Here's the link to the NOVA program telling the story of Rosalind Franklin's key contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA. Secret of Photo 51. Watson, Crick and Wilkins were awarded the Nobel Prize for the structure of DNA in 1962. Rosalind Franklin died prematurely in 1958, should she have received the Nobel Prize along with Watson, Crick and Wilkins?
Please post a response to this article and question by Monday.
I do think that Rosalind Franklin should have received a Nobel prize in addition to Watson, Crick and Wilkins because she discovered the foundation to what the guys later expanded on. I don't know if it was necessarily "not fair" that she didn't get one because she was dead when Watson, Crick and Wilkins discovered WHY what she discovered was important. I think that looking back, she should have received one, but it technically makes sense that at the time she didn't.
ReplyDeleteI think Rosalind Franklin should be at least credited for helping Watson and Crick, in one way or another, with their own paper. The lady who was interviewed made it seem like Watson and Crick were kinda just guessing at their work, and didn't really have concrete evidence to support their work. And because of that, they used Rosalind Franklin's. I dont know if she should get the Nobel Prize, since she didnt actually HELP or COLLABORATE with Watson and Crick.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jlor in that I believe Rosalind Franklin should gotten more credit for her research. Franklin provided the evidence for Watson and Crick to discover the double helix structure of DNA. She suggested a double helix structure before Watson and Crick, and it was unfortunate that she didn't publish her work sooner. Elkin seems to be taking a lot of leaps of faith in asserting that Franklin had a huge role in discovering the model by suggesting evidence that ultimately proved helpful to Watson and Crick. But because she didn't actually conclude that DNA was a double helix structure, I don't think she should have won the Nobel Prize
ReplyDeleteRosalind Franklin's contributions toward determining the structure of DNA are substantial to say the least. Photo 51 has proven crucial in verifying the shape of DNA. In fact, Watson and Crick needed to refer to her work to realize that the bases belonged on the inside of the double helix, not the outside. However, did Rosalind Franklin deserve the Nobel Prize? Simply put, no. As far as we know, she did not draw the conclusions from the evidence. Elkin suggests that she had all the tools necessary to do so, but may have been too cautious to take the leap of faith. As Jlor points out before me, Franklin did not collaborate directly with Watson or Crick. It is widely known that the two relied heavily on Franklin’s work, but Franklin still cannot be credited for drawing the final conclusion, for pulling the trigger and just saying it outright. Elkin claims that Watson and Crick were, more or less, "guessing" when they published their ideas, whereas Franklin would base her conclusions on no less than concrete, undeniable proof. I think it was improper for Elkin to rank Watson, Crick, and Franklin based on their levels of intuition.
ReplyDeleteFrom my limited understanding of the situation, Watson and Crick’s gamble seemed to have paid off, whereas Franklin’s conservative and cautious approach to science relegated her to the backseat. It’s important to keep in mind that Watson, Crick, and Wilkins were not mere thieves who stole other people’s work to take the limelight themselves; Watson himself has stated that Franklin should have received the prize. In spite of all this, did Rosalind Franklin receive the recognition she deserved? No, it has been revealed that she wasn’t even nominated for the prize while she was alive. Is her lack of recognition a product of sexism? Maybe. Perhaps it was the nominating committee’s excuse to use her death as the main reason she did not receive the prize, but it would not be right or justified to say so. One thing is certain: the race for scientific discovery is just that, a race. And although competition in the scientific world can be unfair or merciless, it produces results, and ultimately makes for a slightly better understood universe.
Franklin, In my opinion, worked really hard. My prior expectations of what she did were...understatements. I was shocked to know what an impact she had on the structure of DNA. Yes, Watson and Crick did make the discovery, but they hit plenty of roadblocks they couldn't have bypassed without Rosalind. It goes without saying that Franklin was tossed to the curb. Why?
