Editing Rosalind Franklin (section)

===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>