Editing Rosalind Franklin (section)

==Controversies after death==
===Alleged sexism toward Franklin<!-- this wording is result of a talk-page discussion-->===
Anne Sayre, Franklin's friend and one of her biographers, says in her 1975 book, ''[[Rosalind Franklin and DNA]]: '' "In 1951&nbsp;... King's College London as an institution, was not distinguished for the welcome that it offered to women&nbsp;... Rosalind&nbsp;... was unused to ''[[purdah]]'' [a religious and social institution of female seclusion]&nbsp;... there was one other female on the laboratory staff".<ref>Sayre, p. 96.</ref> The [[molecular biology|molecular biologist]] Andrzej Stasiak notes: "Sayre's book became widely cited in feminist circles for exposing rampant sexism in science."<ref name=stasiak>{{cite journal |last1=Stasiak |first1=Andrzej |title=Rosalind Franklin |journal=EMBO Reports |date=March 2001 |volume=2 |issue=3 |page=181 |doi=10.1093/embo-reports/kve037 |pmc=1083834 }}</ref> Farooq Hussain says: "there were seven women in the biophysics department&nbsp;... [[Jean Hanson]] became an FRS, [[Dame Honor B. Fell]], Director of [[Strangeways Laboratory]], supervised the biologists".<ref name="Hussain1975">{{cite journal |last=Hussain |first=Farooq |title=Did Rosalind Franklin deserve DNA Nobel prize? |date=20 November 1975 |journal=[[New Scientist]] |volume=68 |issue=976 |page=470 }}</ref> Maddox, Franklin's biographer, states: "[[John Randall (physicist)|Randall]]&nbsp;... did have many women on his staff&nbsp;... they found him&nbsp;... sympathetic and helpful."<ref name="Maddox, p. 135">Maddox, p. 135.</ref>

Sayre asserts that "while the male staff at King's lunched in a large, comfortable, rather clubby dining room" the female staff of all ranks "lunched in the student's hall or away from the premises".<ref>Sayre, p. 97.</ref><ref>Bryson, B. (2004), p. 490.</ref> However, Elkin claims that most of the [[Medical Research Council (UK)|MRC]] group (including Franklin) typically ate lunch together in the mixed dining room discussed below.<ref name="Elkin 45"/> And Maddox says, of Randall: "He liked to see his flock, men and women, come together for morning coffee, and at lunch in the joint dining room, where he ate with them nearly every day."<ref name="Maddox, p. 135"/> Francis Crick also commented that "her colleagues treated men and women scientists alike".<ref>Crick, p. 68.</ref>

Sayre also discusses at length Franklin's struggle in pursuing science, particularly her father's concern about women in academic professions.<ref>Sayre, pp. 42–45.</ref> This account had led to accusations of sexism in regard to Ellis Franklin's attitude to his daughter. A good deal of information explicitly claims that he strongly opposed her entering Newnham College.<ref>McGrayne, p. 6.</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Rosalind Franklin |url=http://www.mphpa.org/classic/HF/Biographies%20-%20Women/franklin.htm |website=The Manhattan Project Heritage Preservation Association, Inc. |access-date=13 February 2015 |archive-date=1 May 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130501171514/http://mphpa.org/classic/HF/Biographies%20-%20Women/franklin.htm  }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Lewis |first1=Jone Johnson |title=Rosalind Franklin |url=http://womenshistory.about.com/od/sciencechemistry/p/franklin_dna.htm |website=About Education |access-date=13 February 2015 |archive-date=19 December 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161219090941/http://womenshistory.about.com/od/sciencechemistry/p/franklin_dna.htm  }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Rosalind Franklin |url=http://www.whatisbiotechnology.org/people/Franklin |website=What is Biotechnology |access-date=13 February 2015}}</ref> The [[Public Broadcasting Service]] (PBS) biography of Franklin goes further, stating that he refused to pay her fees, and that an aunt stepped in to do that for her.<ref>{{cite web |title=Rosalind Franklin |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bofran.html |publisher=PBS |access-date=13 February 2015}}</ref> Her sister, Jenifer Glynn, has stated that those stories are myths, and that her parents fully supported Franklin's entire career.<ref name=glynn12>{{cite journal |last1=Glynn |first1=Jenifer |title=Remembering my sister Rosalind Franklin |journal=The Lancet |year=2012 |volume=379 |issue=9821 |pages=1094–1095 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60452-8 |pmid=22451966|s2cid=32832643 }}</ref>

