Comment by lacker

18 hours ago

I think this is a better article on the topic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5

It seems like there are several different parts to the discovery of the "structure of DNA" and different people contributed.

1. DNA is helical

2. DNA is a double helix

3. The ACGT copying mechanism

Part 1 was Franklin and Wilkins. Part 3 was Watson and Crick. Part 2 is the part under debate, to what degree was the double helix clear from just Franklin's imaging?

But really, how much does it matter? It seems like the four of them each contributed a lot. The Nobel prize only went to the other three, in large part because Franklin died before it was given out.

12 comments

lacker

Reply
otherme123  10 hours ago

> But really, how much does it matter? It seems like the four of them each contributed a lot.

In today's standards, or at least what I am used to, Franklin and Wilkins should be co-authors of the "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" Watson & Crick paper. But they only got this note at the end: "We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin", not even talking about the image but giving the impression that they had an unimportant talk while having an informal tea.

But they (W & C) include this text: "The previously published X-ray data on deoxyribose nucleic acid are insufficient for a rigorous test of our structure. So far as we can tell, it is roughly compatible with the experimental data, but it must be regarded as unproved until it has been checked against more exact result". They suck for this: they could ask Wilkins & Franklin to include the X-ray that is sufficient to base their claims, add them as authors, and make a better article. But they choose to "be stimulated" by the perfect picture 51 and claim ignorance afterwards.

slibhb  14 hours ago

> But really, how much does it matter? It seems like the four of them each contributed a lot. The Nobel prize only went to the other three, in large part because Franklin died before it was given out.

A Nobel can only be split among 3. Agree with the rest of your post.

  • HWR_14  14 hours ago

    It also is not awarded posthumously. She was out of contention, which made it a lot easier to decide which three of the four to honor.

  • aeternum  14 hours ago

    Helical proteins are quite ubiquitous in biology, that part of the discovery seems inconsequential.

    Seems to me that #3 is the whole story. That was the key insight, the thing that was never known before. The secret to how life replicates.

    • 59percentmore  5 hours ago

      Other comments suggest that Franklin would have eventually gotten there on her own. Her work was key to the discovery as we know it, which wouldn't have happened without it. To me, that's the whole story.

    • colingauvin  12 hours ago

      Specifically the antiparallel base matching was the important bit, agreed, but minor nitpick. The first alpha helix wasn't solved until 1951, so one year earlier. Their ubiquity was very novel.

underlipton  15 hours ago

Watson used his credibility to advance unscientific eugenics theories for years. The impropriety suggested by the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the structure of DNA serves to undermine the arguments of people who are liable to think, "Well, he was smart enough to make one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time, how could he get race theory wrong?".

Watson's shadow would not extend so far if Franklin's role were known - not just because it would have diminished his, but also because her presence would have undermined attitudes that marginalized non-white-men, in the field of science and beyond. It matters a great deal, unfortunately. And it's a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people who have their pride wrapped up in what he represents.