Talk:Rosalind Franklin/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →

Contents

Randall said

"Randall had said that Franklin alone would be working on DNA" <-- Please provide a source to support this statement. --JWSchmidt 21:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

John, I suggest we now ALL take a break from updating the 'Franklin' page, ie everyone concerned has read most of the relevant literature? We could 'nit-pick' every single statement until the cows come home otherwise! The important thing is to go back to original sources, such as Crick's/Wilkins' autobiographies (and dare I say Watson's?) plus commentators such as Freeland Judson and Olby, and biographers such as Maddox (on Franklin) and Olby (on Crick). If Alun, you and I take a backseat and let all the emotional aspects subside, we could ultimately end up with a more balanced article on R.E. Franklin. OK? 195.92.168.176 18:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC) (Martin)

I have given you this information before, JWSchmidt. From Randall's letter to her before she started at Kings: This means that as far as the experimental x-ray effort is concerned there will be at the moment only yourself and Gosling.. this is quoted in Brenda Maddox's biography (I though you said you were reading it?), I'm sure other sources quote this letter as well, as Martin seems to think that Maddox's book is a pack of lies. Actually Martin seems to think that every source which contradicts his opinion is a pack of lies (which is why he can't differentiate between an opinion and a fact). Anyway this was just a quick visit, I'm still not going to continue to be actively involved in this article for the near future, I'm off to lac operon, it's less opressive there. So you two are at liberty to turn Dr. Franklin's page to a shrine to DNA to your heart's content.Alun 06:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
There is a distinction that can be made between those who actually do experiments and those who contribute in other ways to a research project. It is not uncommon for someone with technical expertise to be hired specifically to perform a certain type of technically demanding experiment. This does not mean that other people in the laboratory will not also continue to work on the project. In particular, it makes no sense to imagine that a laboratory manager (Randall) would unilaterally decide to prevent someone like Wilkins (who had spent years studying DNA and who had produced the results that formed the basis for Franklin's research on DNA) from continuing to work with Franklin on the project. As far as I can tell, the only reason to translate Randall's letter into this conclusion, "Randall had said that Franklin alone would be working on DNA," is in order to try to manufacture a justification for Franklin's decision to not collaborate with other researchers at King's College. However, it is an assumption to conclude that Franklin refused to collaborate because she had been told by Randall that only she would work on DNA. Franklin may have concluded that this is what Randall had meant, but that does not mean that she understood correctly what he had said. Even if Franklin had made an honest error in jumping to the conclusion that nobody else at King's would be working on DNA, when the Assistant Director (Wilkins) later came to her and explained the situation, she should have accepted the fact that it made sense for her to collaborate with Wilkins and Stokes. Later, when Wilkins could not solve this management problem and had to take the problems he was having with Franklin to Randall, it is clear that Randall's decision was that Wilkins should be allowed to also work on DNA. Franklin still refused to collaborate. Wilkins then had to try to obtain yet another source of purified DNA because Franklin would not share the original DNA sample with Wilkins, even though they were working in the same laboratory and he was the very person who had originally obtained the good DNA sample and showed how to use it for X-ray diffraction work. I think we need to be clear about the difference between "Randall had said that Franklin alone would be working on DNA" and "Franklin decided that she alone would be working on DNA". --JWSchmidt 14:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The article used to say Randall implied that Franklin alone would be working on DNA. I know this because I wrote it. I think Martin changed it, so no wonder it's less accurate now.
So where is your evidence that Franklin was someone with technical expertise (to be) hired specifically to perform a certain type of technically demanding experiment? You have said this before, that Franklin was basically a technician. I would like to see your evidence for this, she was a post-doctoral scientist with a world class reputation in x-ray diffraction, I think your personal antipathy to the woman is colouring your objectivity. It is the same with Randall's letter, you are not prepared to read it as it is, you need to interpret it in a certain way in order for it to conform to your anti-Franklin prejudice. You have been doing this persistently on this talk page, I refer you to your previous comments about Franklin's character. You have consistently tried to explain the behaviour of others by claiming mitigating factors, while only ever trying to condemn Franklin for the way she behaved. I have asked you to try to take a more even handed approach, but you persist in your attempts at character assassination. I do not understand what your motivation is.
Later, when Wilkins could not solve this management problem and had to take the problems he was having with Franklin to Randall, it is clear that Randall's decision was that Wilkins should be allowed to also work on DNA
Is this management problem the same as the problems he was having with Franklin? Why couldn't he solve them, it would be instructive to understand why? It couldn't be because he handled it poorly could it? or would it be too much for you accept that someone other than Franklin may also have been at fault? It may have been clear that Randall's decision was that Wilkins should be allowed to also work on DNA, but it is not clear that they should have been working together, or that he was to work on the x-rays. It seems quite clear to me that while Randall should have demanded that his senior investigators work together, he failed to explicitly do so, resulting in a ridiculous division of work, which slowed progress and ultimately led to others finding the structure. The reason for this cannot, with any fairness, be placed at the door of the most junior member (Franklin) of the academic staff involved. You are once again absolving the men of any responsibility with regard to their actions, while using Franklin as a scapegoat.

