Rosalind Franklin, Mother of the DNA structure
Who? James Watson.
Oh, once again, what did you say? James Watson, father of DNA structure.
Oh.. are you kidding? come on guys… every body should know that it was not (James) Watson and (Francis) Crick who discovered the DNA helix structure, instead, it was Rosalind Franklin and her student, Raymond Gosling, who first discovered the double helix structure of (sodium salt) DNA.
This X-ray diffraction image of DNA, worldknown as photograph 51, was taken by Rosalind Franklin while she was working at King’s College London in January 1953. Almost at the same time in February 1953 Francis Crick and James D. Watson of the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge University started to build a model of the B form of DNA using similar data to that available to the team at King’s. Model building had been applied successfully in the elucidation of the structure of the alpha helix by Linus Pauling in 1951. However, this theoretical model was opposed by Rosalind, taking the view that building a model was only to be undertaken after the structure was known. Watson and Crick then indirectly obtained a prepublication version of Franklin’s DNA X-ray diffraction data (without her knowledge), and a prepublication manuscript by Pauling and Corey, giving them critical insights into the DNA structure. Later on, it was known that Maurice Wilkins had shown Watson the photograph-51 without Rosalind Franklin’s knowledge. This led Rosalind a decision to leave King’s College London. Wilkins expressed his great regret afterward.
There is no doubt that Rosalind Franklin’s experimental data were used by Crick and Watson to build their model of DNA in 1953. Unfortunately, because Rosalind Franklin had died in 1958 she was not eligible for nomination to the Nobel Prize subsequently awarded to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins in 1962.
However, Rosalind Franklin will always be remembered as one of the greatest (women) in science, along with Madame Curie and Guppert-Meyer, while Watson, with his nasty statements (the last he mentioned that Black people are genetically inferior), i believe, more will be remembered as a man who experiences a post power syndrome.
Bielefeld, 30.10.2007
in a room at the bottom
October 30th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Kudos to you for introducing me to Rosalind Franklin. My question is, didn’t this kind of thing also happen in physics and math? (e.g. Newton vs Leibniz dispute over who first discovered calculus).
Sad but true, in every aspects, not only in science and engineering, we go by “first to file rather than first to invent or discover” (in non-science, for example: the dispute between us and malaysian over Rasa-sayange song, batik, tempe, and so on)
In case of Watson’s nasty comment on black ppl, if it’s what he believe based on his rational thinking then I don’t see any problem with it. A scientist should be able to keep his/her integrity by saying whatever he/she believe. The thing is, I’m questioning his motive. Since he asked for apologize rather than defended his statement by providing all the scientific evidence that back it up, it’s clear that he’s just ignorant and prejudiced.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
yes. it is always the same problem, the first to file instead of the first to discover/invent. it’s all around us, from science to our daily life.
Yes, If Watson’s comments were always based on scientific proofs, that should not be problem. Unfortunately, he always failed to do so. Then, I could have said that black dogs will be genetically inferior also :-). on SciAm, I read his comment “that’s why you have a latin lover, but you have only an english patient”, when he accused that women wearing bikinis should be blamed for sexual arousal to the men, and thus, latino women have lower morality comparing to English. Oh yes, Watson is English, as we know. What more go beyond, when he mentioned if a gene responsible for being homosexual can be isolated, that a pregnant woman can be told to abort the baby. Sad, but it’s true, from a prominent scientist.
Yes, i think, he is beyond prejudiced and ignorant.