Researchers in the history of science published in Nature magazine how the contribution of British chemistry was hidden and the way in which a legend was built that covered up the result of their work.
DNA is the popular molecule that makes up the cells of organisms on the planet. 70 years ago James Watson and Francis Crick published in the journal Nature what marked a milestone in science: what the double helix structure of DNA was like.
But in the “kitchen” of that scientific feat , there was a story of espionage, suspense and the invisibility of a woman . Watson and Crick did not explicitly mention that, in doing their 1953 work, they had relied on data from the works of scientist Rosalind Franklin .
Today, and also in the journal Nature , an article was published with evidence showing that Rosalind Franklin was one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA on an equal footing with scientists James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins.
The scientist was born in 1920 and died at the age of 37 from ovarian cancer. In 1962, Watson, Crick and Wilkins won the Nobel Prize in Medicine “for their discoveries on the molecular structure of nucleic acids and their importance for the transfer of information in living matter.”
In his speech at the Nobel ceremony, Watson also failed to acknowledge that Franklin (who had died four years earlier) had also contributed to that great achievement.
Over the last five decades, and with the advancement of the feminist movement in the world, Franklin’s story slowly began to come to light.
Today’s new paper by Matthew Cobb , of the University of Manchester, in the United Kingdom, and Nathaniel Comfort, of Johns Hopkins University in the United States, provided evidence that changes the legend that has been built about the discovery of the structure of DNA.
Legend has it that the key moment of the discovery was when Watson was shown an X-ray image of the DNA that was from Franklin’s laboratory. She had not given permission for the image or its data to be shown to Watson, nor was she aware of the fact.
The image is known as “Photograph 51 ,” and is considered “the philosopher’s stone of molecular biology,” Cobb and Comfort wrote. “It has become the emblem of both Franklin’s achievement and his mistreatment,” they opined. Legend has it that the scientist was the one who had the photo. But it was said that the woman had been unable to interpret the image and decipher its own data.
Researchers Cobb and Comfort visited Franklin’s archive at Churchill College, Cambridge , in the United Kingdom, and found a draft of a hitherto unstudied press article. It was written by journalist Joan Bruce who had consulted Franklin. It was going to be for Time magazine , but it was never published.
Also in the archive they found a letter that one of Franklin’s colleagues wrote to Crick. Taken together, these documents demonstrate that Franklin did understand the structure of DNA .
In dialogue with Infobae , Dr. Cobb, who is a zoology researcher and scientific communicator, stated: “We consider that Franklin was an equal member of the quartet of scientists who solved the double helix of DNA.”
From that view, Cobb mentioned, “We mean that Franklin was neither a stubborn fool who didn’t understand her own data, like the view presented in the book The Double Helix , which was written by Watson.”
“ We also do not consider that she was the forgotten heroine whose data was stolen. On the contrary, the scientist’s data contributed essentially to the discovery,” Cobb said. He clarified: “This discovery was not a ruthless and exciting race for the secret of life as it is now perceived.”
Another fact that is generally overlooked is that in 1953, in addition to the publication of Watson and Crick’s paper, Franklin published a paper in the same journal on the subject. Also in June of that year, the Royal Society made a presentation of the find and showed it as the result of a joint effort, Cobb and Comfort recalled.
In the new article, Cobb and Comfort considered that it is essential to know Franklin’s history well. “He not only faced the prevalent sexism of the time, but also more subtle forms rooted in science, some of which are still present today,” they expressed.
Consulted by Infobae , doctor in physics Diego Lamas , researcher at Conicet and the National University of San Martín, in Argentina, and an expert in crystallography who has carried out different public activities to make Franklin’s contributions visible, stated: “It is interesting that More evidence has been published showing that the scientist was a co-author of the discovery on equal terms with the three scientists. There was an article from 1974 that also went in that direction.”
“In their 1953 article, Watson and Crick admit at the end that they used information from Franklin. But of course they don’t say that they had access to a draft of the article she was writing about her research with her student Gosling,” she stressed.
For the Argentine scientist, it must be highlighted that “today not only marks the 70th anniversary of the Watson and Crick article. It is also 70 years since the publication of the article by Rosalind and Raymond Gosling. It was precisely the article that contains the famous Photo 51 and that was published on the same day and in the same edition . It was the third work of that Nature trilogy on DNA in 1953. But then Franklin’s contributions were overshadowed.”
Franklin could have been worthy of two Nobel Prizes, according to Lamas. “Because in addition to working on the structure of DNA, he applied X-ray crystallography to determine virus structures of interest for agriculture”. Aaron Klug was a British chemist and biochemist, who continued Rosalind’s work and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1982.
Franklin also developed work on porous carbon structures that were used to make gas masks. “He did brilliant work,” said Dr. Lamas. “70 years have passed. “It is time to put Franklin in his rightful place in the history of science.”
Source: Infobae – Nature
Author: Valeria Román
Date: 25 Abr, 2023 08:34 p.m. 16 Jun, 2023 02:41 p.m. ESP
Note: Nutrigenomics Institute is not responsible for the opinions expressed in this article.
