This is where researcher James Watson and graduate Francis Crick entered the chase to discover the secret of DNA’s structure. They were stationed at Cambridge University and had become interested in the concept, impressed especially by Pauling's work. Meanwhile at King's College in London, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin were also studying DNA. The Cambridge team's approach was to make physical models to narrow down the possibilities and eventually create an accurate picture of the molecule. The King's team took a more experimental approach, looking particularly at x-ray diffraction images of DNA. Franklin had developed new pictures by advancing the X-ray resolution to a new level of clarity and sophistication.
In 1951, Watson attended a lecture by Franklin on her work to date. She had found that DNA could exist in two forms, depending on the relative humidity in the surrounding air. From this she deduced that the phosphate part of the molecule was on the outside of the structure. Watson returned to Cambridge with a rather indistinct recollection of the facts Franklin had presented, (though clearly critical of her lecture style and personal appearance). Based on this information, Watson and Crick created their fist model, but it was soon found to be incorrect. This resulted in the head of their unit requesting them to discontinue their DNA research. But the subject was just too enthralling in the eyes of the two scientists, and they continued their ‘research’.
Franklin, working mostly alone, found that her x-ray diffractions showed that the ‘wet’ form of DNA (in the higher humidity) had all the characteristics of a helix. She suspected that all DNA was helical but did not want to announce this finding until she had sufficient evidence to support this. The Kings’ experimenters received no success with their findings in that they could not construct a plausible configuration of the DNA. Their data was published alongside the Watson and Crick paper but because they had not provided a compelling model for DNA structure, their work was overlooked. Wilkins was frustrated, having received no solid results. In January 1953, he showed Franklin's results to Watson, apparently without her knowledge or consent.
Combining this new research information with their own theories, Watson and Crick took a crucial conceptual step. They suggested that the molecule was made up of two chains of nucleotides, each in a helix as Franklin had found. Crick added Chargaff's findings about base pairs to the model, proposing that matching base pairs interlocked in the middle of the double helix to keep the distance between the chains constant.
Watson and Crick showed that each strand of the DNA molecule was a template for the other. During cell division the two strands separate and on each strand a new "other half" is built, just like the one before. This way DNA can reproduce itself without changing its structure - except for occasional errors or mutations.
The structure so perfectly fit the experimental data that it was almost immediately accepted. DNA's discovery has been called the most important biological work of the last 100 years, and the field it opened may arguably be the scientific frontier for the next 100. By 1962, when Watson, Crick, and Wilkins won the Nobel Prize for physiology/medicine, Franklin had died, aged 37. The Nobel Prize only goes to living recipients, and can only be shared among three winners. Were she alive, would she have been included in the prize?
Occasionally, one reads press stories that refer only to Watson and Crick, and of Cambridge, making no mention of King's. The double helix rapidly became an icon of science, aesthetically beautiful, and stunning in its capacity to explain how DNA is replicated in order to transmit the genetic material to the next generation.
Without doubt, Rosalind Franklin was responsible for much of the research and discovery work that led to the understanding of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA. There is a serious question of ethics surrounding Wilkins' sharing and Watson's non-acknowledgement of Franklin's contribution. She was a committed perfectionist who would not have been at all pleased had she known the full story. An article co-authored by Franklin and Raymond Gosling describing their research, which showed two forms of DNA and one having a helical structure, appeared in the same issue of Nature that contained the article by Watson and Crick.
You could say that Franklin was just unlucky and that she would have undoubtedly been honoured for her work had she been alive. There is an equally strong counter argument saying that as she had not made the discoveries about the double helix’s structure, she did not deserve the same amount of credit as Watson and Crick. When it comes down to it, both parties should have acknowledged that a scientific discovery is itself a remarkable event, based on previous scientists own discoveries. To attribute it solely to one person or another could be considered mercenary. As the facts are common knowledge today, it seems irrelevant to me who received the award as nowadays nobody can question that Franklin played as big a part as any in the discovery of the structure of DNA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watson and Crick describe structure of DNA
1953
Photo: Model of DNA molecule
In the late nineteenth century, a German biochemist found the nucleic acids, long-chain polymers of nucleotides, were made up of sugar, phosphoric acid, and several nitrogen-containing bases. Later it was found that the sugar in nucleic acid can be ribose or deoxyribose, giving two forms: RNA and DNA. In 1943, American Oswald Avery proved that DNA carries genetic information. He even suggested DNA might actually be the gene. Most people at the time thought the gene would be protein, not nucleic acid, but by the late 1940s, DNA was largely accepted as the genetic molecule. Scientists still needed to figure out this molecule's structure to be sure, and to understand how it worked.
In 1948, Linus Pauling discovered that many proteins take the shape of an alpha helix, spiraled like a spring coil. In 1950, biochemist Erwin Chargaff found that the arrangement of nitrogen bases in DNA varied widely, but the amount of certain bases always occured in a one-to-one ratio. These discoveries were an important foundation for the later description of DNA.
In the early 1950s, the race to discover DNA was on. At Cambridge University, graduate student and research fellow James Watson (b. 1928) had become interested, impressed especially by Pauling's work. Meanwhile at King's College in London, Maurice Wilkins (b. 1916) and were also studying DNA. The Cambridge team's approach was to make physical models to narrow down the possibilities and eventually create an accurate picture of the molecule. The King's team took an experimental approach, looking particularly at x-ray diffraction images of DNA.
In 1951, Watson attended a lecture by Franklin on her work to date. She had found that DNA can exist in two forms, depending on the relative humidity in the surrounding air. This had helped her deduce that the phosphate part of the molecule was on the outside. Watson returned to Cambridge with a rather muddy recollection of the facts Franklin had presented, though clearly critical of her lecture style and personal appearance. Based on this information, Watson and Crick made a failed model. It caused the head of their unit to tell them to stop DNA research. But the subject just kept coming up.
Franklin, working mostly alone, found that her x-ray diffractions showed that the "wet" form of DNA (in the higher humidity) had all the characteristics of a helix. She suspected that all DNA was helical but did not want to announce this finding until she had sufficient evidence on the other form as well. Wilkins was frustrated. In January, 1953, he showed Franklin's results to Watson, apparently without her knowledge or consent. Crick later admitted, "I'm afraid we always used to adopt -- let's say, a patronizing attitude towards her."
Watson and Crick took a crucial conceptual step, suggesting the molecule was made of two chains of nucleotides, each in a helix as Franklin had found, but one going up and the other going down. Crick had just learned of Chargaff's findings about base pairs in the summer of 1952. He added that to the model, so that matching base pairs interlocked in the middle of the double helix to keep the distance between the chains constant.
Watson and Crick showed that each strand of the DNA molecule was a template for the other. During cell division the two strands separate and on each strand a new "other half" is built, just like the one before. This way DNA can reproduce itself without changing its structure -- except for occasional errors, or mutations.
The structure so perfectly fit the experimental data that it was almost immediately accepted. DNA's discovery has been called the most important biological work of the last 100 years, and the field it opened may be the scientific frontier for the next 100. By 1962, when Watson, Crick, and Wilkins won the Nobel Prize for physiology/medicine, Franklin had died. The Nobel Prize only goes to living recipients, and can only be shared among three winners. Were she alive, would she have been included in the prize?
