Blog #5: Robbery
In 1953, Francis Harry Compton Crick and James Dewey Watson published a paper that would revolutionize modern biology and medicine. The paper outlined the scientists' discovery of the double helical structure of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Years later, in 1962, Watson and Crick were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in medicine as a result of their revolutionary research and discovery.
This is only half the story, however. In reality, Watson and Crick were not pioneers of modern medicine, rather common thieves who used deceit and trickery to swindle and exploit their colleagues in an attempt to gain world recognition and secure the most coveted intellectual prize in history.
Rosalind Franklin, a female biologist researching DNA at King's College in London, was one of these colleagues. Studying DNA through the process of shooting x-rays through the molecule allowed Rosalind to gain an initial understanding of its structure. After interacting with Franklin through various scientific circles, Watson and Crick gained insight into her research and after seeing one of her most important x-ray images titled "Exposure 51," the duo immediately knew what needed to be done to officially "discover" DNA's structure. Thus, they utilized the fundamental research she completed and built off of it without her consent, going on to publish their findings independent of her lacking credit to Franklin. This resulted in Watson and Crick's receipt of the Nobel Prize and Rosalind Franklin's slow sink into the forgot world of biological prowess.
Daniela Guadarrama:
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting topic that I remember reading about in high school. I think that the misconception that Watson and Crick are the pioneers is really damaging and discourages the work done by Rosalind. How can an apology be given to her and should recognition be traded?
(Marcel Apatewen) I agree that it is vital for Rosalind Franklin to get her recognition for her contribution to the scientific community, however, in the case of things that happened decades ago, what is the best "apologetic" course of action?
ReplyDelete