Editing James Watson (section)

====Interactions with Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling====
Watson and Crick's use of [[Photo 51|DNA X-ray diffraction data]] collected by [[Rosalind Franklin]] and her student [[Raymond Gosling]] has attracted scrutiny. It has been argued that Watson and his colleagues did not properly acknowledge colleague [[Rosalind Franklin]] for her contributions to the discovery of the double helix structure.<ref name="WrongedHeroine" /><ref name="nih_embo_report">{{cite journal |last=Stasiak |first=Andrzej |date=March 15, 2001 |title=Rosalind Franklin |journal=EMBO Reports |publisher=[[National Institutes of Health]] |volume=2 |issue=3 |page=181 |doi=10.1093/embo-reports/kve037 |pmc=1083834}}</ref> [[Robert P. Crease]] notes that "Such stingy behaviour may not be unknown, or even uncommon, among scientists".<ref name="Crease-2003">{{Cite journal |last=Crease |first=Robert P. |date=2003 |title=The Rosalind Franklin question |url=https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2058-7058/16/3/23 |journal=Physics World |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=17 |doi=10.1088/2058-7058/16/3/23 |issn=0953-8585}}</ref> Franklin's high-quality X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA were unpublished results, which Watson and Crick used without her knowledge or consent in their construction of the double helix model of DNA.<ref name="nih_embo_report"/><ref name="Profile"/><ref name="Judson">Judson, H. F. (1996). ''The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology''. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, chapter 3. {{ISBN|0-87969-478-5}}.</ref> Franklin's results provided estimates of the water content of DNA crystals and these results were consistent with the two sugar-phosphate backbones being on the outside of the molecule. Franklin told Crick and Watson that the backbones had to be on the outside; before then, Linus Pauling and Watson and Crick had erroneous models with the chains inside and the bases pointing outwards.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Her identification of the [[space group]] for DNA crystals revealed to Crick that the two DNA strands were [[Antiparallel (biochemistry)|antiparallel]].

The X-ray diffraction images collected by Gosling and Franklin provided the best evidence for the helical nature of DNA. Watson and Crick had three sources for Franklin's unpublished data: 
#Her 1951 seminar, attended by Watson;<ref>{{Cite book|last=Cullen |first=Katherine E. |title=Biology: the people behind the science |year=2006 |publisher=[[Infobase Publishing|Chelsea House]] |location=New York |isbn=0-8160-5461-4 |page=136}}</ref>
#Discussions with Wilkins,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Cullen |first=Katherine E. |title=Biology: the people behind the science |year=2006 |publisher=[[Infobase Publishing|Chelsea House]] |location=New York |isbn=0-8160-5461-4 |page=140}}</ref> who worked in the same laboratory with Franklin;
#A research progress report that was intended to promote coordination of [[Medical Research Council (UK)|Medical Research Council]]-supported laboratories.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Stocklmayer |first1=Susan M. |author-link1=Susan Stocklmayer|last2=Gore |first2=Michael M. |last3=Bryant |first3=Chris |title=Science Communication in Theory and Practice |year=2001 |publisher=[[Wolters Kluwer|Kluwer Academic Publishers]] |isbn=1-4020-0131-2 |page=79}}</ref> Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Franklin all worked in MRC laboratories.

In a 1954 article, Watson and Crick acknowledged that, without Franklin's data, "the formulation of our structure would have been most unlikely, if not impossible".<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 |language=en |volume=616 |issue=7958 |pages=657–660 |doi=10.1038/d41586-023-01313-5|pmid=37100935 |bibcode=2023Natur.616..657C |doi-access=free}}</ref> In ''[[The Double Helix]]'', Watson later admitted that "Rosy, of course, did not directly give us her data. For that matter, no one at King's realized they were in our hands". In recent years, Watson has garnered controversy in the popular and scientific press for his "misogynist treatment" of Franklin and his failure to properly attribute her work on DNA.<ref name="WrongedHeroine" /> According to one critic, Watson's portrayal of Franklin in ''[[The Double Helix]]'' was negative, giving the impression that she was Wilkins' assistant and was unable to interpret her own DNA data.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Elkin | first1 = L. O. | year = 2003 | title = Franklin and the Double Helix | journal = Physics Today | volume = 56 | issue = 3 | page = 42 | doi = 10.1063/1.1570771 | bibcode = 2003PhT....56c..42E | doi-access = free}}</ref> Watson's accusation was indefensible since Franklin told Crick and Watson that the helix backbones had to be on the outside.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> From a 2003 piece by [[Brenda Maddox]] in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'':<ref name="WrongedHeroine" />

{{blockquote|Other comments dismissive of "Rosy" in Watson's book caught the attention of the emerging women's movement in the late 1960s. "Clearly Rosy had to go or be put in her place ... Unfortunately Maurice could not see any decent way to give Rosy the boot". And, "Certainly a bad way to go out into the foulness of a ... November night was to be told by a woman to refrain from venturing an opinion about a subject for which you were not trained."}}

[[Robert P. Crease]] remarks that "[Franklin] was close to figuring out the structure of DNA, but did not do it. The title of 'discoverer' goes to those who first fit the pieces together".<ref name="Crease-2003" /> [[Jeremy Bernstein]] rejects that Franklin was a "victim" and states that "[Watson and Crick] made the double-helix scheme work. It is as simple as that".<ref name="Crease-2003" /> [[Matthew Cobb]] and [[Nathaniel C. Comfort]] write that "Franklin was no victim in how the DNA double helix was solved" but that she was "an equal contributor to the solution of the structure".<ref name="Cobb-2023" />

A review of the correspondence from Franklin to Watson, in the archives at CSHL, revealed that the two scientists later exchanged constructive scientific correspondence. Franklin consulted with Watson on her tobacco mosaic virus RNA research. Franklin's letters were framed with the normal and unremarkable forms of address, beginning with "Dear Jim", and concluding with "Best Wishes, Yours, Rosalind". Each of the scientists published their own unique contributions to the discovery of the structure of DNA in separate articles, and all of the contributors published their findings in the same volume of ''Nature''. These classic molecular biology papers are identified as: Watson J. D. and Crick F. H. C. "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid". ''Nature'' 171, 737–738 (1953);<ref name="nobel" /> Wilkins M. H. F., Stokes A. R. & Wilson H. R. "Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids". ''Nature'' 171, 738–740 (1953);<ref name="pentose">{{cite journal | last1 = Wilkins | first1 = M. H. F. | last2 = Stokes | first2 = A. R. | last3 = Wilson | first3 = H. R. | year = 1953| title = Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids | url = http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/wilkins.pdf | journal = Nature | volume = 171 | issue = 4356| pages = 738–740 | doi = 10.1038/171738a0 | pmid=13054693 | bibcode=1953Natur.171..738W| s2cid = 4280080}}</ref> Franklin R. and Gosling R. G. "Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate". ''Nature'' 171, 740–741 (1953).<ref name="franklin">{{cite journal | last1 = Franklin | first1 = R. | last2 = Gosling | first2 = R. G. | year = 1953 | title = Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate | url = http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/franklingosling.pdf | journal = Nature | volume = 171 | issue = 4356| pages = 740–741 | doi = 10.1038/171740a0 | pmid=13054694 | bibcode=1953Natur.171..740F| s2cid = 4268222}}</ref>