Rosalind Franklin Was An Equal Contributor, Not A Victim, In Discovery Of DNA Structure, Say Scientists

Two scientists have written an article stating that not only was Rosalind Franklin an equal contributor in the discovery of DNA structure, but was also not a victim, contrary to popular belief. 

It is a popular belief that James Watson and Francis Crick stole Rosalind Franklin's (left) data, and did not give her credit for her work. However, two documents provide evidence to show that Franklin was an equal contributor, and not a victim, in the discovery of DNA structure (right).

Source : Getty

British chemist Rosalind Franklin was an X-ray crystallographer best known for discovering the molecular structure of DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid), and making clear X-ray diffraction images of DNA molecules which helped lay the foundation for the Watson and Crick DNA model. It is a popular belief that American biologist James Watson and English physicist Francis Crick stole Franklin's data, and did not give her credit for her work. However, a previously overlooked letter and a news article, which were written in 1953, the year in which Watson and Crick published a paper explaining the double helix structure of DNA, provide evidence to show that Franklin was an equal contributor in the discovery of the structure of DNA. 

While the article was never published, two scientists have written a comment article in the journal Nature, stating that not only was Franklin an equal contributor in the discovery of DNA structure, but was also not a victim, contrary to popular belief. 

The new article, written by Matthew Cobb, a professor of zoology at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom, and Nathaniel Comfort, a professor of history of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, United States, was published April 25, 2023 in Nature. 

On April 25, 1953, Watson and Crick published a paper titled "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" in Nature, explaining the double helix structure of DNA. 

What is Photograph 51?

The X-ray image of DNA taken by Franklin, which is treated as "the philosopher's stone of molecular biology", according to Cobb and Comfort, is known as Photograph 51. 

The lore surrounding Photograph 51

Many believe that the double helix structure of DNA was discovered when Photograph 51 was shown to Watson without Franklin's permission or knowledge. Cobb and Comfort wrote in their article that Photograph 51 has become "the emblem of both Franklin's achievement and her mistreatment".

Many have portrayed Franklin as a brilliant scientist, but said that she was ultimately unable to decipher what her own data were telling her about DNA. 

Some believe that Franklin supposedly sat on the X-ray image for months without realising its significance, only for Watson to understand it at a glance.  

Not only has this version of events entered into popular culture, but has also provided fodder for contemptuous Twitter jokes such as "What did Watson and Crick discover in 1953? Franklin's data". 

What was Franklin’s contribution to the structure of DNA? Was she duly credited?

However, this is not what happened, Cobb and Comfort wrote in the article. 

In 2022, the authors visited Franklin's archive at Churchill College in Cambridge, and found a draft news article, which had not been studied until now, and was written by journalist Joan Bruce in consultation with Franklin. It was meant for publication in Time magazine. The authors also found a letter from one of Franklin's colleagues to Crick.

The draft news article and the letter show that Franklin did not fail to grasp the structure of DNA, and was an equal contributor to solving it. 

In the draft news article, Bruce wrote that the work was done by "two teams". One team consisted of Wilkins and Franklin, who gathered experimental evidence using X-ray analysis, and the other team comprised Watson and Crick, who worked on theory. Bruce wrote that the two teams worked independently, although they linked up, confirming each other's work from time to time, or wrestling over a common problem. 

As part of an official visit to King College London's Medical Research Council (MRC) unit, Watson and Crick were handed an informal report of the activity of the unit by Crick's supervisor, Max Perutz. The report included a page from Franklin, describing her work. In a 1969 letter to Science, Perutz said that he regretted sharing the report without first consulting the King's group, but said that it was not confidential. 

In a full description of the DNA structure published in 1954, Watson and Crick acknowledged that without Franklin's data, the formulation of their structure would have been most unlikely, if not impossible. They also implicitly referred to the MRC report as a "preliminary report" in which Franklin and Wilkins had independently suggested that the basic structure of the paracrystalline form of DNA is helical and contains two intertwined chains. 

However, this clear acknowledgement of both the nature and source of the information Watson and Crick had used has been overlooked in previous accounts of the discovery of the structure of DNA, Cobb and Comfort wrote. 

Cobb and Comfort also said that Franklin and Wilkins probably never questioned how the structure of DNA was discovered because they expected that Perutz would share his knowledge, and because they had read Watson and Crick's 1954 article. 

In his 1968 book 'The Double Helix', Watson augmented the importance of Photograph 51. 

Cobb and Comfort wrote in their article that neither Photograph 51 nor the MRC report gave Watson and Crick the double helix, but it was six weeks of "trial and error", as described by Watson and Crick, that led to the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. 

However, Cobb and Comfort said that Watson and Crick could have, and should have requested permission to use the data in the MRC report, and made clear exactly what they had done, first to Franklin and Wilkins, and then to the rest of the world, in their publications.

Cobb and Comfort wrote that getting Franklin's story is crucial because not only has she become a role model for women going into science, but was also against routine sexism during her time. 

The authors wrote that had Bruce's article been published, Franklin, along with Maurice Wilkins, would have been represented as an equal member of a quartet who solved the double helix, one half of the team that articulated the scientific question, took important early steps towards a solution, provided crucial data and verified the result. 

Franklin had been reduced to the "wronged heroine" of the double helix, according to journalist Horace Freeland Judson and Franklin's biographer, Brenda Maddox, the article said.

Cobb and Comfort concluded that Franklin deserves to be remembered not as the victim of the double helix, but as an equal contributor to the solution of the structure.