Sheril KirshenbaumDec 17, 2022

Rosalind Franklin’s research was crucial to discovering DNA’s double helix structure 🧬 but it was James Watson & Francis Crick who received the credit & Nobel Prize.

Unknown to Franklin, the pair saw her unpublished data & X-ray diffraction images, inspiring their model. They never acknowledged her contribution until after her death.

How many discoveries & innovations of #women do we attribute to the men who took credit for their ideas?

https://theconversation.com/sexism-pushed-rosalind-franklin-toward-the-scientific-sidelines-during-her-short-life-but-her-work-still-shines-on-her-100th-birthday-139249 #history #science #HistoryRemix

Sexism pushed Rosalind Franklin toward the scientific sidelines during her short life, but her work still shines on her 100th birthday

Franklin was born a century ago, and her X-ray crystallography work crucially contributed to determining the structure of DNA.

The Conversation
Show threadBea FurnissDec 17, 2022
@Sheril A different perspective, here. https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/23/sexism-in-science-did-watson-and-crick-really-steal-rosalind-franklins-data If Franklin felt wronged by Crick and Watson, I very much doubt she would have become close friends with the Cricks. If I remember rightly, Francis and Odile looked after Rosalind during her final months, as she was dying of cancer.
Sexism in science: did Watson and Crick really steal Rosalind Franklin’s data?

The race to uncover the structure of DNA reveals fascinating insights into how Franklin’s data was key to the double helix model, but the ‘stealing’ myth stems from Watson’s memoir and attitude rather than facts<br>

The Guardian
Show threadPaul H (he/him)
@BeaFurniss @Sheril I find the article slightly biased. The only evidence of lack of sexism is just the "trust me, they would have done it to a man even though we can't prove it," claim made by the article's author. And then after that claim, providing clear sexist behavior on the part of Watson in the next paragraph is just how blind the author is to it. Is there clear evidence sexism played a role? No. Is there a lot of circumstantial? Sure.
Dec 18, 2022 at 2:38amTusky
Show threadBea FurnissDec 18, 2022
@pjhenry1216 @Sheril I don’t think the article is trying to argue there was a lack of sexism, when Watson was clearly sexist. What the article argues that there is more nuance to this than, ‘poor little woman has research stolen’.
Show threadPaul H (he/him)Dec 18, 2022
@BeaFurniss @Sheril I don't think it's saying anything other than "woman has research stolen" which is a legitimate claim. I'm not sure where you're getting the pity-angle from.
Show threadBea FurnissDec 18, 2022
@pjhenry1216 @Sheril if you reframed this to ‘Scientist has research stolen by rival scientist’, would you be paying as much attention to this?