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is fundamentally wrong that Franklin has not received as much credit for the discovery of the double helix model, as she should. It is evident that her work was disregarded and not credited when they announced their discover, and even prior. But on the contrary... Although I am limited in my knowledge of scientific inquiry and research, I am uncertain as to weather she should have received the noble prize. It seemed to me, from reading the article and as well as learning about her in class, that she took an obdurate and stubborn attitude towards her analysis of her evidence. If this is true, then we should consider the fact that science is not about what you want things to be or what they should be. You must make objective evaluations putting aside all subjectivity on the issue.
ReplyDeleteI realize that I may be posing an ignorant argument but even so, this should still be taken into slight consideration when evaluating this moment in history.
I do not believe that Franklin got the credit she deserved for all her work. She provided the work, research, and evidence that led Watson and Crick in discovering the structure of the DNA. Franklin had even suggested that the structure could be that of a double helix before Watson and Crick. Although i believe she could have received more credit for her work had she gotten the chance to publish it, I still think it would have been difficult for her to receive the full credit she deserved because of the fact that she was a woman. Though her work should be better credited in aiding the discovery of the structure of the DNA, I do not think that Franklin should have won the Nobel Prize because she never ended up actually coming to the conclusion that the structure of the DNA was in fact a double helix.
ReplyDeleteFranklin's contributions to the discoveries of Watson and Crick were substantial, as everyone's mentioned here and as Watson himself apparently acknowledged, and the interviewee makes a compelling case for Franklin's worthiness for the Nobel prize, but the fact remains that she was reluctant to take her research in the direction Watson and Crick were going. Had she lived, things would have been different because she would have continued researching and publishing her findings and who knows, maybe she would have gained recognition and insisted on being credited. The unfinished state in which she left her work, though, and the fact that she didn't actively help Watson and Crick in their work make it difficult to imagine that she could ever have received the Nobel.
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe that she should have been credited fairly, but it's hard to say whether or not she should get a Nobel for kind of unintentionally supplying some other scientists with the missing link for their works.
Watson and Crick did get a lot of their facts and ideas from Franklin, so Elkin makes a convincing argument about why Franklin was important in their process of figuring out the double-helix structure of DNA. However, Franklin didn't actually discover the structure of DNA, as important as her contributions were. Since she died, it is impossible to know whether or not she would have figured out that DNA had a double-helical structure. The Nobel prize committee has to award prizes based on actual discoveries and advancements, and Franklin's work, while a major contributing factor to the discoveries of Watson and Crick, was only research. Franklin never presented a thesis or paper stating that DNA was in the shape of a double helix.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dr. Elkin in that Rosalind Franklin has been unfairly written out of DNA structure history. However unjust, the truth is that Franklin didn't quite reach the intricate details that Watson and Crick put together, such as base-pairing. Even though Watson and Crick discovered out the structure of DNA based off of research by Franklin, Jerry Donahue and information from Wilkins, the fact of the matter is that they were the ones who pieced it all together. Unfortunately, Franklin wasn't able to make the leap of faith required to fully understand DNA structure before her death, and this might have cost her the Nobel Prize. Whether or not Franklin truly should have recieved the Nobel Prize, her work has left a lasting imprint. She will always be remembered for her outstanding research and evidence, especially in regard to her Photo 51.
ReplyDeleteRosalind Franklin definitely should have recieved some sort of credit for her work. The interview seemed to imply that there was no one whose work Watson and Crick depended on more than hers. If she had lived longer, it is possible that she could have figured out the structure before Watson and Crick, or maybe along with them. However, seeing as Watson and Crick depended more on their intuition and made more "leaps of faith" than Franklin did, maybe they still would have figured it out first. It's impossible to really know what would have happened. However, as it was, I don't know if she should have recieved the Nobel prize. Scientists have depended on each other's work in the past, but that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone who had a part in the process of a discovery gets equal credit. I think it would generally go to the people who finally put all the information together, and in this case those people are Watson and Crick. It should definitely be noted that they depended on Franklin's work, but I'm not so sure whether that recognition should have been part of the Nobel prize.
ReplyDelete