{"id":874295,"date":"2026-10-07T19:46:12","date_gmt":"2026-10-07T19:46:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/874295\/"},"modified":"2026-10-07T19:46:12","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T19:46:12","slug":"james-watson-suggested-rosalind-franklin-missed-the-dna-double-helix-her-notes-say-otherwise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/874295\/","title":{"rendered":"James Watson Suggested Rosalind Franklin Missed the DNA Double Helix. Her Notes Say Otherwise"},"content":{"rendered":"

Biologist James D. Watson is famous for co-discovering DNA\u2019s double helix structure. However, Watson appears to have greatly underplayed Rosalind Franklin\u2019s contributions to the Nobel-winning discovery, which hasn\u2019t gone unnoticed by historians and scientists. But a new study offers an unusual bit of evidence\u2014hidden between the lines of Franklin\u2019s lab notes.<\/p>\n

Published in the Journal of the History of Biology<\/a>, the essay argues that Rosalind Franklin did not miss her image\u2019s significance as evidence of DNA\u2019s helical structure, as Watson\u2019s account of his first encounter with Photograph 51 implied. According to the paper, the earlier Photograph 49 used the same DNA sample as 51, and Franklin\u2019s own notes strongly suggest that she recognized its importance. The same notes indicate 49 wasn\u2019t good enough to publish, so Franklin adjusted the camera and took a better version: Photograph 51, which helped reveal DNA\u2019s double helix structure.<\/p>\n

\"CompositeA composite image showing how Photograph 51 was further cropped for publication. \u00a9 Sutton et al., 2026 <\/p>\n

By suggesting she simply didn\u2019t \u201cget it,\u201d colleagues and later commentators \u201crhetorically erased her skill and judgment by describing it as though nature spoke for itself through the image\u2014and to Watson, but not to Franklin,\u201d study co-authors Alistair Sponsel and Brian Sutton, a historian and crystallographer at the Science History Institute and King\u2019s College London, U.K., respectively, wrote in the paper.<\/p>\n

The human and the scientist <\/p>\n

James Watson\u2019s memoir, The Double Helix, was published a decade after Franklin\u2019s premature death in 1958. Franklin, therefore, never got to read it herself and respond to descriptions that biographer Brenda Maddox later called \u201cflamboyantly cauvinist<\/a>\u201d in a 2003 Nature essay (to Watson\u2019s credit, he commended<\/a> Franklin\u2019s achievements as a scientist in the preface and epilogue.)<\/p>\n

Regardless, the autobiography gave the impression of \u201csomething like willful deafness on Franklin\u2019s part\u201d that Photograph 51 demonstrated the double helix, according to the newly published essay. That interpretation unfortunately stuck, also in part because Franklin\u2019s lab notes on Photograph 51 were lacking compared to her other notes.<\/p>\n

\"Franklin\u00a9 Sutton et al., 2026 <\/p>\n

However, what Sponsel and Sutton argue is that it was no \u201chappy accident\u201d that Franklin \u201cfailed to exploit\u201d what was presented in Photograph 51. Rather, the photo only exists because of Photograph 49: the \u201cresearch,\u201d or less visually appealing version of 51\u2014but detailed enough for Franklin to interpret as a helix. \u201cThis passage of notes [on Photograph 49] filled far more space in her laboratory notebooks than did the discussion of any single previous DNA diffraction pattern,\u201d the team wrote.<\/p>\n

Indeed, her notes on Photograph 51 are \u201cstarkly\u201d simple, but for a different reason than previously believed, or a \u201crefined image taken after the fact to document that experiment\u2019s particularly successful outcome,\u201d the pair added.<\/p>\n

Between the lines <\/p>\n

Regrettably, we\u2019re unable to confirm with Franklin that all this was in fact her intention. However, outside experts consulted by Science<\/a> on the new work generally seemed convinced by its conclusions. For instance, science historian and journal editor Betty Smocovitis said Franklin \u201cknows exactly what\u2019s in front of her\u201d and that the latest analysis \u201cadds justice, that\u2019s what it adds.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Rosalind\u00a9 MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology via Wikimedia Commons <\/p>\n

Oxford crystallographer Elspeth Garman, who has written about Franklin\u2019s work, also noted how Franklin was an \u201cexperimental perfectionist,\u201d so retaking a significant sample is \u201cjust what I would do if I had a big result,\u201d she said. Sutton explained to Science that a crystallographer can understand another crystallographer\u2014namely, the reason Franklin seemingly shifted her focus from Photograph 51 for a brief while.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m a crystallographer, so I want data-rich photos,\u201d he said. \u201cI can\u2019t do much with a photograph that only has six spots on it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cHowever, merely highlighting Franklin\u2019s technical acumen risks damning her with faint praise for her contributions to the discovery of the double helix,\u201d the pair added in the paper. The new analysis demonstrates how Franklin was a scientist fully capable of designing complex experiments and leading a lab of students and staff\u2014and delivering consequential results (yes, I think the authors may be big fans). So, let\u2019s keep celebrating her legacy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Biologist James D. Watson is famous for co-discovering DNA\u2019s double helix structure. However, Watson appears to have greatly…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":874296,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[1155,368098,79],"class_list":["post-874295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-science","tag-dna","tag-history-of-science","tag-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/874295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=874295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/874295\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/874296"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=874295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=874295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=874295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}