Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

50th Anniversary of DNA's Discovery

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the spiriling-coild-of-self-replicating-dna dept.

nxg125 writes "The New York Times has a section on the 50th anniversary of Watson & Crick's discovery of DNA. Lots of good articles about the discovery, Watson & Crick themselves, and where this information will take us from here."

52 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Rather, by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Informative


    50 years since the discovery of its structure.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Rather, by tbmaddux · · Score: 3, Insightful
      50 years since the discovery of its structure.
      Specifically the double-helical structure. Linus Pauling had done earlier theoretical work predicting the formation of helices, but wound up on the wrong track trying to make a triple-helix work for DNA.
      --
      Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
    2. Re:Rather, by Milo+Fungus · · Score: 3, Informative

      And to nitpick even further, Watson and Crick didn't discover the structure. They formulated a model for the structure which was the first to accurately describe all of the scientific observations made up to that time. X-ray crystallography couldn't get high enough resolution to unambiguously prove the model for another few decades. At the time they proposed the model, there was not sufficient data to be absolutely certain about its accuracy. In other words, they did some masterful guesswork. The remarkable thing about W&C's original model was how accurate it was.

      Dr. Crick later postulated the central dogma of molecular biology, which states that DNA is replicated for inheritance, is transcribed to RNA, and that RNA is translated to protein. The central dogma is now well-established, but was certainly not when Crick proposed it. The role of RNA in protein synthesis was rather foggy at the time. Crick was a remarkable scientist who certainly deserved the Nobel Prize. The field of molecular biology has benefitted immeasureably from his contributions.

      The same goes for Linus Pauling. W&C beat him to the DNA structure, but he made some great contributions to the field nonetheless. Pauling's DNA structure was based upon the protonated form of DNA - where the phosphodiester backbone is electrically neutral. There is actually a -1 charge on phosphates in DNA, which is one of the reasons why the backbone wraps around the outside of the molecule. In his triple helix model the backbone was on the inside of the molecule, with the bases pointing out. This would made sense if the phophates were neutral, because they wouldn't repel each other. Having the bases on the outside also made sense because if the information was contained in the bases, then they ought to be accessible. He also had the wrong tautomeric forms of the bases, so the base pairing with hydrogen bonds wouldn't work properly. His was a good model. He was doing some good work. Just barking up the wrong tree.

      Pauling's greatest contributions were in protein structure. He proposed the alpha helix secondary structural element, which is found everywhere in proteins. If folding@home makes any progress whatsoever, they are building on the work of Linus Pauling.

      end nitpick;
  2. Discovery of DNA prevented by co-ed universities? by girl_geek_antinomy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember hearing a wonderful interview with Watson a few years ago - he was saying that if Cambridge had been more co-ed at the time (there were only three Womens' olleges, everywhere else was male) he'd have been too busy trying to get a girlfriend to spend all that time elucidating the structure of DNA.

  3. 50th anniversary rememberance.. by cosmic_whiner · · Score: 5, Informative

    How come it's always only Watson and Crick - why dont people remember Maurice Wilkins (who shared the nobel prize with them) and Rosalind Franklin (who's pathbreaking Xray work led to the double helix)

    1. Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by tbmaddux · · Score: 4, Interesting
      ... why don't people remember ... Rosalind Franklin ...
      People remember "Watson and Crick" because those were the names on their paper. Wilkins declined to have his name included (d'oh!). And Franklin, she certainly does get remembered, but more for being "ripped off" (as many others have told me -- the full story is of course more complex) because she was just a post-doc, or a woman.
      --
      Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
    2. Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by Uart · · Score: 3, Informative

      because franklin was wrong. her x-ray diffraction worked, but she concluded that the nitrogenous bases were on the outside of the molecule..

      Watson and Crick built a worable model, including complementary base-pairing, and they went on to describe the semiconservative method of DNA synthesis (which of course was shown to be valid).

      Rosalind certainly derserves credit for her work with x-ray diffraction (and she gets it), but she didn't give the world a model of what DNA looks like

      --

      Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
    3. Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by admiralh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's certainly true that Franklin hadn't determined the structure correctly, but remember that she was virtually isolated in Oxford (thanks mostly to her personality conflicts with Maurice Wilkins.)

