Talk:Rosalind Franklin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Rosalind Franklin as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.
Peer review Rosalind Franklin has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
To-do list for Rosalind Franklin: edit · history · watch · refresh
List of improvements (please add to this list be specific)
  1. Add more information about her personal life.
  2. more detail on her time working on coal and graphite.
  3. More detail about whether she had the impression from Randall that she and Gosling alone would be working on the x-ray diffraction of DNA, this was certainly Wilkins's impression and that of Klug, and may have contributed to her perception of interference from Wilkins.
  4. Need to add more information about what Crick and Watson knew of Franklin's work (and where they got it) in winter of '52/'53.
  5. Include more information from the letters to Science in 1968.

Contents

[edit] IS THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL REALLY NECESSARY

IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO USE CAPS ALL THE TIME? Alun 05:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Her uncle was Herbert Samuel (later Viscount Samuel) who was Home Secretary in 1916 and the first practicing Jew to serve in the British Cabinet.[4] He was also the first High Commissioner (effectively governor) for the British Mandate of Palestine.

Her aunt Helen was married to Norman Bentwich who was Attorney General in the British Mandate of Palestine.[5] She was active in trade union organization and women's suffrage, and was later a member of the London County Council.[6][7]"

The short answer is no, it isn't! It is self-indulgent and tells you nothing about Rosalind Franklin herself! = )

Nitramrekcap

What do you mean by "necessary"? If you want to include only informaton that is necessary, then we could just leave the introduction and leave out any other material. What is necessary is for us to say whay she is famous. What makes a good encyclopaedia article is not only including what is necessary. This is a biographical article, background and context are important. Franklin's family were toffs, so we say they were toffs, and we provide certasin evidence that they were toffs. It's called establishing context. The real question is why you feel so strongly that this information, which is directly relevant to Franklin and does not take up a great deal of space, needs to be removed? You keep making unecessary picky changes for no reason. The article is not perfect, but there's no need t make unecessary changes. If you have new info, or have better sources then that's great, but I don't understand why you feel you need to make changes just for the sake of it. Alun 05:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Irish Pearl" needs to debate the above, rather than merely reverting! This article does need editing to make it more easily readable; it does not need a history of the Franklin family. Nitramrekcap

Don't tell other users what they need to do. Please remail civil.Alun 05:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Revised Introduction

Now reads:

"Rosalind Elsie Franklin (25 July 1920 – 16 April 1958) was an English physical chemist and crystallographer who made important contributions to the understanding of the fine structures of DNA, viruses, coal and graphite. Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray Diffraction images of DNA which formed a basis of Watson and Crick's hypothesis of the double helical structure of DNA in their 1953 publication,[1] and when published constituted critical evidence of the hypothesis.[2] In the years following, she led pioneering work on the tobacco mosaic and polio viruses. She died in 1958 of bronchopneumonia, secondary carcinomatosis, and carcinoma of the ovary; her death certificate read (quote) "A Research Scientist, Spinster, Daughter of Ellis Arthur Franklin, a Banker."

But I do have have serious doubts about "Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray Diffraction images of DNA which formed a basis of Watson and Crick's hypothesis of the double helical structure of DNA in their 1953 publication,[1] and when published constituted critical evidence of the hypothesis.[2]" as all this does is open up the age old, rather tired debate over attribution. No mention is made of the contribution made by Maurice ["The Forgotten Man of DNA"]Wilkins of course - for which he was awarded his share of the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. The vandalism in the next paragraph ("born in Asia") has been repaired.

84.66.200.104 20:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LYNNE ELKIN'S BIOGRAPHY OF ROSALIND FRANKLIN

Anyone who can contribute to Lynne Elkin's forthcoming biography of Rosalind Franklin should contact her on: lynne.elkin@csueastbay.edu

  • Lynne Osman Elkin, Ph.D., Professor of biological sciences at California State University in Hayward, who has dedicated much of her studies to researching Rosalind Franklin's scientific contributions.