Sexism is said to pervade the memoir of one peer, James Watson, in his book ''The Double Helix'', published 10 years after Franklin's death and after Watson had returned from Cambridge to Harvard.<ref name="Harding2006">{{cite book |last=Harding |first=Sandra |title=Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=b6jZAAAAMAAJ |access-date=10 January 2011 |date=2006 |publisher=[[University of Illinois Press]] |isbn=978-0-252-07304-5 |page=71 |chapter=Sexist criticism of Watson's memoir |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=snuYsNzTqOwC&q=%22The+Double+Helix%22+sexism&pg=PA71 |place=Urbana}}</ref> His Cambridge colleague, Peter Pauling, wrote in a letter, "Morris [''sic''] Wilkins is supposed to be doing this work; Miss Franklin is evidently a fool."<ref>{{cite web |title=Quotes by or related to Rosalind Franklin |url=http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/coll/pauling/dna/quotes/rosalind_franklin.html |publisher=Oregon State University Libraries |access-date=14 February 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160918192430/http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/coll/pauling/dna/quotes/rosalind_franklin.html |archive-date=18 September 2016  }}</ref> Crick acknowledges later, "I'm afraid we always used to adopt&nbsp;– let's say, a ''patronizing'' attitude towards her."<ref>McGrayne, p. 318.</ref>

Glynn accuses Sayre of erroneously making her sister a feminist heroine,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Glynn |first1=J. |title=Rosalind Franklin: 50 years on |journal=Notes and Records of the Royal Society |year=2008 |volume=62 |issue=2 |pages=253–255 |doi=10.1098/rsnr.2007.0052|doi-access=free}}</ref> and sees Watson's ''The Double Helix'' as the root of what she calls the "Rosalind Industry". She conjectures that the stories of alleged sexism would "have embarrassed her [Rosalind Franklin] almost as much as Watson's account would have upset her",<ref name=glynn12 /> and declared that "she [Rosalind] was never a feminist."<ref>Glynn, p. 158.</ref> Klug and Crick have also concurred that Franklin was definitely not a feminist.<ref>Crick, p. 69.</ref>

Franklin's letter to her parents in January 1939 is often taken as reflecting her own prejudiced attitude, and the claim that she was "not immune to the sexism rampant in these circles". In the letter, she remarked that one lecturer was "very good, though female".<ref name="Wertheimer2007">{{cite book |last1=Wertheimer |first1=Michael |last2=Clamar |first2=Aphrodite |last3=Siderits |first3=Mary Anne |editor1-last=Gavin |editor1-first=Eileen A. |editor2-last=Clamar |editor2-first=Aphrodite |editor3-last=Siderits |editor3-first=Mary Anne |title=Women of Vision: Their Psychology, Circumstances, and Successes |date=2007 |publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media]] |place=New York |isbn=978-0-8261-0253-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qVdvhZ0R540C |access-date=10 January 2011 |chapter=The Case of the Purloined Picture: Rosalind Franklin and the Keystone of the Double Helix }}</ref> Maddox maintains that was a circumstantial comment rather than an example of gender bias, and that it was an expression of admiration because, at the time, woman teachers of science were a rarity. In fact, Maddox says, Franklin laughed at men who were embarrassed by the appointment of the first female professor at [[Oxbridge]], [[Dorothy Garrod]].<ref>Maddox, p. 48.</ref>

===Contribution to the model/structure of DNA===
Franklin's first important contributions to the model popularised by Crick and Watson was her lecture at the seminar in November 1951, where she presented to those present, among them Watson, the two forms of the molecule, type A and type B, her position being that the phosphate units are located in the external part of the molecule. She also specified the amount of water to be found in the molecule in accordance with other parts of it, data that have considerable importance for the stability of the molecule. Franklin was the first to discover and articulate these facts, which constituted the basis for all later attempts to build a model of the molecule. However, Watson, at the time ignorant of the chemistry, failed to comprehend the crucial information, and this led to the construction of an incorrect three-helical model.<ref name="Klug-2004" />