      Also, remember that Wilkins gave (without her knowledge or permission) Franklin's pictures to Watson. Without those pictures, it might have taken Watson longer to put the pieces together, and he wouldn't have had Franklin's high-quality (far better than Watson could do himself) pictures to verify the correctness of the structure. In that time period Franklin may have been able to deduce the structure herself, or perhaps Pauling would have gotten it right.

      The real tragedy is the way Watson treated Franklin, both in his scientific work and in his writings. Watson has become the poster boy for "the end justifies the means." I can't recall ever being more disappointed in a book than I was in The Double Helix.

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    4. Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by admiralh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't blame Crick for how Franklin was treated. IIRC, he didn't know where the X-Ray pictures came from. And when Watson was publishing The Double Helix, he made Watson add a little postscript at the end, supposedly apologizing for the caracature "Rosie", which is how Watson described her in the main part of the book. But if you read his "re-appraisal", it sounds insincere at best.

      And what is even more galling about the book is that Franklin had died (ovarian cancer) a few years earlier, and so could not defend herself. It wasn't until the 1970's, when some feminist researchers started digging, did the details start to emerge.

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
    5. Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by aluminum+boy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Wrong" grossly understates the complexity of Franklin's interaction with Watson/Crick. She was neither wrong nor right. She was doggedly neutral in assessing the structure of DNA. Franklin was wrapped up in the notion that the structure of DNA could only be discovered through X-Ray diffraction, and not through using the modelling approach that Watson and Crick ascribed to. Was was very, very, correct, however, when she discovered that DNA has two states: "zipped" and "unzipped". That served as a direct catalyst to Watson and Crick's break through. That would have gotten her the Nobel Prize, also, if she had survived long enough (it cannot be awarded posthumously).

    6. Re:50th anniversary rememberance.. by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The NY Times article about this mentions that Watson asked Wilkins if he and Franklin should share co-authorship on the famous article, but that Wilkins declined (for both of them!). From what I've read, I always thought Wilkins was the real dickhead; he just assumed that Franklin was a subordinate, and treated her as such. It would not be the last time that a junior scientist has had his or her research stolen by their faculty advisor (though Franklin was not even working under Wilkins). I've heard of worse.

      The real tragedy is the way Watson treated Franklin

      No, the real tragedy is that she died of ovarian cancer in 1958. For her to have done as well as she did in that era, she clearly must have been absolutely brilliant. And she did great work after DNA too- Aaron Klug won the Nobel for a project that Franklin was working on when she died. Birkbeck College (where she ended up) has a page about her which says she should have won two Nobels, if not for her untimely death.

  4. ages... by Gamasta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, this's been a long long time. There was that whole revolution in cell physiology in the 70s. Now we're on the computational part.

    The human genome is read, but still we need to figure out: given a sequence of letters (out of the four), what protein (3-D structure, function, reactive parts etc) is associated with it? How is it cut into introns and exons? What sequence of letters can act as regulators? (without such answers I find the human genome project pretty useless)

    Still, a Nobel well awarded to Watson and Crick, I'd say.

    --
    reason defies logic
  5. Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by Speed+Racer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    She was the X-Ray crystallographer, not the co-discoverer. She dismissed the critical DNA type B X-Ray that she took as being unimportant. Unfortunately, nobody ever told her of the critical role her image played. Nevertheless, she was NOT a co-discoverer.

    --
    Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
  6. 50 years! by WPIDalamar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, that just blows my mind, only 50 years of DNA. So what did they use before DNA? My grandma is older than 50... I wonder what she's made out of!

    Maybe thats where that "Sugar and spice and everything nice" thing came from?

  7. Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by taliver · · Score: 2, Insightful


    chauvinist pig "colleagues"

    Now, while I am not goin to say for certain it was or was not a sexist act to use her work and not give her credit, the link you point to does not really indicate more than simply despicable inter-academic rivalries-- I think they would have screwed over a guy in much the same way.