See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/photo51/elkin.html

See: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-3/p42.html (also: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-3/p14c.html)

See also: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/2005/apr1/franklin.htm

81.77.243.66 17:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] She died in 1958 of bronchopneumonia, secondary carcinomatosis, and cancer of the ovary

Why put the emphasis on cancer of the ovary [ie carcinoma of the ovary] when there is ample space in the introductory paragragh for her other two as serious medical conditions? If anyone wants to disagree, you should debate it here and not just revert to the previous version!

84.68.70.227

POORLY SPELT VANDALISM?

"As a result of her initial groud-breaking work that was taken from by Frances Crick and James Watson without Dr Franklin's permisson this was one of the contributing factors to her early death at only 38 years old. ""

REMOVED!

ENGLISH NATIONALITY/JEWISH RELIGION?

I suggest the following is inappropriate: "Rosalind Elsie Franklin (25 July 1920 – 16 April 1958) was an English-Jewish physical chemist and crystallographer who made important contributions to the understanding of the fine structures of DNA, viruses, coal and graphite."

So '-Jewish' has been deleted; as ever, rather than revert - can you please debate this point?

91.108.47.55

Jewish shouldn't appear in the first sentence; if she was Catholic, it wouldn't read "English Catholic."--Gloriamarie 04:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"before she could receive the Nobel Prize which was awarded in 1962 to Watson, Crick, and her colleague Maurice Wilkins, whose role in the discovery consisted of showing Franklin's X-ray diffraction photograph to Watson and Crick.[1]"

The above is unnecessary in the opening paragraph so it has been deleted - so please discuss here?

Martin

91.108.11.37 07:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to whoever reinstated the original Discoverers of the Structure of DNA earlier as it looks a lot better with a more comprehensive list from William Astbury to Maurice Wilkins!

Nitramrekcap —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:46, August 21, 2007 (UTC).



[edit] REFERENCE NO. 92 DELETED

"It is not known what would have happened if Franklin had still been alive, because the Nobel Prize cannot be split more than three ways.[2]"

This is a non sequitur - ie defined as 'a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premisses - so unless anyone can justify it being included, it has been deleted as unnecessary.

Nitramrekcap

[edit] CHOICE?
DNA pioneers
William Astbury
Oswald Avery
Erwin Chargaff
Max Delbrück
Jerry Donohue
Raymond Gosling
Phoebus Levene
Linus Pauling
Sir John Randall
Erwin Schrödinger
Alec Stokes
Herbert Wilson
Rosalind Franklin

Discovery of the DNA Double Helix
[[Image:|154px]]

Rosalind Franklin
Francis Crick
Rosalind Franklin
James Watson
Maurice Wilkins
Cavendish Laboratory
King's College London
Photo 51
Rosalind Franklin
Discovery of the DNA Double Helix
[[Image:|250px]]
Rosalind Franklin
William Astbury Oswald Avery
Francis Crick Erwin Chargaff
Jerry Donohue Rosalind Franklin
Phoebus Levene Linus Pauling
Erwin Schrödinger Alec Stokes
James Watson Maurice Wilkins