The other contribution included a photograph of an X-ray diffraction pattern of B-DNA (called ''[[Photo 51]]''),<ref>Maddox, pp. 177–178.</ref> taken by Franklin's student Gosling, that was briefly shown to Watson by Wilkins in January 1953,<ref name="Maddox, p. 196">Maddox, p. 196.</ref><ref>Crick (1988), p. 67.</ref> and a report written for an MRC biophysics committee visit to King's in December 1952 which was shown by Perutz at the Cavendish Laboratory to both Crick and Watson. This MRC report contained data from the King's group, including some of Franklin's and Gosling's work, and was given to Crick – who was working on his thesis on [[haemoglobin]] structure – by his thesis supervisor Perutz, a member of the visiting committee.<ref>Elkin, L.O. (2003), p. 44.</ref><ref>Maddox, pp. 198–199.</ref>

Sayre's biography of Franklin contains a story<ref>Sayre, p. 151.</ref> alleging that the photograph 51 in question was shown to Watson by Wilkins without Franklin's permission,<ref name=stasiak/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Minkoff |first1=Eli |last2=Baker |first2=Pamela |title=Biology Today: An Issues Approach |year=2000 |publisher=Garland Publishing |location=New York |isbn=978-0-8153-2760-8 |page=58 |edition=2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yOKsUSGMWBYC}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Creager |first1=Angela |title=Crystallizing a Life in Science |url=http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/crystallizing-a-life-in-science |website=American Scientist |publisher=Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society |access-date=25 January 2015 |year=2003  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141112163501/http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/crystallizing-a-life-in-science |archive-date=12 November 2014 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Swaby |first=Rachel |title=Headstrong 52 women who changed science – and the world |publisher=Broadway Books |year=2015 |isbn=978-0-553-44679-1 |location=New York |pages=108–112}}</ref> and that this constituted a case of bad science ethics.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stasiak |first1=Andrzej |title=The First Lady of DNA |journal=EMBO Reports |year=2003 |volume=4 |issue=1 |page=14 |doi=10.1038/sj.embor.embor723 |pmc=1315822}}</ref> Others dispute this story, asserting that Wilkins had been given photograph 51 by Franklin's Ph.D. student Gosling because she was leaving King's to work at Birkbeck. There was allegedly nothing untoward in this transfer of data to Wilkins<ref name="Maddox, p. 196"/><ref>Wilkins, p. 198.</ref> because Director Randall had insisted that all DNA work belonged exclusively to King's. He had therefore instructed Franklin, in a letter, to even stop working on it and submit her data.<ref>Maddox, p. 312.</ref> It was also implied, by [[Horace Freeland Judson]], that Maurice Wilkins had taken the photograph out of Franklin's drawer, but this is also said to be incorrect.<ref>Wilkins, p. 257.</ref>

Likewise, Perutz saw "no harm" in showing an MRC report containing the conclusions of Franklin and Gosling's X-ray data analysis to Crick, since it had not been marked as confidential, although "The report was not expected to reach outside eyes".<ref>Maddox, p. 188.</ref> Indeed, after the publication of Watson's ''The Double Helix'' exposed Perutz's act, he received so many letters questioning his judgment that he felt the need to both answer them all<ref>Perutz's papers are in the Archive of the J. Craig Venter institute and Science Foundation in Rockville Maryland, which were purchased as part of the Jeremy Norman Archive of Molecular Biology; quoted in Ferry, Georgina, 2007. Max Perutz and the Secret of Life. Published in the UK by Chatto & Windus ({{ISBN|0-7011-7695-4}}), and in the USA by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.</ref> and to post a general statement in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' excusing himself on the basis of being "inexperienced and casual in administrative matters".<ref>''Science'', 27 June 1969, pp. 207–212, also reprinted in the Norton critical edition of ''The Double Helix'', edited by Gunther Stent.</ref>