Franklin may have concluded that this is what Randall had meant, but that does not mean that she understood correctly what he had said.

Or possibly she was absolutely correct, and it is you who are wrong? You cannot build a good article based on speculation and personal interpretation.Alun 03:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Replies: "So where is your evidence that Franklin was someone with technical expertise (to be) hired specifically to perform a certain type of technically demanding experiment? You have said this before, that Franklin was basically a technician."

I never said that "Franklin was basically a technician". This is your creation. Randall needed someone with experience in performing X-ray diffraction studies. Franklin was such a person.

  • Your reference to people being hired ..specifically to perform a certain type of technically demanding experiment is practically a definition of a technician, whereas she was employed as a post-doctoral scientist, and so would also have contributed as an academic, as well as doing experimental work. You have made this technical expert statement before.Alun 19:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
We all know that Franklin was not hired as a technician. (I also know of no evidence that she was ever treated as a technician by anyone at King's College.) However, there are only a few reasons why scientists are hired to work in a research laboratory. An example of a common reason would be that scientist X had worked on DNA in laboratory Z and wanted to continue working on DNA in a second laboratory that also works on DNA. In such situations, it is not uncommon for the scientist to be hired by the second lab with the intention of being able to learn and use additional new techniques for the study of DNA that were not available in the first laboratory. Some postdocs move from lab to lab in this way learning the techniques that can be used to attack a particular problem. Another reason for hiring a scientist might be that a laboratory wants to start new work using a technique that has previously not been well utilized in that lab and the laboratory needs an expert with past experience using the technique. This in no way implies that the hired scientist who has the needed technical expertise is a technician. We can certainly talk about Franklin as an expert in X-ray diffraction without anyone thinking that we are trying to imply that she was a technician. --JWSchmidt 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"You have consistently tried to explain the behaviour of others by claiming mitigating factors, while only ever trying to condemn Franklin for the way she behaved."

We have been exploring possible reasons for why people behaved the way they did. I have not condemned Franklin and I am not "anti-Franklin". I think it is reasonable to suggested that her lack of training and past experience in how to work with collaborators on a biological problem contributed to her failure to collaborate with other scientists while at King's College.

  • Or maybe she was fed up with being patronised? She seems to have had few problems working with others in her other lines of research, so it cannot have been entirely her fault that there was no collaboration. The very fact that she was the junior scientist implies that at least some of the fault lies elswhere, and yet you seem only to be able to make allowances for others.Alun 19:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"you persist in your attempts at character assassination. I do not understand what your motivation is."

I suggest that your characterization of my comments as "character assassination" is not correct. My motivation is that wikipedia provide a correct account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. This must at some level deal with Franklin's refusal to collaborate. You seem to have adopted the view that Franklin had to refuse to collaborate because the only form of collaboration that was offered to her was that she work as a technician. In my view, this idea has no demonstrated basis in fact and many known facts contradict the idea. We have to look past your explanation and find additional pieces of the puzzle, even if they might not reflect favorably on Franklin.

  • I think you are displaying a bias against Franklin, you are probably unaware of this. I do not think that you are treating Franklin's behaviour (and the reasons for it) with the same level of understanding that you are prepared to show to the other people involved. You often claim that she was unwilling to collaborate, but you never try to understand why she was not. Whereas you continually try to understand the motivation of others. Maybe character assassination was a bit harsh, sorry for that.Alun 19:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
"you never try to understand why she was not" For the record, I am trying to understand. So far, all I have done is state that I am skeptical about the explanation given by Maddox and I have tried to suggest that when she came to King's College Franklin was unfamiliar with the way collaborations usually work when a laboratory is dealing with complex biological problems. --JWSchmidt 20:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"Is this management problem the same as the problems he was having with Franklin? Why couldn't he solve them, it would be instructive to understand why? It couldn't be because he handled it poorly could it?"

