On April 25, 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick revealed a landmark paper in Nature, proposing the double helix because the lengthy elusive construction of DNA, a discovery {that a} decade later earned the boys the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
In the ultimate paragraph of the paper, they acknowledged that that they had been “stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas” of two scientists at King’s College London, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin.
In the 70 years since, a much less flattering story has emerged, thanks largely to Dr. Watson’s personal best-selling ebook, “The Double Helix.” In the ebook, he not solely wrote disparagingly of Dr. Franklin, whom he referred to as Rosy, but additionally mentioned that he and Dr. Crick had used her knowledge with out her data.
“Rosy, of course, did not directly give us her data,” Dr. Watson wrote. “For that matter, no one at King’s realized they were in our hands.”
This account grew to become a parable of poor scientific habits, resulting in a backlash towards Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick and turning Dr. Franklin right into a feminist icon. It additionally set off a long-running debate amongst historians: Precisely what position did Dr. Franklin play within the discovery of the double helix, and to what extent was she wronged?
In a brand new opinion essay, revealed in Nature on Tuesday, two students argue that what transpired “was less malicious than is widely assumed.” The students, Matthew Cobb, a zoologist and historian on the University of Manchester who’s writing a biography of Dr. Crick, and Nathaniel Comfort, a historian of medication at Johns Hopkins University who’s writing a biography of Dr. Watson, draw upon two beforehand ignored paperwork in Dr. Franklin’s archive.
These paperwork, they are saying, counsel that Dr. Franklin knew that Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick had entry to her knowledge and that she and Dr. Wilkins collaborated with them. “We should be thinking of Rosalind Franklin, not as the victim of DNA, but as an equal contributor and collaborator to the structure,” Dr. Comfort mentioned.
Other specialists mentioned that the brand new paperwork had been attention-grabbing however didn’t seriously change the narrative; it has lengthy been clear that Dr. Franklin performed a key position within the discovery. “What this does is add a little new evidence to a trail, which leads directly to Franklin’s being a major participant,” mentioned David Oshinsky, a historian of medication at New York University.
And no matter what Dr. Franklin knew about who had entry to her knowledge, the brand new paperwork don’t change the truth that she didn’t obtain ample recognition for her work, some historians mentioned.
“What is unequal and has always been unequal and is still unequal about Rosalind Franklin is the credit that she didn’t get in the aftermath of the discovery,” mentioned Dr. Jacalyn Duffin, a hematologist and historian of medication at Queen’s University, in Canada.
Seeing double
In the early Nineteen Fifties, Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick had been working collectively on the University of Cambridge, in Britain, attempting to piece collectively the construction of DNA, largely by constructing fashions of the molecule.
At close by Kings College London, Dr. Franklin and Dr. Wilkins had been attempting to resolve the identical puzzle experimentally, utilizing X-rays to create photographs of DNA. (They had a famously fractious relationship, and largely labored individually.)
In “The Double Helix,” Dr. Watson urged that his breakthrough got here after Dr. Wilkins confirmed him certainly one of Dr. Franklin’s photographs, generally known as Photograph 51. “The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race,” Dr. Watson wrote.
That ebook was revealed in 1968, a decade after Dr. Franklin died of ovarian most cancers at age 37, and it grew to become the prevailing narrative of the invention. But the true story was extra complicated.
In December 1952, Dr. Crick’s supervisor, the molecular biologist Max Perutz, acquired a report on Dr. Franklin’s unpublished outcomes throughout an official go to to King’s College. Dr. Perutz later gave this report back to Dr. Crick and Dr. Watson.
This knowledge proved extra helpful to the pair than Photograph 51, mentioned Dr. Cobb and Dr. Comfort, who discovered a letter that means Dr. Franklin knew her outcomes had made their method to Cambridge.
In the letter, which was written in January 1953, Pauline Cowan, a scientist at King’s College, invited Dr. Crick to an upcoming discuss by Dr. Franklin and her scholar. But, Dr. Cowan wrote, Dr. Franklin and her scholar mentioned that Dr. Perutz “already knows more about it than they are likely to get across so you may not think it worthwhile coming.”
That letter “strongly suggests” that Dr. Franklin knew the Cambridge researchers had entry to her knowledge and that she “doesn’t seem to have minded,” Dr. Cobb mentioned.
Dr. Cobb and Dr. Comfort additionally discovered a draft of a never-published Time journal article concerning the discovery of the double helix. The draft characterised the analysis not as a race however because the product of two groups that had been working in parallel and sometimes conferring with one another.
“It portrays the work on the double helix, the solving of the double helix, as the work of four equal contributors,” Dr. Comfort mentioned.
A query of credit score
Elspeth Garman, a molecular biophysicist on the University of Oxford, mentioned that she agreed with Dr. Comfort and Dr. Cobb’s conclusion, saying, “They got right that she was a full participant.”
But Dr. Perutz’s sharing of Dr. Franklin’s unpublished knowledge is “slightly iffy,” she mentioned. (In 1969, Dr. Perutz wrote that the report was not confidential however that he ought to have requested for permission to share it “as a matter of courtesy.”)
Still, different scientists and historians mentioned they had been puzzled by the arguments made within the Nature essay. Helen Berman, a structural biologist at Rutgers University, referred to as them “sort of strange.” Of Dr. Franklin, she mentioned, “If she was an equal member, then I don’t know that she was treated very well.”
Dr. Franklin and Dr. Wilkins every revealed their very own outcomes in the identical concern of Nature that included Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick’s report, as a part of a package deal of papers. But Dr. Berman puzzled why the scientists didn’t collaborate on a single paper with shared authorship. And a number of students mentioned that they thought the brand new essay minimized the wrongdoing by the Cambridge workforce.
Dr. Comfort mentioned that he and Dr. Cobb weren’t “trying to exonerate” Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick, whom he mentioned had been “slow to fully acknowledge” Dr. Franklin’s contribution. Dr. Cobb mentioned that the Cambridge scientists ought to have informed Dr. Franklin that they had been utilizing her knowledge. “They were ungallant,” he mentioned. “They were not as open as they should have been.” But, he added, it wasn’t “theft.”
There isn’t any proof that Dr. Franklin felt aggrieved by what occurred, historians mentioned, and she grew to become pleasant with the Cambridge duo within the closing years of her temporary life. “As far as I can tell, there was no bad feeling,” Dr. Oshinksy mentioned.
That may need modified had Dr. Franklin lived lengthy sufficient to learn “The Double Helix,” a number of students famous. “‘The Double Helix’ is just appalling,” Dr. Garman mentioned. “It gives a very, very slanted view, and doesn’t give her the credit for the bits that they even used from her.”
Dr. Franklin’s early demise additionally meant she missed out on the Nobel Prize, however the Nobel Assembly may have discovered different methods to acknowledge her contribution, mentioned Nils Hansson, a historian of medication at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, in Germany. Neither Dr. Watson nor Dr. Crick talked about her once they accepted their awards, Dr. Hansson famous, though Dr. Wilkins, who additionally acquired the prize, did.
“She truly did get a raw deal,” mentioned Dr. Howard Markel, a doctor and historian of medication on the University of Michigan and the writer of “The Secret of Life,” a ebook concerning the discovery of the double helix. “Everyone likes to receive proper credit for their work. Everyone should care enough about their colleagues to ensure the process of fair play.”