6 ms·
Did Watson and Crick Really Steal Rosalind Franklin’s Data?
- Blackthorn 11y agoRegardless of the answer to the question in the headline, Rosalind Franklin not receiving the Nobel Prize was and always will be a disgusting travesty.
- barry-cotter 11y agoShe was dead. You have to be alive to receive the Nobel Prize, any of them.
- Blackthorn 11y agoI am well aware of the rule, I simply disagree with it because of cases like this.
- quesera 11y agoThere are a lot of dead people who deserve Nobel Prizes.
- kzhahou 11y agoThat makes no sense. Every single time the rule is applied, somebody is posthumously denied this greatest of scientific distinctions. The existence of the rule guarantees that every year, someone will be denied their due credit in the history books, while the lucky-living take the prize.
- vixen99 11y agoYes, there's not much luck associated with being dead.
- frozenport 11y agoDead people can't use the funds to further their work.
- mjklin 11y agoTo add insult to injury, it is probable that her work killed her. She had ovarian cancer, and was known for walking in front of her x-rays (at waist level) quite a lot.
- Jedd 11y agoFascinating article. Though one expects better of The Guardian - from their misunderstanding of the proper use of the word protagonist, through to the bewildering closing comment: "As the Tim Hunt affair showed, sexist attitudes are ingrained in science, as in the rest of our culture." There seems to be an abundance of these kinds of stories about science that eschew scientific method in their own interpretation and conclusions.
- kmonad 11y agoI apologize for my ignorance, but this article seems to forget to mention what exactly Watson's contribution was. From reading this one gets the impression he rather delayed than accelerated the important discoveries. Surely this wasn't the case. Can anyone comment on this?
- dekhn 11y agoRead "The Eighth Day of Creation", it covers this in exhaustively cited detail.