IT'S TIME FOR A DEMOCRATIC DECISION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Furthermore your "choices" represent no choice at all. The choices are what we make them. Any template can be changed and amended, depending on the consensus on a talk page. As I remember it you were strongly opposed to the template you now favour at one time because you objected to the strong use of colour in the template. Other editors have objected to the inclusion of people only marginally concerned with the events of 1953. The real question then is: Should the template represent the key players in the discovery made in 1953, or should it represent all people involved with the discovery of the structure of DNA, a list considerably longer than that given even in the version you offer. I suggest this compromise. We use two templates, the smaller version that I favour and another template that contains all of the other people involved. Alun 10:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I have just noticed this posting. It is worth having another go at asking why Max Delbrück gets a mention in this template. Q. Did he do any research on DNA? - A. No Q. Did he believe that DNA held genetic information? - A. No. Q. Well, what did he do? - A. His ideas led Schrödinger to write a book which in turn was read by the DNA researchers. This highly indirect connection does not give him enough brownie points in my opinion to appear in the template on the discovery of the structure. Judson's book Eighth Day of Creation quotes David Baltimore, the President of Caltech as saying "The genetics community, particularly around Luria and [Max] Delbrück, never seemed to appreciate that Avery —this is now 1944—and his colleagues had published a paper that quite clearly showed that as chemically pure DNA as you could get would transfer genetic characteristics. And yet the idea that DNA was the carrier of genetic information really didn’t take hold." The book also quotes James Watson as saying "neither Luria nor Delbrück thought in terms of molecules." How then can he appear on a template for the discovery of a structure that he didn't work on and didn't even believe in? JMcC (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This discussion goes back two years on Template talk:Double helix, which is the more correct forum for it. The bone of contention seems to be between User:JWSchmidt and yourself. I don't have a problem with what you say, you could have a go at removing his name from the template, there seems to be no consensus regarding his inclusion one way or the other. Why don't you just remove his name, and say why you are doing it on the temlate talk page and see what happens? Be bold as they say. If it gets reverted then let's not have an edit war. All the best. Alun (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair-use image?

Hi there, I'd like to include an image of Rosalind Franklin on the DNA page but can't use this one since this is a copyrighted picture. Are any editors aware of a free equivalent? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been pottering about on this page for some time, but as far as I know there are no free images of Rosalind Franklin. Most of the images are snapshots of her anyway, but they all seem to have a known provenance, making them automatically copyright I believe? We don't even have an image of the famous Photo 51 on this page due to copyright nonsense, though it has it's own article, so at least there is an image of it on Wikipedia. I even went so far as to include a free electronmicrograph of TMV just so we would have some images here at all. Sorry I can't be more help. User:Nitramrekcap may know a great deal more about this than I do. I used to have his email address, I can see if I can find it for you if you like. All the best. Alun (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be great to find one, any help would be appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maddox

Looking through the references trying to find what all these cites for "Maddox" are... have I gone completely stir-crazy, or is the citation for whatever book Mr/Ms Maddox wrote missing? I'm rather curious to read more about Ms Franklin, and the mysterious Maddox seems like a good start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.98.32 (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Maddox" means Brenda Maddox and the book Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. ISBN 0060184078. I'll try to figure out what is wrong with the reference list. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the damage was done back in September. I'll try to do some repairs to the reference list. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When was Franklin recruited for KCL by Randall?

Can anyone throw any light on the critical comment made by Horace Freeland Judson in his review of Matt Ridley's biography of Francis Crick, as the apparent error has now been repeated in the new paperback version? Does Ridley get the recruitment date by Randall wrong by several months?

""Ridley also fails to reach the origins of the historic conflict between the other scientists working for the structure, Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins at King’s College London. Wilkins had been getting important new X-ray-diffraction patterns from DNA. Franklin, an X-ray crystallographer, was recruited in the spring of 1950 (not in December, as Ridley writes)."

(NATURE|Vol 443|26 October 2006) Recruited in the spring of 1950 or in the December? See pp 51!

91.110.226.167 (talk)NITRAMREKCAP91.110.226.167 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that June 1950 counts as Spring rather than Summer, the reference in the article (22) taken from Maddox appears to be correct: "In 1950 she sought work in England[21] and in June 1950 she was appointed to a position at King's College London.[22]" Brenda Maddox, page 111. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.226.167 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Horace Freeland Judson goes onto say: "She joined the lab in January 1951, and Ridley makes no mention of a meeting she had then with the physicist Alexander Stokes and a graduate student, Raymond Gosling, at which John Randall, the lab’s director, gave her a supply of the best DNA they had and appointed Gosling her assistant. Crucially, Wilkins was away on vacation. Franklin had every reason to think the DNA was exclusively hers. When Wilkins returned and expected to collaborate with her, she shut him out. He grumbled about her to Crick and Watson, and in February 1953 he notoriously showed Watson an X-ray diagram she had obtained — which they interpreted as she had failed to do." Anyone want to comment? (NATURE|Vol 443|26 October 2006)

91.108.18.219 (talk)nitramrekcap91.108.18.219 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Martin, appointed and recruited are two different things are they not? Her recruitment may have been in the spring, but it may have taken a month or two to confirm her appointment. It hardly amounts to a hill of beans though. Alun (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, Alun - but it was of sufficient importance for HFJ to comment on in his review; I always think a true scientific biography should have references, just like those in your REF article. The ommission of the Franklin/Gosling/Randall/Stokes meeting IS 'a MOUNTAIN of beans'!