I hope to learn Wilkins' side of the story by reading his autobiography.

  • So do I. But they should all shoulder some of the blame.Alun 19:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"You are once again absolving the men of any responsibility with regard to their actions, while using Franklin as a scapegoat."

You are putting words in my mouth. I've never said that Franklin alone is to blame for her failure to collaborate.

  • You have strongly implied it, you have even mentioned her character as a reason. I am quoting you ..she was reluctant to cooperate with and listen to other people. If we think about the scientific community that Franklin joined in 1951, I think we can see that her behavior was outside of the norms. This looks to me as if you trying to attribute blame for King's failiure to Franklin. You make no attempt to try to interpret Franklin's behaviour, or come up with any expalation as to why she behaved like this, but you do these things all the time for the other people you mention. For example you said I think it is only with a kind of warped hind-sight that we can now conclude that it was Watson who behaved badlyAlun 19:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
"You make no attempt to try to interpret Franklin's behaviour, or come up with any expalation as to why she behaved like this, but you do these things all the time for the other people you mention."
When I first came to the Franklin article and this talk page a few weeks ago, I found what struck me as some statements that needed to be supported by references. In the course of these reference checks, we have had some discussions on this talk page aimed at producing a correct description of the events related to Franklin's role in the discovery of the structure of DNA. I have made some suggestions that attempt to explain Franklin's behavior, suggestions that some others may find little value in. If my suggestions are to be dismissed, I hope they are dismissed on the basis of the evidence.
It is, of course, possible that I am unaware of important sources of information about the events at King's College from 1950-1954. If so, the constructive solution is for others to cite the relevant sources. This has been my goal from the start. --JWSchmidt 21:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I am happy to continue with reference checking. What has struck me is that during the course of checking the references you have (and I hasten to add this is just my opinion) proceeded to try and interpret certain quotations and certain sources (which I have assumed contradict your preconceived idea of the events) with a spin which I have perceived as, not anti-Franklin per se, but certainly more understanding of the motivations of others than of those of Franklin. I am sorry if this offends you, but if you attempt to interpret ambiguous evidence in a certain light, then you must expect others to challenge you, and you must accept that by their very nature these ambiguous sources can and will be interpreted in another light. While all this speculation is taking up lots of time and talk page space, it is not really getting us anywhere, because you cannot put an interpretation of a source or quotation into the article, because by it's nature the interpretation will be POV. While I think it is an excellent idea to check the facts and references, if they are correct then they should remain and it should be for the reader of the article to draw their own conclusions. I have time and again asked Martin to be specific about any complaints in the article, but none have been forthcoming, if you find any factual inaccuracies then please remove them, and state why on the talk page, this is the purpose of a fact and reference check after all.Alun 12:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
"you cannot put an interpretation of a source or quotation into the article" <-- this is the heart of the matter. The problem is that wikipedia editors MUST interpret the available sources in order to write a coherent description of historical events. Even decisions about which sources to include and cite are based on subjective interpretations of which sources are "most correct". In order to expose biased interpretations of historical events, we should be totally transparent in our efforts: transparency is achieved by citing sources. I think we are making progress, but the list of references that is now in the article shows a heavy reliance on one source (Maddox). This is dangerous. I have read the Maddox account of the discovery of the DNA double helix and I find it to be in serious conflict with other published accounts (mainly from Crick, Watson, and Horace Judson). This is why I have previously warned (on this page) about the dangers of too much reliance on only one source or point of view. Personally, I still have to read the Wilkins autobiography before I can even contemplate making serious edits to the Franklin article. Until then, I will continue to ask others to cite their sources and I will attempt to contribute interpretations of events that are based on what I have already read. --JWSchmidt 14:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Even decisions about which sources to include and cite are based on subjective interpretations of which sources are "most correct". This tends to ignore the way wiki pages develope. People usually just drop a couple of facts that they think they know into an article, and it developes in a patchwork way. It's why the fact and reference check is such a good idea. Most pages are unreferenced, I know because I've started to tag them recently. But this page will never be finished, it will be continually chopped and changed. I added a lot of facts after I read Maddox's book because I thought there was a large part of her life missing from the article, it was basically just about DNA. These are mainly run of the mill facts that the two or three biographies about her will just repeat, there seems little point in multiply referencing things like the school she went to, or that her Uncle was Herbert Samuel. Although I knew a bit about his involvement in the Palestine from other books I had read, so I could at least use one other reference source. As far as I can tell Maddox's book is the only general biography of Rosalind Franklin. Anne Sayre's book is called Rosalind Franklin and DNA, and so is specifically about the small part of her career she spent working on DNA. And you are right, this is the problem, because that's all you are really interested in. I keep meaning to write a section on her work with TMV, but seem to spend all my time on the talk page for some reason (wonder why that could be?). You do not seem to be at all interested in Rosalind Franklin's life, only on a tiny part of her career. I am assuming this is why you think that biographies of other people can somehow shed light on her life. I wonder what Wilkin's biography will teach you about her work at BCURA for example? Not much would be my guess, but then as I say, you aren't really interested in Rosalind Franklin at all, are you?.Alun 19:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
As you said, "People usually just drop a couple of facts". In my case, I had been working on the John Turton Randall page and wanted to make sure that certain other pages correctly linked to that page. When I came to the Franklin page I requested a search for references to support some of the statements on the page. My interest in the Franklin article centers on my larger interest in making sure that wikipedia gives a coherent account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. I think the DNA part of the Franklin article is particularly important because most people will come to the Franklin article because of her role in the discovery of the doublr helix. I think it is a good idea that all of Franklin's life be expanded upon in the article, but you are right, I am not really interested in doing that work myself. --JWSchmidt 21:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"Or possibly she was absolutely correct, and it is you who are wrong? You cannot build a good article based on speculation and personal interpretation."

