5 ms·

It's not in this article, but I have a vague recollection from other discussions that the actual x-ray diffraction image was taken by one of Franklin's graduate

It's not in this article, but I have a vague recollection from other discussions that the actual x-ray diffraction image was taken by one of Franklin's graduate students.

naasking 10mo ago
That is correct, it was Gosling. This whole "controversy" is so stupid.
- bonsai_spool 10mo ago
  > That is correct, it was Gosling. This whole "controversy" is so stupid. Graduate students aren't cited for coming up with innovations - the controversy is valid, but for some reason, people keep finding reasons to maintain a heterodox opinion. The images weren't even shared with Watson/Crick by Franklin but by someone else.
  - ProllyInfamous 10mo ago
    Twinlaw's father is a super famous electrical engineer, retired professor emeritus with hundreds of papers (often as first) published author. Be careful asking him about anything "he's published" since the mid-90s — because he often won't know anything about the topic. Instead, some grad-student lists you first to draw publicity to his own subordinate PhD / thesis. After inventing a monumental concept in EE microchip design, you can just sort of rest on your laurels, just because of your name recognition (with permission, of course). But after myself dropping out of grad school, decades ago, I've shared many lazy whiskeys with former colleagues, contemplating the "what if"s of two traveled old men. I regret nothing but happily engaged laziness.
  - naasking 10mo ago
    > Graduate students aren't cited for coming up with innovations Nonsense. > the controversy is valid, No. You can see both publications right here [1]. Watson and Crick explicitly say they are aware of the "general nature" of Franklin's results, but they are the only ones in that issue to propose the double helix structure with the specific features that explained all of the evidence, published and unpublished. [1] https://www.mskcc.org/teaser/1953-nature-papers-watson-crick-wilkins-franklin.pdf https://www.mskcc.org/teaser/1953-nature-papers-watson-crick...
    - bonsai_spool 10mo ago
      > Nonsense Well, I don’t know what to say except that you are wrong. > No. You can see both publications right here I appreciate that you have found articles to support your argument and encourage you to continue reading further.
      - tpoacher 10mo ago
        why should they? there's clearly no other significant countering literature otherwise you would have offered it ... right?
        bonsai_spool 10mo ago
        It sounds like you may also benefit from further reading about this issue.

It's not in this article, but I have a vague recollection from other discussions that the actual x-ray diffraction image was taken by one of Franklin's graduate students.

naasking 10mo ago

That is correct, it was Gosling. This whole "controversy" is so stupid.

bonsai_spool 10mo ago
> That is correct, it was Gosling. This whole "controversy" is so stupid. Graduate students aren't cited for coming up with innovations - the controversy is valid, but for some reason, people keep finding reasons to maintain a heterodox opinion. The images weren't even shared with Watson/Crick by Franklin but by someone else.
- ProllyInfamous 10mo ago
  Twinlaw's father is a super famous electrical engineer, retired professor emeritus with hundreds of papers (often as first) published author. Be careful asking him about anything "he's published" since the mid-90s — because he often won't know anything about the topic. Instead, some grad-student lists you first to draw publicity to his own subordinate PhD / thesis. After inventing a monumental concept in EE microchip design, you can just sort of rest on your laurels, just because of your name recognition (with permission, of course). But after myself dropping out of grad school, decades ago, I've shared many lazy whiskeys with former colleagues, contemplating the "what if"s of two traveled old men. I regret nothing but happily engaged laziness.
- naasking 10mo ago
  > Graduate students aren't cited for coming up with innovations Nonsense. > the controversy is valid, No. You can see both publications right here [1]. Watson and Crick explicitly say they are aware of the "general nature" of Franklin's results, but they are the only ones in that issue to propose the double helix structure with the specific features that explained all of the evidence, published and unpublished. [1] https://www.mskcc.org/teaser/1953-nature-papers-watson-crick-wilkins-franklin.pdf https://www.mskcc.org/teaser/1953-nature-papers-watson-crick...
  - bonsai_spool 10mo ago
    > Nonsense Well, I don’t know what to say except that you are wrong. > No. You can see both publications right here I appreciate that you have found articles to support your argument and encourage you to continue reading further.
    - tpoacher 10mo ago
      why should they? there's clearly no other significant countering literature otherwise you would have offered it ... right?
      - bonsai_spool 10mo ago
        It sounds like you may also benefit from further reading about this issue.