Talk:Rosalind Franklin
The discovery of he structure of DNA is discussed by some of the original researchers in
DNA - Genesis of a Discovery, edited by S. Chomet and published by Newman-Hemisphere ([email protected]).
Watson and Crick stole Franklin's work.
Watson and Crick stole Franklin's work, at least according to the witnesses that PBS's Nova interviewed. The entry should say more in that direction, if PBS is to be believed.
"Without her knowledge, another Randall research associate, Maurice Wilkins, showed some of her X-ray diffraction photographs of DNA to James D. Watson, whereupon Watson, with Francis Crick, succeeded in determining the molecule's structure, and published in Nature magazine on April 25, 1953 an article describing the double-helical structure of DNA. Articles by Wilkins and Franklin illuminating their X-ray diffraction data supporting the findings of Watson and Crick were published in the same issue."
Not enough. If PBS is to be believed.
In fact, (again, if PBS's Lynne Osman Elkin is to be believed):
1. Despite the urging of Wilkins, W + C kept putting the hydophobic bases on the outside.
2. Wilkins even had to help W + C interpret stolen information.
3. W + C stole the Franklin's MRC report too, at which point W + C finally gave in to Wilkins' urging and put the hydrophobic bases on the inside.
Don't take my word for it. Take PBS's Lynne Osman Elkin's word.
more info
The New York Times obituary for Crick has this to say:
"One of the problems caused by the book was Dr. Watson's implication that the pair of them had obtained Dr. Franklin's data on DNA surreptitiously and hence had deprived her of due credit for the DNA discovery. Dr. Crick believed he obtained the data fairly since she had presented it at a public lecture, to which he had been invited. Though Dr. Watson had misreported a vital figure from the lecture, a correct version reached Dr. Crick through the Medical Research Council report. If Dr. Franklin felt Dr. Crick had treated her unfairly, she never gave any sign of it. She became friends with both Dr. Crick and Dr. Watson, and spent her last remission from cancer in Dr. Crick's house."
See also this article: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-3/p42.html
I don't know what to believe.
- Believe it all; why not? From what I understand, Franklin never learned of her data being secretly obtained by Crick and Watson . It also seems doubtful she knew the extent of what Wilkins did. If this is true, this could explain much of the Crick obituary excerpt, although it doesn't speak much of Crick.
- Also, I remember reading somewhere that Franklin's article (with Wilkins) in Nature, that appeared concurrently with the Crick and Watson article, was seen by many to be corroboration of Crick and Watson's work. Crick and Watson did not advertise that they had gotten their ideas from Franklin's data in order to bolster this seeming corroboration. Also, it seems clear that Franklin did not know at that time of their use of her data, since in her article she also says that her independent data is consistent with Crick and Watson.
- Hmm... "Implication"? Hehe. Watson pretty much makes it clear they stole it. Any other rationale is wishful thinking on Crick's part. --Chan-Ho Suh 10:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
- I believe the book Rosalind Franklin: the Dark Lady of DNA may contain my claims above. I will have to read it and check some day. --Chan-Ho Suh 10:28, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA
Has anyone else read this biography? It's very good, although I haven't finished it yet because the fact that she died so young depresses me. Anyway, Franklin's great and I have to wonder what sort of things she could have done if she'd lived a bit longer! It's truly amazing to consider all that has come out of a very pretty picture of DNA taken in the 50s...