There are many reasons why I find it hard to accept your belief that Randall had designated Franklin as the only scientist at King's who would work on X-ray diffraction of DNA. I have a problem imagining that Randall could have thought in this manner: "Wilkins has spent years working on DNA, and obtained the excellent sample of purified DNA, and discovered how to use this DNA for X-ray diffraction studies, and collected the best X-ray diffraction images ever obtained for DNA, so I have decided that he should stop working on this project and allow Dr. Franklin, who has no experience with DNA or biological research, to be the only person working on the project." I have previously explained that in my view, it seems much more likely that Randall assumed that Franklin would function as part of a normal collaboration in which people like Wilkins and Stokes would help to interpret the new experimental data that Franklin and Gosling collected.

--JWSchmidt 18:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not my belief and I never claimed it was. You have misrepresented what I have said, and have done this before. I said that it is possible that your interpretation is wrong. The quote from the letter is at best ambiguous.Alun 19:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
You previously (near the start of this section) cited Randall's letter to Franklin to support this statement: "Randall had said that Franklin alone would be working on DNA." Based on that, I assumed that you believed that Randall had told Franklin that she alone would be working on DNA. I'm sorry if I jumped to a mistaken conclusion about your state of mind. --JWSchmidt 19:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
No I used the the citation to support my edit, which had read that Randall had implied that Franklin alone was to work on DNA. Implied that and said that are different things. I did not make the edit to change it to said that and so do not need to justify it. Personally I think that implied is more correct, as the letter isn't explicit, as you correctly point out. As I said the letter is ambiguous. I think we agree on this point. Where we differ is that I can fully understand why there may have been a missunderstanding as to the meaning of the letter (and we have not established what Randall really meant, and probably never will, this is all speculation), whereas you are taking the position that Franklin had jumped to the wrong conclusion. There is no doubt that this is possible (but not verifyable, unfortunately), but if she had, do you not agree that it was the responsibility of her superiors (either Randall or Wilkins, or both together) to explain her mistake to her?Alun 11:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I hope that the Wilkins autobiography includes an account of the interaction between Franklin and Wilkins. My expectations and understanding of the Wilkins-Franklin relationship are guided by my experiences from working in research laboratories and reading about research done in other laboratories. There are different cultures in various fields of science. I suspect that within the field of crystallography there was a culture in which each molecule and substance was viewed as a problem to be solved; it is even possible that in the early days of the field there was a practice by which there was little competition, with each problem being assigned to one researcher. Franklin seems to have had experiences in which she took full personal responsibility for investigating the structures she worked on. I have never read a coherent explanation for how it came to be that Franklin was the only author of the articles describing the work she did in Paris. According to Maddox, Franklin had some personal problem with her boss. However, it seems clear that rather than learning how to collaborate, she learned how to work alone. This independent scientific style was in conflict with what was then the developing culture in molecular biology research. In particular, Randall was developing an interdisciplinary research center that was bringing together the skills of physicists, chemists and biologists. Success depended on the exchange of ideas from different disciplines and collaborations between people with different skill sets and backgrounds. The accounts I have read indicate that during her time at King's College, Franklin repeatedly resisted attempts of other scientists to engage with her in normal collaborative interactions. I'm not sure what you imagine when you suggest that, "it was the responsibility of her superiors (either Randall or Wilkins, or both together) to explain her mistake to her?" I have previously said that it is my best guess that Randall would have delegated Franklin to the administrative care of Assistant Director Wilkins. Wilkins tried to collaborate with Franklin. He was rebuffed and I would not be surprised if Franklin told Wilkins that Randall had assigned DNA to her and her alone. Eventually, Wilkins and Randall probably agreed that Franklin's attitude was damaging to the laboratory, and even if Franklin had reason for thinking that she "owned" x-ray crystallography of DNA at King's, this was not true. It probably would have been a major embarrassment for Randall to have to set up a second effort in x-ray crystallography of DNA simply because Franklin would not collaborate with other King's scientists. But by this time Franklin had already made clear that it was her intention to leave King's and Randall had approved the move. Wilkins and Randall were aware (mainly by way of Watson) that in some sense there was an international race for the discovery of the structure of DNA and that King's was in danger of losing the race if they did not get their act together. However, Franklin still held the upper hand because she would not share the Signer DNA, the DNA that Wilkins had originally obtained and showed could be used for X-ray diffraction. Wilkins went to the United States to get additional DNA, but the new DNA he could obtain was not suitable for X-ray diffraction. He was forced to sit on his hands until Franklin physically left King's College and the Signer DNA became available to him once again. By then it was too late. --JWSchmidt 15:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