MP

91.110.151.179 (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] REINSTATEMENT OF WORDS DELETED (IN BOLD) FROM RECOGNITION SECTION

"The wording on the DNA sculpture (which was donated by James Watson) outside Clare College's Thirkill Court, Cambridge, England is:

On the base:

"These strands unravel during cell reproduction. Genes are encoded in the sequence of bases."

"The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins."

On the helices:

"The structure of DNA was discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson while Watson lived here at Clare."

"The molecule of DNA has two helical strands that are linked by base pairs Adenine - Thymine or Guanine - Cytosine."

The aluminium sculpture stands fifteen feet high. It took a pair of technicians 1 fortnight (2 weeks) to build it. For the artist responsible it was an opportunity to create a monument that brings together the themes of science and nature; Charles Jencks, Sculptor said "It embraces the trees, you can sit on it and the ground grows up and it twists out of the ground. So it's truly interacting with living things like the turf, and that idea was behind it and I think it does celebrate life and DNA".

I would suggest the fact that James Watson himself donated the sculpture to Clare College (and no doubt had the last word on the text which appears on it) is very important and in the absence of an image, the description tells you something about the sculpture itself? Anyone looking at the new sculpture will realise that the discovery of the structure of DNA was a product of both the efforts of staff from Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge and King's College, London's laboratory.

I cannot imagine that either Franklin or Wilkins would be unhappy with the phrase:"The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins." but that Sir John Randall felt he had good cause to be unhappy with the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge!

[edit] Bob Olby's new biography of Francis Crick due in December 2008

Francis Crick: A Biography by Robert Olby; Hardback - ISBN 9780879697983; ? 2008; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; Price: $TBA

"This engrossing biography by one of molecular biology' s foremost scholars reveals the remarkable evolution of Francis Crick' s scientific career and the shaping of his personality. From unpromising beginnings, he became a vital contributor to a remarkably creative period in science. Olby chronicles Crick' s life from his early studies in biophysics, to the discovery of the structure of DNA, to his later work in neuroscience and the nature of consciousness. This account is woven together with insights into his personal life gained through access to Crick' s papers, family, and friends. Robert Olby's book is a richly detailed portrait of one of the great scientists of our time."

Contents d Time Line Introduction 1. "You're a Dog If You Haven't Got A Nobel Prize" 2. A Difficult Act to Follow 3. From the Provinces to the Big City 4. War Work for the Royal Navy 5. Biology at the Strangeways 6. Helical Molecules at the Cavendish Laboratory 7. The DNA Fiasco 8. Two Pitchmen in Search of A Helix 9. A Most Important Discovery 10. Publishing the Model 11. Employed by the John Wayne of Crystallography 12. The Genetic Code 13. Preaching the Central Dogma 14. Crick as Experimentalist 15. Speaking out on Controversial Subjects 16. Biological Complexity 17. Leaving the ' Old Country' 18. Taking the Plunge: Neuroscience 19. From the Searchlight to the Soul 20. Eighty-eight Years Biographical Index Subject Index

No doubt whatever Professor Olby has to say about Rosalind Franklin will be used to further improve this article; suffice it to say if she had sought Crick's advice, he would have helped her!

91.108.6.32 (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why delete the second sentence?

The wording on the new DNA sculpture in Clare College's Thirkill Court includes the words: "The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins." The sculpture was donated to Clare College by James Watson of Watson and Francis Crick.