    Remember, just because it happens to a woman doesn't mean the motive is at all sexist, much like if it happens to a black its racist or if it happens to a white guy it's justice.

    --

    I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!

  8. Re:Discovery of DNA prevented by co-ed universitie by spotted_dolphin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, his book "The Double Helix" has some fairly amusing accounts of his thoughts of Rosalind Franklin--whose X-ray crystallographic pictures determined that DNA was double helical in nature.

  9. Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by Fluffy+the+Cat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rosalind Franklin performed some important work that was ultimately built upon by Crick, Watson and Wilkins. Given more time she'd probably have reached the same conclusions, but the others got there first.

    In science, the people who make the final discovery get more credit than the people who did the work that made this discovery possible. Chauvinism has nothing to do with it.

    (On the other hand, Watson is one of the less pleasant people that I've had the poor fortune to meet)

  10. More about Rosalind Franklin by Aces+and+Eights · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this review of her biography she was the woman who produced the x-ray data that most strongly supported the DNA structure but was not properly acknowledged for her contributions.

    That reveiw further goes on to say that... According to Watson's best-selling 1968 account of the great race, The Double Helix, Franklin was not even a contender, much less a major contributor. He painted her as a mere assistant to Wilkins who "had to go or be put in her place" because she had the audacity to think she might be able to work on DNA on her own. Worse yet, she "did not emphasize her feminine qualities," lamented Watson, who refers to her only as "Rosy." "The thought could not be avoided," he concluded, "that the best home for a feminist was in another person's lab."

    Sounds like Watson was *quite* the ladies man =)

  11. Now it's time to work out the folding... by MarvinMouse · · Score: 4, Informative

    Personally, I think everyone should join folding@home

    http://folding.stanford.edu

    now this is a distributed project that's producing results.

    DNA is useful, and was an excellent discovery, but it's kinda like discovering the motherboard, and not understanding how any of the information is transmitted. Folding at home allows anyone with spare computer cycles to help out and understand how the proteins fold to their lowest/near lowest energy state and how they interact in the body.

    Already some medical advances have been made, but there's still a long way to go.

    --
    ~ kjrose
    1. Re:Now it's time to work out the folding... by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or, alternately, UD Cancer Research -- pretty much the same as Folding@Home, but with an emphasis on cancer cures.

      Not that Folding@Home isn't after equally noble goals. Just giving options.

      One major downside of UD is that they don't have non-Windows clients, so if that's an issue go with Folding.

      Grid appears to be running a few other... interesting... projects as well. There's the Smallpox Project, designed to find a Smallpox counteragent, and the PatriotGrid, which is hopes to find counteragents/vaccines/whatever against a wide variety of bioterrorist agents.

      I think I'll stick with Cancer research.

  12. Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by richie2000 · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the NYTimes page:
    50 Years Later, Rosalind Franklin's X-Ray Fuels Debate
    By DENISE GRADY
    For some, over the years, Dr. Rosalind Franklin has come to symbolize the plight of women in science, as men close ranks against them.

    Fifty years ago, a casual gesture at a laboratory in London became a defining moment in the history of science. James D. Watson was visiting King's College late one afternoon near the end of January 1953, when a researcher named Maurice Wilkins showed him an X-ray photograph of a molecule of DNA.

    Describing the encounter years later in "The Double Helix," Dr. Watson wrote, "The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race."

    The image was one of many by various researchers that hinted at a helix, but its singular clarity helped lead Dr. Watson and his colleague Francis Crick to the structure of DNA.

    The scientist who took the picture was Dr. Rosalind Franklin, and though they cited other work she had done, Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick did not acknowledge the photograph itself, or additional work by her they had used, in their paper.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  13. Re:DNA Decode by CuOsc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nature (where the Watson and Crick paper was published) is running something on this:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/

    The page has links to all the original 1953 articles.

