Hi: I'm impressed with your coverage here! It seems to make parts of my blog superfluous :) Since reading this a few days ago I have been otherwise occupied (life goes on outside of steemit 😁) and have waited to comment on your two excellent posts.
Thank you for discussing the slight of Rosalind Franklin and the ignoble behavior of Watson, Crick and Wilkins. It would be out of character for me not point out some discrepancy I believe may exist between your post and the actual record--I do this for Rosalind Franklin and her honor. This discrepancy may be partly due to Watson's bad mouthing of Franklin after her death. I looked up some material, to be certain of my facts, and found this quite extensive coverage of her role in unraveling the puzzle of DNA: Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix (2003 article in Physics Today).
An extended quote from that article:
... her notebook entries starting in January 1951 clearly show that she was making significant progress toward solving those two final aspects of DNA structure. After reading an article by June Broomhead, 6 and studying other related papers, she had used the keto configuration for at least three of the four bases. She was aware both of Jerry Donohue’s work concerning tautomeric forms of bases and of Chargaff’s work (see figure 4).
Astbury and Bell’s earlier, less clear diffraction photographs and later data of Wilkins suggested some of the data that Franklin derived from her photograph #51. But Franklin’s results were much more precise than the Astbury and Bell data, which showed neither an X pattern nor layer lines. Astbury and Bell themselves described their results as “still rather obscure.” After Oxford crystallographer Dorothy Hodgkin helped her to eliminate two of three possibilities she had calculated, Franklin described the correct crystallographic space group for DNA in the 1952 MRC report.
Only after Crick obtained Franklin’s data—his thesis adviser, Max Perutz, agreed to give him a copy of the 1952 report and Watson had seen photograph #51—was he sufficiently convinced to start constructing the backbone of the successful DNA model. He recognized the similarity of the space group Franklin had calculated to that of his thesis molecule, hemoglobin, and immediately deduced that there would be an antiparallel orientation between the two DNA coaxial fibers. Within one week, he started modeling the correct backbone in a manner compatible with Franklin’s data. On several occasions, Crick has acknowledged that the data and conclusions in the 1952 report were essential.
Franklin’s 17 March 1953 draft
On 18 March 1953, Wilkins penned a letter acknowledging receipt of the Watson and Crick manuscript that described the structure of DNA. A day earlier, Franklin, who was preparing to leave for Birkbeck, polished an already written draft manuscript outlining her conclusions about the double-helix backbone chain of B-form DNA. 7 Franklin only slightly modified her draft to prepare her April 1953 Nature paper, which appeared as the third in a series that led off with the famous Watson and Crick proposal. Partly as a consequence of its placement, Franklin’s paper seemed merely to support Watson and Crick’s work. But Franklin’s data played far more than just a supporting role—
It seems Franklin had quite a good grasp of what she had discovered and also that some of her insight helped to steer Watson and Crick (along with Pauling) in the right direction. You do indicate this in your blog.
My understanding of the 'obituary' she penned with Gosling was that it was satiric, a jibe at the underhanded role Wilkins had played in the misappropriation of Photo 51.
As usual, this was a great post. I'm impressed with your mastery of the details...way beyond my ken.
As for your most recent post. Get ready. I'm rested and reading. It is, as always a challenge, and--as I think you intend--a bit of a tease.
Thanks again for your detailed reading and commenting!
The historical aspect of the case I guess needs further study. There are probably biases in how the case is reported by different parties, which makes it all the more difficult. Some facts might be suppressed. If I ever make a new version of this post, I'll be sure to study the history in more detail.
Your blogs are always so good. Top tier here on Steemit, in my opinion. There are always questions that arise in my mind when I read your material...this is natural for me whenever something presents substantial ideas.
Reading up on sexual dimorphism in animals right now--thanks for that :)