What possible justification is there for deleting the very short second sentence please? nitramrekcap 91.110.192.94 (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The wording on the DNA sculpture in Clare College's Thirkill Court includes the words: "The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins";the sculpture was donated to Clare College by James Watson of Watson and Francis Crick. nitramrekcap 91.110.198.120 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Were I to venture a guess, it looks OR-ish, as if trying to say that Watson felt guilty or something. Otherwise you might want to ask Alun on his/her talk page. Personally I think there's going to be a lot of recognition of RF's work, and every one isn't really needed. I think in-text versions discussing her work on DNA, more specifically how her work tended to be glossed over (i.e. Watson or Crick making a speech or updating The Double Helix or whatever) are best choices. I don't know about stuff like statues. Also, per WP:PROVEIT, the uncited text can be removed at will; surely any reference that mentions the statue will mention that Watson donated it, and why the dedication says what it does? WLU (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Harker

No obvious connection with REF, but can anyone throw any light on this phrase please: "the John Wayne of crystallography was the description given by Luzzati+ of David Harker, the American X-ray crystallographer"?

One wonders how Rosalind Franklin can best be described in the same way?

+Vittorio Luzzati, a crystallographer at the Centre for Molecular Genetics in Gif-sur-Yvette near Paris, France nitramrekcap 91.110.198.120 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vittorio Luzzati

The article makes no reference to her close friend VITTORIO LUZZATI, Alun - do please add him in!

"Laboratoire central des services chimiques de l'État

After the war ended Franklin accepted an offer to work in Paris with Jacques Mering.[5] She learned x-ray diffraction techniques during her three years at the Laboratoire central des services chimiques de l'État.[6] She seemed to have been very happy there[7] and earned an international reputation based on her published research on the structure of coal.[8] In 1950 she sought work in England[9] and in June 1950 she was appointed to a position at King's College London.[10]" nitramrekcap 18:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop SHOUTING in your titles, it's unnecessary. Based on my reading of Maddox's book, Luzzati was a pretty big part of her life. Unfortunately I've returned it to the library, so I can't really contribute. Nitreamekap, is there a reason you can't add, or suggest an addition yourself? I'm not being sarcastic, sometimes the page is protected or there's an arb/ANI posting I'm not aware of. More specifically, what do you think should be said about her relationship to Luzzati? Unfortunately there's no wikipedia article about him to link to. WLU (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the caps. WLU! I have asked John Schmidt to create a new Vittorio Luzzati page asap!! Hopefully Alun/Wobble will check Brenda Maddox's book and add Luzzati into the article? Nitramrekcap (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is he notable enough for his own article? I'm not saying he's not, I am just saying that I don't know if he is. I only ask because a google search of his name produces many results that are mainly concerned with his association with Rosalind Franklin, and not about him or his work, of course there are also results to scientific papers published by him, but the publication of scientific papers is not enough for notability, all academics publish scientific papers. Notability is most important, and I don't think his friendship makes him notable enough to have his own article. On the other hand there is no reason why we should not mention him in this article, they were clearly close friends for a long time, but there are others who probably should also be mentioned as well, for example Anne Sayre is only mentioned in the citations, but she's a notable person and was a friend of Franklin's. What makes it so imperative to mention Luzzati specifically? Should we have a "personal life" section where we can give some details of hobbies, friendships etc? Alun (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alun, have you read the late Maurice Wilkins's autobiography yet? If not, you should do! There are at least two sides to every argument, and all of us need to have a more balanced approach to what Wilkins himself calls "the tensions, accusations, confusions, and controversies that have attended the telling and retelling of the DNA story" (preface, page x); I trust you agree on today of all days? I will continue working on the Wilkins article and leave Franklin to you, but hopefully Lynne Elkins will do REF 'justice' when her new biography is published in the future.

  • Wilkins, Maurice, "The Third Man of The Double Helix", OUP 2003; ISBN: 978-0-19-280667-3.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery"

As there is no article to link to, I have removed the [[ ]] around this book's title, Alun.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation required?