  14. Music to Commemorate the 50th Anniversary by objekt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    from http://www.strangemusic.com/genome_press.htm

    In commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the discovery of DNA and the double helix, sTRANGEmUSIC presents the world premiere of GENOME: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Movements for Music & Video. Composed and directed by Patrick Grant, it is based on the book by award winning science author Matt Ridley. The work will be given two performances on February 27 and 28 (the latter date being the actual anniversary of the discovery) at 8:00 PM on each night at the ANNINA NOSEI GALLERY located at 530 West 22nd Street, New York City (10th & 11th Aves.) on the 2nd floor.

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  15. Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by Speed+Racer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Didn't Pauling postulate a triple helix? IIRC, Watson and Crick found out about his soon-to-be-published paper and set about to prove or disprove his model. The built it and something didn't seem right but they couldn't put their finger on it. Finally, they realized that it was neutral. Chemical genius Linus Pauling forgot to make his DNA model an acid!

    --
    Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
  16. Re:DNA Decode by sam_handelman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Watson and Crick discovered the double helical structure of DNA; this reveals the method of genetic replication.

    The genetic code, which is used to convert genetic information into actual proteins which do the physical work of life, was not discovered until quite a few years later. Crick made a number of important contributions to the discovery of the genetic code, but he isn't credited with it.

    Here's a writeup on the history of efforts to decipher the genetic code.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
  17. No Password by SkreamNet · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google Link

  18. More on Rosalind Franklin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I know a med school student who very recently studied the discovery of DNA structure in great detail. When this student described the story to me it seemed less like Watson&Crick and Rosalind Franklin were equal contributors to the current perception of DNA structure, and more that they pretty much stole all of her work.
    Supposedly the only reason this misconception has never been officially corrected was because the Nobel Prize cannot be awarded posthumously.

    1. Re:More on Rosalind Franklin by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Supposedly the only reason this misconception has never been officially corrected was because the Nobel Prize cannot be awarded posthumously.

      On the contrary, if anything there's speculation that the Nobel committee waited for her to die so it was uncontroversial to award the prize to Watson, Crick and Wilkins. (There being a limit of three recipients.)

      Basically, however much Franklin was overlooked at the time, overcompensation and political correctness have led to her contributions being overestimated now. She had data, so did a lot of people. She might have worked out the structure on her own; Pauling certainly would have. Fundamentally, Watson and Crick made the breakthrough others didn't and they deserve credit for it.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  19. Life Story by stroudie · · Score: 5, Informative

    A while back (~1987) the bbc produced a drama-documentary called "Life Story: a double helix", about the discovery of DNA (starring Tim Piggot-Smith & Jeff Goldblum).

    If you get the opportunity (it has been shown a number of times on US and UK TV), it is worth seeing as a very fair-minded and interesting history of the discovery. Unfortunately, I don't believe it is available on video, unless anyone knows different.

    1. Re:Life Story by reptilicus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Available from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. It is not cheap, but comes with a license for public showing. http://www.cshlpress.com

  20. and software makes the bioworld go round by johnjones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    nice that DNA was discovered while stareing at Xrays now software does a good job

    info: sanger center Cambridge was one of the centers that they helped sequence human DNA

    why ? Because of the ability to patent squences of DNA
    (that drug companies get rich off) they had to do it before evil companies did like Celera Genomics who used a more inactuate method (shotgun) but evily patented it

    welcome trust is a huge Charity that funds research in this area

    ptenting DNA is silly these are naturally occuring things (squences) they where not created just discovered its all very silly

    Cuba and alot of africa are starting not to recognise these patents as they would like to build the drugs that help AIDS and HIV

    its sad that AIDS and HIV has to come along just to show the world that patents are stupid on DNA

    anyway

    here is lots of software related to DNA

    regards

    John Jones

    1. Re:and software makes the bioworld go round by Fluffy+the+Cat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because of the ability to patent squences of DNA

      No. You can't patent sequences of DNA. You can only patent potential uses of that DNA. So, the use of BRCA2 in a diagnostic test for predisposition to breast cancer is patented in much the same way that a test for the protein it produces being used for a diagnostic test for predisposition to breast cancer could be patented (and probably is).

      Biotechnology companies do, however, take the piss here. Upon finding a gene and gaining some idea about its function, they have a tendancy to file several hundred patents covering every possible uesful application of that gene.

