Feedback: So you think you know the double helix story?

FEEDBACK: So you think you know the double helix story?

14 May 2003 15:00 GMT

by Henry Nicholls

From "nonsense" to "outstanding", feelings run high on the double-helix anniversary.

Dear Editor

Outstanding article [BioMedNet News & Features, 22 April 2003].

We need to know more about this item to do justice to the memory of others whose work was stolen by Watson and Crick & Co.

Dr Simon Schoihet
Neurosurgeon
Chile

Dear Editor

What nonsense! Watson and Crick clearly credit Franklin and Wilkins in their original short paper in Nature. Watson also explicitly recounts the contribution of Chargaff and amplifies the part played by the team at Kings College in providing the essential data in his book The Double Helix. It is important to note that even though these other scientists had access to all of this data, they failed to make the "eureka" leap, which is the way science advances. They were all content to continue plodding along and collecting ever more data. If the world waited for them to make the inductive leap we might still be waiting.

It also seems to me that Crick gets insufficient credit for the work he did on the mathematical analysis of the translation of the scattering diagram pattern to a helical molecular structure. That was key to the final discovery from Photograph 51.

It seems to me that much of this controversy over credit is a tempest in a teapot inspired by feminists looking for another "victim" to parade around or authors looking for a hook upon which to hang a sensationalist book. The ultimate vindication of Watson and Crick came from Franklin herself, who spent her last time on earth living with Crick and his wife before she passed away from cancer. That hardly seems like the act of a scientist resentful that she was "cheated" of credit.

Martin H. Wohl
Chesterfield, MO

15 May 2003		Today's News Stories News Archive


FEEDBACK: So you think you know the double helix story? 14 May 2003 15:00 GMT by Henry Nicholls From "nonsense" to "outstanding", feelings run high on the double-helix anniversary. Dear Editor Outstanding article [BioMedNet News & Features, 22 April 2003]. We need to know more about this item to do justice to the memory of others whose work was stolen by Watson and Crick & Co. Dr Simon Schoihet Neurosurgeon Chile Dear Editor What nonsense! Watson and Crick clearly credit Franklin and Wilkins in their original short paper in Nature. Watson also explicitly recounts the contribution of Chargaff and amplifies the part played by the team at Kings College in providing the essential data in his book The Double Helix. It is important to note that even though these other scientists had access to all of this data, they failed to make the "eureka" leap, which is the way science advances. They were all content to continue plodding along and collecting ever more data. If the world waited for them to make the inductive leap we might still be waiting. It also seems to me that Crick gets insufficient credit for the work he did on the mathematical analysis of the translation of the scattering diagram pattern to a helical molecular structure. That was key to the final discovery from Photograph 51. It seems to me that much of this controversy over credit is a tempest in a teapot inspired by feminists looking for another "victim" to parade around or authors looking for a hook upon which to hang a sensationalist book. The ultimate vindication of Watson and Crick came from Franklin herself, who spent her last time on earth living with Crick and his wife before she passed away from cancer. That hardly seems like the act of a scientist resentful that she was "cheated" of credit. Martin H. Wohl Chesterfield, MO