Perutz also claimed that the MRC information was already made available to the Cambridge team when Watson had attended Franklin's seminar in November 1951. A preliminary version of much of the important material contained in the 1952 December MRC report had been presented by Franklin in a talk she had given in November 1951, which Watson had attended but not understood.<ref name="Maddox 199"/><ref>Watson (1969).</ref>

The Perutz letter was, as said, one of three, published with others by Wilkins and Watson, which discussed their various contributions. Watson clarified the importance of the data obtained from the MRC report as he had not recorded these data while attending Franklin's lecture in 1951. The upshot of all this was that, when Crick and Watson started to build their model, in February 1953, they were working with critical parameters that had been determined by Franklin in 1951, which she and Gosling had significantly refined in 1952, as well as with published data and other very similar data to those available at King's. It was generally believed that Franklin was never aware that her work had been used during construction of the model,<ref>Maddox, p. 316.</ref> but Gosling, when asked in his 2013 interview if he believed she learned of this before her death, asserted "Yes. Oh, she did know about that."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Attar |first1=N |title=Raymond Gosling: the man who crystallized genes |journal=Genome Biology |year=2013 |volume=14 |issue=4 |page=402 |doi=10.1186/gb-2013-14-4-402|pmid=23651528 |pmc=3663117 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

In 2023 an unpublished article for ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine in 1953 revealed two documents that showed a close collaboration of Franklin with Watson and Crick.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Levitt |first=Dan |date=2023-04-25 |title=Opinion: 70 years ago, the structure of DNA was revealed. Was Rosalind Franklin robbed? |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/25/opinions/dna-structure-discovery-rosalind-franklin-levitt-scn/index.html |access-date=2023-04-29 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Le Page |first=Michael |date=2023-04-25 |title=Was DNA pioneer Rosalind Franklin really a victim of scientific theft? |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2370348-was-dna-pioneer-rosalind-franklin-really-a-victim-of-scientific-theft/ |access-date=2023-04-29 |website=New Scientist |language=en-US}}</ref> Reporting in ''Nature'', Comfort and Cobb suggested new evidence in an opinion piece that Franklin was a contributor and "equal player" in process leading to the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA, rather than otherwise,<ref name="AP-20230425">{{cite news |last=Burakoff |first=Maddie |date=25 April 2023 |title=Rosalind Franklin's role in DNA discovery gets a new twist |url=https://apnews.com/article/dna-double-helix-rosalind-franklin-watson-crick-69ec8164c720e0b23374da69a1d3708d |access-date=25 April 2023 |work=[[AP News]]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20230425">{{cite news |last=Anthes |first=Emily |date=25 April 2023 |title=Untangling Rosalind Franklin's Role in DNA Discovery, 70 Years On – Historians have long debated the role that Dr. Franklin played in identifying the double helix. A new opinion essay argues that she was an "equal contributor." |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/25/science/rosalind-franklin-dna.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230425182515/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/25/science/rosalind-franklin-dna.html |archive-date=25 April 2023 |access-date=26 April 2023 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> concluding that "the discovery of the structure of DNA was not seen [in 1953] as a race won by Watson and Crick, but as the outcome of a joint effort."<ref name="Cobb-2023">{{Cite journal |last1=Cobb |first1=Matthew |last2=Comfort |first2=Nathaniel |date=2023 |title=What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery of DNA's structure |journal=Nature |volume=616 |issue=7958 |pages=657–660 |doi=10.1038/d41586-023-01313-5 |issn=1476-4687 |pmid=37100935|bibcode=2023Natur.616..657C |s2cid=258314143 |doi-access=free }}</ref> One manuscript written by Joan Bruce, a London journalist for ''Time'', was never published and stored among Franklin's papers. It was prepared in consultation with Franklin,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nalewicki |first=Jennifer |date=2023-04-25 |title=Rosalind Franklin knew DNA was a helix before Watson and Crick, unpublished material reveals |url=https://www.livescience.com/health/genetics/rosalind-franklin-knew-dna-was-a-helix-before-watson-and-crick-unpublished-material-reveals |access-date=2023-04-29 |website=Livescience |language=en}}</ref> who saw that Bruce's scientific presentation was not good enough for an article. Bruce clearly mentioned that "they [Franklin and Wilkins with Watson and Crick] linked up, confirming each other's work from time to time, or wrestling over a common problem," and that Franklin was often "checking the Cavendish model against her own X-rays, not always confirming the Cavendish structural theory."<ref name="Cobb-2023" /> Another document, a letter of Pauline Cowan from King's College inviting Crick to attend Franklin's lecture in January 1953, indicated that Crick was already familiar with the DNA data available at the time.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Anthes |first=Emily |date=2023-04-25 |title=Untangling Rosalind Franklin's Role in DNA Discovery, 70 Years On |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/25/science/rosalind-franklin-dna.html |access-date=2023-04-29 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> In an interview in ''[[Science News]]'', Comfort and Cobb agreed that there were never stealing of any data, as the two teams shared their research information willingly.<ref name="Saey-2023">{{Cite web |last=Saey |first=Tina Hesman |date=2023-04-26 |title=What was Rosalind Franklin's true role in the discovery of DNA's double helix? |url=https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rosalind-franklin-dna-structure-watson-crick |access-date=2023-04-29 |website=Science News |language=en-US}}</ref>