  21. Celibrate with a drink by danormsby · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll be asking my local bartender to "Make mine a double Felix".

    --
    Omnis amans amens
  22. Re:Aren't we forgetting someone? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Remember, just because it happens to a woman doesn't mean the motive is at all sexist, much like if it happens to a black its racist or if it happens to a white guy it's justice.
    But when it happens to a woman in a highly sexist environment which is very nearly the definition of the "old boys' network," that's the way to bet. This is particularly true since Watson, at least, was a vicious sexist even by the standards of the time. To extend your analogy, it's like looking at the lynching of a black man by the KKK in 1950's Mississippi and saying, "Well, we don't know it was racist ..."
    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  23. Not really correct by reptilicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The original Watson/Crick paper specifically thanks Dr. R. E. Franklin. What more would you have them do? Franklin reportedly felt no slight, and remained friendly and corresponded with Watson and Crick through her remaining years. And yes, had she been alive, she would have been given the Nobel along with them, but the awards are not given posthumously.

    1. Re:Not really correct by RafeDawg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The original Watson/Crick paper specifically thanks Dr. R. E. Franklin. What more would you have them do?

      Co-authorship on the the paper. A standard practice for someone who gives you the crucial bit of data.

      --
      ------- Was it just a coincidence I got moderator points the first time I logged on to /. from linux?
    2. Re:Not really correct by reptilicus · · Score: 2, Informative

      ---Co-authorship on the the paper. A standard practice for someone who gives you the crucial bit of data--- Clearly you're not a scientist if you think things really work this way. Go to any meeting and you'll see people furiously taking notes, then running out to use their cel phones to call their labs... Regardless, Franklin's data was published in her own paper in the very same issue of Nature. (see http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/archive.html to view the originals). Do you think she would have been better served as a junior author on Watson and Crick's paper describing model building that she had no part of, or publishing as the first author on a paper showing her own work?

  24. Re:Discovery of DNA prevented by co-ed universitie by panurge · · Score: 3, Funny
    Oh dear.

    Given the number of gay men at Cambridge and the number who had been to British public (=private) schools and did not know the connection between women and the equipment below the waist, anybody heterosexual would have to be totally socially unacceptable or alternatively single by choice.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  25. Other points of interest by reptilicus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nature has a whole section on the 50th Anniversary: http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/index.html Also, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (which is run by Watson) is holding a meeting starting Wednesday night to celebrate the anniversary. The whole thing is supposed to be streamed live over the web for free. Not sure of the exact link for this, but the general site is: http://www.cshl.org/ And their 50th Anniversary site is: http://www.dna50.org/main.htm

  26. I find it interesting... by keyslammer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... that /. now has on the same page a report of the 50 year anniversary of the discovery of DNA and another report of
    the construction of a super-computer from DNA.

    50 years from discovery to super-computer technology. Can you say "accelerating returns"? Can ya? Sure you can!

  27. The Energizer Bunny of Genetics by mshultz · · Score: 2, Informative

    I like this part (from NYT- my school, Rice University, gives us the NYT at breakfast every morning!)...

    Dr. Crick published an article on the nature of consciousness just this month.

    Dude, what a beast this guy is! Still going! Has anybody found this article new article of his? It would be neat to read...

  28. patents and DNA by laughing_badger · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Hmm...

    So a drug company come along and patent a sequence of DNA. "We own this, " they say. "It's ours."

    Does this not imply that they accept responsibility for any disease causing properties of the sequence?

    It would be sweet if those same companies that patented interesting sequences of cancer causing genes, so that they could exclude the competition, were then liable to anyone sick because they possesed that particular mutation.

    Just dreaming...

    --
    Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
    1. Re:patents and DNA by opello · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hehe, and instead of percieving introns as useless, they could stick little (C) and (TM)'s in there! It could be called, DNA2.0

  29. Progress by Cappy+Red · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fifty years after the structure is discovered, we're making plans to play Doom 3 on it.

