive a posthumous Nobel Prize. She was only 37.

dekhn 1y ago
She was credited, see the original W&C paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/171737a0 https://www.nature.com/articles/171737a0 at the end is an acknowledgement. She also has a related article in the same issue of Nature. I wouldn't be so sure that Franklin would have figured out that DNA was an antiparallel double helix. She knew it was a helix from the fibre diffraction pattern, but I don't think just anybody would have had the insight W&C did about it being a double helix and antiparallel, which immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material. However, we can't know for sure. Edit, in re-reading https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5 I see that she did suspect the DNA structure contained multiple chains. So my statement about about the double helix aspect was incomplete/incorrect.
- JamesAdir 1y ago
  This is the first time I found out that she was credited. Thanks for that.
culi 1y ago
This is not an honest depiction. Watson and Crick didn't just use her stolen work to "confirm" what they were working on. It was the entire basis of the rest of their work Wilkins was her colleague but considered her an "assistant". That's why he felt entitled to take Franklin's Photograph 51 without telling her. It took Franklin another year or so complete the analysis of Photograph 51 and map the position of every atom. Watson and Crick used Photograph 51 (again, without Franklin's knowledge or consent) and did a quick analysis of the data that they used to build a few potential structures Yes, it's possible Watson and Crick would've eventually arrived at the right answer but we really have no idea how far off they were. Franklin's work didn't just "support" their work. It was the very basis of it after that point. Franklin's work on the structure of viruses also led directly to ANOTHER nobel prize of a colleague in 1982 (Aaron Klug). It's hard to understate how tremendous the impact of her work has been.
- poncho_romero 1y ago
  The work belonged to the lab (according to its director), and Franklin was in the process of moving to a different institution. Additionally, the labs at King’s and Cambridge had regularly been sharing information back and forth. Wilkins showing lab property to the Cambridge team was not unusual or because he looked down on Franklin.

dekhn 1y ago

She was credited, see the original W&C paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/171737a0 https://www.nature.com/articles/171737a0 at the end is an acknowledgement. She also has a related article in the same issue of Nature. I wouldn't be so sure that Franklin would have figured out that DNA was an antiparallel double helix. She knew it was a helix from the fibre diffraction pattern, but I don't think just anybody would have had the insight W&C did about it being a double helix and antiparallel, which immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material. However, we can't know for sure. Edit, in re-reading https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5 I see that she did suspect the DNA structure contained multiple chains. So my statement about about the double helix aspect was incomplete/incorrect.

JamesAdir 1y ago
This is the first time I found out that she was credited. Thanks for that.

culi 1y ago

This is not an honest depiction. Watson and Crick didn't just use her stolen work to "confirm" what they were working on. It was the entire basis of the rest of their work Wilkins was her colleague but considered her an "assistant". That's why he felt entitled to take Franklin's Photograph 51 without telling her. It took Franklin another year or so complete the analysis of Photograph 51 and map the position of every atom. Watson and Crick used Photograph 51 (again, without Franklin's knowledge or consent) and did a quick analysis of the data that they used to build a few potential structures Yes, it's possible Watson and Crick would've eventually arrived at the right answer but we really have no idea how far off they were. Franklin's work didn't just "support" their work. It was the very basis of it after that point. Franklin's work on the structure of viruses also led directly to ANOTHER nobel prize of a colleague in 1982 (Aaron Klug). It's hard to understate how tremendous the impact of her work has been.

poncho_romero 1y ago
The work belonged to the lab (according to its director), and Franklin was in the process of moving to a different institution. Additionally, the labs at King’s and Cambridge had regularly been sharing information back and forth. Wilkins showing lab property to the Cambridge team was not unusual or because he looked down on Franklin.