====Recognition of her contribution to the model of DNA====
Upon the completion of their model, Crick and Watson had invited Wilkins to be a co-author of their paper describing the structure.<ref>Wilkins, p. 213.</ref> Wilkins turned down this offer, as he had taken no part in building the model.<ref>Wilkins, p. 214.</ref> He later expressed regret that greater discussion of co-authorship had not taken place as this might have helped to clarify the contribution the work at King's had made to the discovery.<ref>Wilkins, p. 226.</ref> There is no doubt that Franklin's experimental data were used by Crick and Watson to build their model of DNA in 1953. Some, including Maddox, have explained this citation omission by suggesting that it may be a question of circumstance, because it would have been very difficult to cite the unpublished work from the MRC report they had seen.<ref name="Maddox 207"/>

Indeed, a clear timely acknowledgment would have been awkward, given the unorthodox manner in which data were transferred from King's to Cambridge. However, methods were available. Watson and Crick could have cited the MRC report as a personal communication or else cited the ''Acta ''articles in press, or most easily, the third ''Nature'' paper that they knew was in press. One of the most important accomplishments of Maddox's widely acclaimed biography is that Maddox made a well-received case for inadequate acknowledgement. "Such acknowledgement as they gave her was very muted and always coupled with the name of Wilkins".<ref>Maddox, pp. 316–317, and other parts of the epilogue.</ref>

Fifteen years after the fact the first clear recitation of Franklin's contribution appeared as it permeated Watson's account, ''The Double Helix'', although it was buried under descriptions of Watson's (often quite negative) regard towards Franklin during the period of their work on DNA. This attitude is epitomized in the confrontation between Watson and Franklin over a preprint of Pauling's mistaken DNA manuscript.<ref>Watson, J.D. (1968), pp. 95–96.</ref> Watson's words impelled Sayre to write her rebuttal, in which the entire chapter nine, "Winner Take All", has the structure of a legal brief dissecting and analyzing the topic of acknowledgement.<ref>Sayre, A. (1975), pp. 156–167.</ref>

Sayre's early analysis was often ignored because of perceived feminist overtones in her book. Watson and Crick did not cite the X-ray diffraction work of Wilkins and Franklin in their original paper, though they admit having "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 and their co-workers at King's College London".<ref name="autogenerated1"/> In fact, Watson and Crick cited no experimental data at all in support of their model. Franklin and Gosling's publication of the DNA X-ray image, in the same issue of ''Nature'', served as the principal evidence:<blockquote>Thus our general ideas are not inconsistent with the model proposed by Watson and Crick in the preceding communication.<ref name="autogenerated13" /></blockquote>

