[failingslowly]

My take away from the article is that Watson and Crick were the ones who finally cracked the puzzle, but that Franklin and Wilkins' (and others') findings were a key part.

It's telling that the controversy only surrounds Franklin's contributions, not Wilkins', presumably because of her gender and the need to promote women's historical contribution to science. I understand the desire to do that, as the theory goes that girls can only be interested in science if they know of women who have excelled previously. (I'm not sure I completely buy this, but I'm not about to die on that hill.)

However, I'm glad this article was published, as it gives some balance to what has become (as per) a deeply biased and divisive discussion, mostly, I have to say, by the myth-making and narratives of one side.

To add a personal anecdote, I'll note that my son was straight-up taught (by his female science teacher) that Watson and Crick did not discover the structure of DNA but stole it from Franklin. I'm still not sure I've completely disabused him of this idea.

[Maursault]

> were the ones who finally cracked the puzzle

What puzzle, precisely? That DNA is a double helix? The article makes it clear that Franklin was already aware of this fact when Watson and Crick had their epiphany. Watson's and Crick's insight that was independent of Franklin had to do with the base pairs, but every article and film and book (including Watson's) and story I know of focuses on the realization that DNA is a double helix. Turns out, that was already known by Franklin and Wilkins prior to Watson and Crick seeing Photograph 51. This changes things. Frankly, I don't even understand Watson's contribution even by his own testimony; Crick and Franklin did all the heavy lifting.

[908B64B197]

> To add a personal anecdote, I'll note that my son was straight-up taught (by his female science teacher) that Watson and Crick did not discover the structure of DNA but stole it from Franklin. I'm still not sure I've completely disabused him of this idea.

Can you imagine what else they are teaching him (with your tax dollars)?

Anti-Racist math perhaps? [0]

[0] https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...

[slibhb]

> It's telling that the controversy only surrounds Franklin's contributions, not Wilkins'

Wilkins also shared the Nobel. Franklin was dead at that point (though I don't think 4 people can share a Nobel).