He was rebuffed and I would not be surprised if Franklin told Wilkins that Randall had assigned DNA to her and her alone. Eventually, Wilkins and Randall probably agreed that Franklin's attitude was damaging to the laboratory, and even if Franklin had reason for thinking that she "owned" x-ray crystallography of DNA at King's, this was not true.
But you have absolutely no proof or source for drawing this kind of specific conclusion. I think this is part of the problem. You seem to construct these complicated scenarios, based largely on speculation, with little or nothing to back it up. Even if you are correct in your analysis, you do not attempt to explain why Wilkins or Randall didn't set her straight on her misunderstanding. And again ..it seems clear that rather than learning how to collaborate, she learned how to work alone, there is no reason to draw this conclusion, indeed there is ample evidence, that she worked well with her colleagues in France, as the postcard she received in London after she left stated, Chère Mademoiselle, Nous regrettons tous votre départ. There also seems to have been nothing but good things said about her by other collaborators, including Don Casper and Aaron Klugg. Raymod Gosling seems to have had nothing but respect for her.Alun 18:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
"you do not attempt to explain why Wilkins or Randall didn't set her straight on her misunderstanding" <-- My speculative reconstruction (above) was my attempt to depict how Wilkins and Randall tried to "set her straight". In my experience, some people are open to advice and some people are not. When it comes to matters of scientific style in such matters as cooperation and collaboration, there is very little that a laboratory administrator can do, particularly when a laboratory member is not open to offers of advice. As you have pointed out, when she came to King's College, Franklin was at the point of trying to make the transition from being a wandering postdoc to hopefully finding some sort of established position at a research institution. She already had a growing scientific reputation and was being funded by an outside source; these facts had earned her a certain amount of independence, something that senior scientists generally like to see in junior scientists. My best guess is that Wilkins tried to collaborate with Franklin and was told to get lost. My best guess is that Randall probably encouraged Franklin to collaborate with Wilkins and Stokes but was told "no way" by Franklin. "there is ample evidence, that she worked well with her colleagues in France" <-- As I recall, Maddox made the point that such an evaluation does not seem to apply to interactions with her boss. At King's College, Franklin got along with Gosling, but the point is, she did not get along with the more senior people that she could have collaborated with. --JWSchmidt 22:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I have been having a look at Wilkins's book. He largely supports what Maddox has written about the relationship between Franklin/Wilkins/Randall. Most importantly, and totally contrary to your speculation, he explicitly says that he believes that Randall was attempting to force him out of the X-ray work at King's. There was a very important meeting between Randall, Wilkins and Franklin sometime in 1951. Maddox gives the end of November, Wilkins does not say when it occurred, but implies earlier. This is important because it is when any misunderstanding Franklin may have got about the work could have been cleared up. She was the most junior scientist there, and the head and deputy head of the department would have had every opportunity to set her straight.
Here's what Wilkins says:
Randall, as head of the lab, should have helped in theory: he called Rosalind and me to a meeting and suggested that Rosalind continue to work on the crystalline A pattern, and I work on the B pattern. That seemed sensible, but his manner of telling us did not help matters: he said he wanted to be fair to both of us, and that made me feel like a naughty child.
Maddox says:
He called Wilkins and Franklin to his office, for a meeting from which a treaty of sorts emerged. Rosalind, using the Singer DNA, would concentrate on the A form. Wilkins would tackle the B. From then on communications between the two virtually ceased
I think you really need to start to look at peoples accounts of events instead of trying to fill in the gaps using your imagination. Alun 20:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I am in favor of looking at the accounts provided by the people who were there. Then you need to formulate a realistic understanding of what actually happened. From his discussions with Crick and Watson, Wilkins slowly developed an interest in trying to find a molecular model of DNA. The less detailed X-ray pattern of the B form was best suited for this approach and Franklin was concentrating on the A form X-ray data that were better suited for the structure analysis method she was using. I was a reasonable move to divide further work between Wilikins and Franklin. What was not reasonable was that