===Nobel Prize===
Franklin was never nominated for a Nobel Prize.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna_double_helix/readmore.html |title=The Discovery of the Molecular Structure of DNA – The Double Helix |website=The Nobel Prize |date=30 September 2003 |access-date=25 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="Ms">{{cite journal |last=Washington |first=Harriet A. |title=Don't Forget Rosalind Franklin |journal=[[Ms. (magazine)|Ms.]] |date=31 December 2012}}</ref> Her work was a crucial part in the discovery of DNA's structure, which, along with subsequent related work, led to Francis Crick, James Watson, and Maurice Wilkins being awarded a Nobel Prize in 1962.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Beard |first=Mary |year=2001 |title=Down among the Women (Nobel Laureates) |journal=[[The Kenyon Review]] |volume=23 |number=2 |pages=239–247 |publisher=Harvard University Press |jstor=4338226}}</ref> Franklin had died in 1958, and during her lifetime, the DNA structure was not considered to be fully proven. It took Wilkins and his colleagues about seven years to collect enough data to prove and refine the proposed DNA structure. Moreover, its biological significance, as proposed by Watson and Crick, was not established. General acceptance for the DNA double helix and its function did not start until late in the 1950s, leading to Nobel nominations in 1960, 1961, and 1962 for Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, and in 1962 for Nobel Prize in Chemistry.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gann |first1=Alexander |last2=Witkowski |first2=Jan A. |title=DNA: Archives reveal Nobel nominations |journal=Nature |year=2013 |volume=496 |issue=7446 |page=434 |doi=10.1038/496434a |pmid=23619686 |bibcode=2013Natur.496..434G |doi-access=free}}</ref> The first breakthrough was from [[Matthew Meselson]] and [[Franklin Stahl]] in 1958, who experimentally showed the DNA replication of a bacterium, ''[[Escherichia coli]]''.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Meselson |first1=Matthew |last2=Stahl |first2=Franklin W. |title=The replication of DNA in Escherichia coli |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |year=1958 |volume=44 |issue=7 |pages=671–682 |doi=10.1073/pnas.44.7.671 |pmid=16590258 |pmc=528642 |bibcode=1958PNAS...44..671M|doi-access=free }}</ref> In what is now known as the [[Meselson–Stahl experiment]], DNA was found to replicate into two double-stranded helices, with each helix having one of the original DNA strands. This [[DNA replication]] was firmly established by 1961 after further demonstration in other species,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nakada |first1=D |last2=Ryan |first2=FJ |title=Replication of deoxyribonucleic acid in non-dividing bacteria |journal=Nature |year=1961 |volume=189 |pages=398–399 |doi=10.1038/189398a0 |pmid=13727575 |issue=4762 |bibcode=1961Natur.189..398N|s2cid=4158551 }}</ref> and of the stepwise chemical reaction.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dounce |first1=AL |last2=Sarkar |first2=NK |last3=Kay |first3=ER |title=The possible role of DNA-ase I in DNA replication |journal=[[Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology]] |year=1961 |volume=57 |issue=1 |pages=47–54 |pmid=13724093 |doi=10.1002/jcp.1030570107}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cavalleiri |first1=LF |last2=Rosenberg |first2=BH |title=The replication of DNA III. Changes in the number of strands in ''E. coli'' DNA during its replication cycle |journal=[[Biophysical Journal]] |year=1961 |volume=1 |issue=4 |pages=337–351 |pmid=13691706 |pmc=1366352 |doi=10.1016/S0006-3495(61)86893-8
|bibcode = 1961BpJ.....1..337C}}</ref> According to the 1961 Crick–Monod letter, this experimental proof, along with Wilkins having initiated the DNA diffraction work, were the reasons why Crick felt that Wilkins should be included in the DNA Nobel Prize.<ref name=zallen>{{cite journal |last1=Zallen |first1=Doris T. |title=Despite Franklin's work, Wilkins earned his Nobel |journal=Nature |year=2003 |volume=425 |issue=6953 |page=15 |doi=10.1038/425015b |pmid=12955113 |quote=(Crick's 31 December 1961 letter to Jacques Monod) However, the data which really helped us to obtain the structure was mainly obtained by Rosalind Franklin |bibcode=2003Natur.425...15Z |doi-access=free}}</ref>

