A 'Roz' by any Other Name

A 'Roz' by any Other Name Nicholas Wade's disdainful appraisal of Rosalind Franklin's contribution to solving the structure of DNA is not at all convincing.1 Her social and intellectual snobbery are no more relevant than the fact that Watson and Crick abrogated their gentlemen's agreement with King's College London to abandon DNA work. It is incontrovertible that Watson and Crick would not have come up with their structure were it not for Franklin's understanding of the hydration properties of DNA, which enabled her to produce appropriate samples for X-ray analysis and to tell them that their first model (and Pauling's) could not be correct because they placed the phosphates on the inside of the molecule. The only unresolved issue is whether Watson and Crick properly acknowledged her contributions and those of others. As Wade notes, the original paper gave scant credit to others, particularly Franklin, despite the fact that the authors had done no relevant experimental work themselves. Their published statement is a model of legalistic tightrope walking, but serves mainly to mislead the reader. Abraham L. Sonenshein Professor and Deputy Chair Department of Molecular Biology and Microbiology Tufts University School of Medicine linc.sonenshein@tufts.edu *** I am sorry to say that Wade has it all wrong.1 The enigma of Rosalind Franklin has nothing to do with feminism; it's all about usurpation. There is no doubt that Franklin performed meaningful DNA research leading to a "photograph" showing the helical structure of DNA. This fact alone entitles Franklin to a share in the Nobel Prize. Let's face it: the Nobel committee made a mistake. The problem is one of mismanagement by the Nobel committee, which relies on the recommendations of so-called independent scientists rather than carrying out its own investigations. Indeed, it was the responsibility of John Randall and Maurice Wilkins, her supervisors, to petition the Nobel committee on Franklin's behalf. Their failure to do so has been the underlying root cause of this miscarriage of fairness and truth. The book, The Double Helix, is a story of two children playing with "Tinker Toys" and is not a suitable reference in this matter. I am not implying that Watson and Crick arrogated Franklin's work, but it does give one pause. Usurpation is a chronic illness in the scientific field, where supervisors and laboratory heads get their names on papers and patents with which they have had very little or no involvement. If it were not for the inanity of the State Department in refusing Linus Pauling a passport to visit Rosalind Franklin, the controversy would most certainly have taken a different turn. Is it too late to rectify this situation? In my view, the Nobel committee can award Rosalind Franklin a posthumous and special Nobel Prize with ease. There are instances when this was done by many organizations as a matter of conscience and justice. Albert Shansky Norwalk, Conn. alshansky@aol.com 1. N. Wade, "Was she, or wasn't she?" The Scientist, 17[7]:72, April 7, 2003. function sendData() { document.frm.pathName.value = location.pathname; result = false if (document.frm.score[0].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[1].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[2].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[3].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[4].checked) result = true; if (!result) alert("Please select") return result; } .myradio{background-color : #94bee5} Please indicate on a 1 - 5 scale how strongly you would recommend this article to your colleagues? Not recommended 1 2 3 4 5 Highly recommended Please register your vote

A 'Roz' by any Other Name

A 'Roz' by any Other Name

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of