New Insights on Rosalind Franklin’s Contribution to DNA Discovery

The narrative surrounding the discovery of DNA’s double helix structure is receiving a new perspective as historians reevaluate the roles of the key players involved. While the longstanding story credits James Watson and Francis Crick with the groundbreaking discovery, it often portrays Rosalind Franklin as a victim of data theft.

In a recent opinion piece published in Nature, historians Matthew Cobb and Nathaniel Comfort argue that Franklin was more of a collaborator than previously acknowledged. They suggest that both Watson and Crick, along with Franklin and her colleague Maurice Wilkins, were working in parallel towards solving the DNA puzzle, with a greater awareness of each other’s research than is commonly believed.

Cobb remarked, “It’s much less dramatic. It’s not a heist movie,” indicating that the interactions between the teams were more cooperative than adversarial.

The story dates back to the 1950s, when Watson and Crick were modeling DNA’s structure at Cambridge University while Franklin was conducting X-ray imaging studies at King’s College in London. Franklin famously captured Photograph 51, an X-ray image crucial to understanding DNA’s helical shape.

The traditional narrative suggests that Watson viewed Photograph 51 without permission, leading to an immediate realization of DNA’s helical structure. Comfort noted that this portrayal, influenced by Watson’s own writings, might have been a “literary device” to enhance the story’s appeal.

However, the historians uncovered new evidence indicating that Franklin was aware of the sharing of her research and that there was a collaborative spirit among the scientists. A draft of a Time magazine article, written in consultation with Franklin but never published, described the work on DNA’s structure as a joint effort. Additionally, correspondence from one of Franklin’s colleagues suggested she was informed about her data being shared with Crick.

This evidence supports the idea that Franklin, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins were equal collaborators rather than competitors. “She deserves to be remembered not as the victim of the double helix, but as an equal contributor to the solution of the structure,” the authors conclude.

Despite this updated perspective, some historians, like Howard Markel, remain skeptical, arguing that Franklin was indeed marginalized due to her gender and background in a male-dominated field. He emphasizes that Franklin’s contributions were critical, and she later made significant advancements in virus research before her untimely death at age 37.

Although Watson, Crick, and Wilkins received the Nobel Prize for their work on DNA structure, Franklin was not included—reflecting the rarity of posthumous honors. The true dynamics of their collaboration may never be completely understood, but the importance of Franklin’s contributions to the discovery of DNA’s double helix is undeniable.

Markel advocates for Franklin’s legacy to be honored: “It should be called the Watson-Crick-Franklin model.”