In 1962 the Nobel Prize was subsequently awarded to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins.<ref name="Profile"/><ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=10-nobel-snubs#5 |title=No Nobel for You: Top 10 Nobel Snubs |date=6 October 2008 |magazine=[[Scientific American]] |first=Erica |last=Westly}}</ref><ref>Nobel Prize (1962).</ref> Nobel rules now prohibit posthumous nominations (though this statute was not formally in effect until 1974) or splitting of Prizes more than three ways.<ref>{{cite web |title=Posthumous Nobel Prizes |url=http://www.nobelprize.org/faq/questions_in_category.php?id=4#11 |website=The Nobel Prize |access-date=17 August 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Hartocollis |first1=Anemona |title=By Selling Prize, a DNA Pioneer Seeks Redemption |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyregion/james-watson-puts-nobel-medal-on-auction-block-at-christies.html|access-date=13 February 2015 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=3 December 2014 |url-access=subscription}}</ref> The award was for their body of work on [[nucleic acids]] and not exclusively for the discovery of the structure of DNA.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1962 |url=https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/index.html |website=The Nobel Prize |access-date=13 February 2015}}</ref> By the time of the award Wilkins had been working on the structure of DNA for more than 10 years, and had done much to confirm the Watson–Crick model.<ref>Wilkins, p. 240.</ref> Crick had been working on the [[genetic code]] at Cambridge and Watson had worked on [[RNA]] for some years.<ref name="nobel">Wilkins, p. 243.</ref> Watson has suggested that ideally Wilkins and Franklin would have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.<ref name="nobelprize.org" /> Pauling, who received the Nobel Peace Prize that year, believed and earlier warned the Nobel Committee in 1960 that "it might well be premature to make an award of a Prize to Watson and Crick, because of existing uncertainty about the detailed structure of nucleic acid. I myself feel that it is likely that the general nature of the Watson-Crick structure is correct, but that there is doubt about details."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Pauling|first=L.|date=15 March 1960|title=Letter from Linus Pauling to the Nobel Committee for Chemistry|url=http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/coll/pauling/dna/corr/sci9.001.47-lp-nobelcommittee-19600315-transcript.html|access-date=17 September 2021|website=scarc.library.oregonstate.edu|publisher=Oregon State University Libraries}}</ref> He was partly right as an alternative of Watson-Crick base pairing, called the [[Hoogsteen base pairing]] that can form triple DNA strand, was discovered by [[Karst Hoogsteen]] in 1963.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Hoogsteen K|year=1963|title=The crystal and molecular structure of a hydrogen-bonded complex between 1-methylthymine and 9-methyladenine|journal=Acta Crystallographica|volume=16|issue=9|pages=907–916|doi=10.1107/S0365110X63002437|doi-access=free|bibcode=1963AcCry..16..907H }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Nikolova|first1=Evgenia N.|last2=Zhou|first2=Huiqing|last3=Gottardo|first3=Federico L.|last4=Alvey|first4=Heidi S.|last5=Kimsey|first5=Isaac J.|last6=Al-Hashimi|first6=Hashim M.|year=2013|title=A historical account of Hoogsteen base-pairs in duplex DNA|journal=Biopolymers|volume=99|issue=12|pages=955–968|doi=10.1002/bip.22334|pmc=3844552|pmid=23818176}}</ref>

Aaron Klug, Franklin's colleague and principal beneficiary in her will, was the sole winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1982, "for his development of crystallographic electron microscopy and his structural elucidation of biologically important nucleic acid-protein complexes".<ref>{{cite web |title=The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1982 |url=https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1982/index.html |website=The Nobel Prize |access-date=21 January 2015}}</ref> This work was exactly what Franklin had started and which she introduced to Klug, and it is highly plausible that, were she alive, Franklin would have shared the Nobel Prize.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Arnott |first1=S. |last2=Kibble |first2=T.W.B. |last3=Shallice |first3=T. |title=Maurice Hugh Frederick Wilkins. 15 December 1916 – 5 October 2004: Elected FRS 1959 |journal=[[Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society]] |year=2006 |volume=52 |pages=455–478 |doi=10.1098/rsbm.2006.0031 |pmid=18551798|doi-access=free }}</ref>