A sculpture of DNA in Clare College includes the words: "The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins"[citation needed]

I can personally vouch for the wording as I took a note of them a long time ago; what I object to is the way the reference to this sculpture (donated by James Watson) has been reduced to so few words as to make this 'posthumous recognition' reference meaningless, in my opinion.

But if someone really wants a "citation" (sic) for the DNA sculpture, try the following URL's:

www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_ely/displayarticle.asp?id=160947 Published: 10/11/2005

www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_cambridge/displayarticle.asp?id=268669 Published: 09/11/2005

www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_cambridge/displayarticle.asp?id=263199 Published: 30/09/2005

of which the third one ("WORKMEN installing a sculpture at a Cambridge college had a lucky escape when it exploded, causing panic in the city") is the funniest! Over to you Alun Nitramrekcap (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Foundation

The following may be of interest regarding the award of the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, following the recent creation of the Rosalind Franklin Society in the U.S.A.:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/

§ 4. A prize amount may be equally divided between two works, each of which is considered to merit a prize. If a work that is being rewarded has been produced by two or three persons, the prize shall be awarded to them jointly. In no case may a prize amount be divided between more than three persons. Work produced by a person since deceased shall not be considered for an award. If, however, a prizewinner dies before he has received the prize, then the prize may be presented. Each prize-awarding body shall be competent to decide whether the prize it is entitled to award may be conferred upon an institution or association.

§ 10. No appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize. Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. Should divergent opinions have been expressed in connection with the decision of a prize-awarding body concerning the award of a prize, this may not be included in the record or otherwise divulged. A prize-awarding body may, however, after due consideration in each individual case, permit access to material which formed the basis for the evaluation and decision concerning a prize, for purposes of research in intellectual history. Such permission may not, however, be granted until at least 50 years have elapsed after the date on which the decision in question was made.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correction to birthplace

To quote from Sir Aaron Klug’s Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Rosalind Franklin:

‘Franklin, Rosalind Elsie, (1920-1958), crystallographer, was born at Chepstow Villas, Notting Hill, London, on 25 July 1920, the elder daughter and second of the family of five children of Ellis Arthur Franklin (1894-1964), merchant banker of London, and his wife, Muriel Frances Waley….’).

Nitramrekcap (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Rosalind Franklin

  • Aaron Klug: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on R.E. Franklin, OUP, Matthew H.C.G. Ed., first published Sept 2004; online edn, Jan 2007, 1840 words; ISBN: 019861411X

has been reinstated as Klug was obviously such a close friend and colleague of R.E. Franklin; this 2004 article needs to be used for her Wikipedia profile, as it is an important reference.

It is available on-line: http://www.oxforddnb.com/ for paid subscriber/institution (library) free access; was featured "Life of the Day" on 16th April 2008, 50th anniversary of her death.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent ERROR on her birthplace?

Can anyone validate the following: "GRO Register of Births: SEP 1920 1a 250 KENSINGTON - Rosalind E. Franklin, mmn = Waley" = as both Klug and Maddox say it was in Notting Hill? The confusion may have arisen because of the 'Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea' perhaps!

Brenda Maddox on page 13 refers to "the Western end of Bayswater, now fashionable as Notting Hill."

Nitramrekcap (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Both these facts are consistent. Notting Hill is part of the registration district of Kensington. For validation of the Birth entry - see http://www.freebmd.org.uk I have no problem with adjusting the birthplace to become Notting Hill and keeping the existing GRO reference, as proof. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ian, thanks for making the change! It is a change to get some agreement on this article; I have tried the above URL but without success (it seems dreadfully complicated!) so does the Birth Entry give the precise address where she was born as Klug's "Chepstow Villas, Notting Hill" is not consistent with what little Brenda Maddox has to say? I have asked Professor Robert Olby for his version from his biographical article - but it would be nice to get it 100% right for Franklin's next biographer, Lynne Elkin! [Not much doubt over exactly where she died in 1958.]

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)