4 ms·

Her name is listed in the acknowledgements and she has a paper in the same issue as Watson&Crick. Also, there's evidence now that her data had already been sha

by dekhn 11mo ago

Her name is listed in the acknowledgements and she has a paper in the same issue as Watson&Crick. Also, there's evidence now that her data had already been shared in a departmental seminar when Wilkins shared it with Watson & Crick (I believe this is explained in detail in the Eighth Day of Creation, where the author did deep historical digging). I don't think she would have concluded that the structure of DNA was a double helix with antiparallel strands (that's the important bit).

mandevil 11mo ago
Yes, she had a paper, hastily thrown together because Watson and Crick were going to publish her data without her consent, and even to the men of 1952, what they had done to her was seen as pretty scuzzy, so they tried to give her an opportunity to at least claim a little credit. But this is a sign that even the the people around them saw that Franklin had been done wrong by Watson and Crick and Wilkins. As far as "she shared it in a departmental seminar once, therefore her boss can just give it to others to beat her in the analysis phase without her consent" and "I don't think she would have gotten it right," neither of those are actually arguments. One of them is not how science is supposed to be done, the other is an un-provable assertion that a woman wasn't smart enough to figure something out, which makes me a little suspicious.
- dekhn 11mo ago
  How exactly did you get to "a woman wasn't smart enough to figure something out, which makes me a little suspicious."? It sounds like you're saying I think she wasn't smart? I am merely reporting the facts as they have been reported, based on a number of different books/articles. It was an intrinsically hard problem that Crick was especially prepared to solve. I doubt the vast majority of scientists, regardless of their sex, would have been able to solve the problem with the data they had. Generally once you share data publicly, there is a blanket rule that people can use that data. Many people claim W&C stole the data (through Wilkins) but that does not seem to be true.

by dekhn 11mo ago

mandevil 11mo ago

Yes, she had a paper, hastily thrown together because Watson and Crick were going to publish her data without her consent, and even to the men of 1952, what they had done to her was seen as pretty scuzzy, so they tried to give her an opportunity to at least claim a little credit. But this is a sign that even the the people around them saw that Franklin had been done wrong by Watson and Crick and Wilkins. As far as "she shared it in a departmental seminar once, therefore her boss can just give it to others to beat her in the analysis phase without her consent" and "I don't think she would have gotten it right," neither of those are actually arguments. One of them is not how science is supposed to be done, the other is an un-provable assertion that a woman wasn't smart enough to figure something out, which makes me a little suspicious.

dekhn 11mo ago
How exactly did you get to "a woman wasn't smart enough to figure something out, which makes me a little suspicious."? It sounds like you're saying I think she wasn't smart? I am merely reporting the facts as they have been reported, based on a number of different books/articles. It was an intrinsically hard problem that Crick was especially prepared to solve. I doubt the vast majority of scientists, regardless of their sex, would have been able to solve the problem with the data they had. Generally once you share data publicly, there is a blanket rule that people can use that data. Many people claim W&C stole the data (through Wilkins) but that does not seem to be true.