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  30. From the Double Helix (warning not for feminists!) by Raindeer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Watson recounts the following story. One night dr. Crick was going to a party with his wife. He had hoped some nice female exchange students would be there, but it turned out only Cambridge dons with their wifes turned up. Bored out of his skull he sat down and thought about the things he was working on and got a luminous idea. As Watson sais: This was one time in history, where an absense of women was a benifit to the advancement of science.

    --
    Use Adsense for Charity
  31. The Pursuit of Happiness by scotay · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I was living close to Independence Hall in Philly, I had the pleasure of seeing Watson and Crick receive the Liberty Medal on July 4th. Watson actually showed and Crick had a speech on tape.

    The only thing worse than the oppressive heat, was the abortion protestors who surrounded the perimeter of award ceremony with their stupid yelling. I had never seen protests like this at another liberty award. The abortion protestors and their wall-sized dead fetus posters were nowhere to be found when Colin Powell got his medal. As if the discovery of the structure of DNA was somehow responsible for abortion.

    Watson made a great speech that touched on their discovery, politics in a time of war, God and science, happiness and endorphins. Reads even better in 2003 than it did in 2000.

  32. Or as the Brits say by sielwolf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Crick and Watson (can't let the Americans get first bill on everything).

    --
    What is music when you despise all sound?
  33. Re:DNA Decode by pgolik · · Score: 2, Informative

    Start there The NCBI site also has a FTP repository, where you can download the raw files. And here you can get a nice open software suite to work on it.

  34. The original model by RDW · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you're in London you can see the original structural model of DNA (retort clamps and all), models of several other significant molecules, some early computers, and the Apollo 10 command module (!) all in one gallery at the Science Museum:

    http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/

    DNA structure


  35. Re:Rosalind Franklin by Listen+Up · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Why was I marked as a Troll and as Flamebait? Doesn't anyone have a clue what happened in the past? Do the research yourself if you don't believe me. Watson and Crick did not discover the helical structure of DNA, Rosalind Franklin did. Is Slashdot full of people who either have a HS education only and/or have never learned about past scientific achievements and who actually makes the discoveries as opposed to who actually gets the credit? The facts about the history of who discovered DNA stand, whether I am marked as a troll or flamebait or not.
    Go to http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Rosalind_Fra nklin.html and read about what happened yourself (as 1 source among many).
    Quote "After Randall presented Franklin's data and her unpublished conclusions at a routine seminar, her work was provided - without Randall's knowledge - to her competitors at Cambridge University, Watson and Crick. The scientists used her data and that of other scientists to build their ultimately correct and detailed description of DNA's structure in 1953...it is a tremendous shame that Franklin did not receive due credit for her essential role in this discovery, either during her lifetime or after her untimely death at age 37 due to cancer."

  36. Ah, but which paper? by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There were three back to back papers published in Nature (1953, No. 4356 pages 737-741): "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acids" by J. D. Watson and F. H. C. Crick, "Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids" by M.H.F Wilkins, A.R. Stokes and H.R. Wilson, and lastly "Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate" by Rosalind Franklin. Also available on Nature's website for free, as someone else has already linked in. At least Watson and Crick did put Rosalind Franklin (and Maurice Wilkins) in their acknowledgements, but then that was probably the most they could get away with and even then in their article they poo-poo the fibre diffraction patterns obtained by Franklin (and others) despite the wealth of information that was obtained. In her article she independently states "The structure is probably helical. The phosphate groups lie on the outside of the structural unit, on a helix of diameter about 20 angstroms. The structural unit probably consists of two co-axial molecules which are not equally spaced along the fibere axis..." Her view on DNA structure is based on data she collected. Watson and Crick's structure is largely based on the same data (which they obtained without her permission, ie they stole it) and they come to similar conclusions.

  37. Re:Watson and Crick, or ? by holy+zarquon's+singi · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rosalind Franklin was responsible for the X-Ray Crystallography. Her work was under attributed and some say plagiarised by Watson and Crick. She certainly did not get the credit for her work, and some beleive she should have shared in the nobel prize. To be fair, her boss/supervisor was implicit in this, and not just Watson/Crick, although Watson should not have bad-mouthed her the way he did.

    --
    "...we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." B.Spears 2003