1) Wilkins still did not have access to the critical DNA sample which he had originally obtained and showed could be used for X-ray experiments
and
that Franklin and Wilkins could not find a way to cooperate in their work.
That inability to collaborate while at the brink of a major discovery, forcing the lab director to create two independent research teams, would probably make most people feel like a child.

On a different note, there are some very illuminating interviews in the Notes to Anne Sayers Book, which I think directly contradict your stated position that there was nothing underhand in what Crick and Watson did. This is what Wilkins had to say on the matter on 15 June 1970 (and he makes the same point that I made about how long it would have taken Crick and Watson if they had had to do the actual experimentation themselves):

  • It was all there. They were working at Cambridge along certain lines. It was a question of time. They could not have gone on to their model, their correct model, without the data developed here. They had that-I blame myself, I was naïve-and they moved ahead. Put it this way, if they were out of the picture entirely, we would still have got it, though it would have taken a bit longer. If they were out of the picture, if they hadn't got our stuff, they'd have had to develope it, and that would have taken time- I don't know how long, I think longer still. We were scooped, I don't think quite fairly.
The emphases are mine, but I think it contradicts your interpretation of events.
"We were scooped, 'I don't think quite fairly'." <-- What happened to Wilkins does give us the feeling that he did not get treated "quite fairly". To say this, however, is different than saying that what Watson and Crick did was wrong. Many people who have been close to making a major discovery (but missed the opportunity) feel that the world is not fair and they often have regrets about their own past behavior that contributed to someone else making the discovery first. --JWSchmidt 22:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
You draw the wrong conclusion. Here: They could not have gone on to their model, their correct model, without the data developed here. They had that-I blame myself, I was naïve-and they moved ahead.- He is admitting that he was naïve to given them the material they needed for the model. He is also admitting that had he been aware of their intentions, he would not have shared the data with them, and they could not have developed their model. Not quite the same as the old boys club picture you have previously painted.Alun 19:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
It is very easy for scientists to enjoy the benefits of the "old boys club" when it allows them to learn key information that they need for their work. It is also easy to have regrets after you share information with other people and they move more quickly and use that information before you can do so. This is why many scientists have a policy about not sharing any information until it is published. Crick, Watson and Wilkins all liked to talk, and in the early 1950s it was not really clear to anyone that by sharing information it would suddenly be possible to solve the structure of DNA. It was just a natural pert of the scientific culture for friends to talk about their common scientific interests. --JWSchmidt 22:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Francis Crick also has some interesting things to say in interview. James Watson's The double helix is a contemptible pack of damned nonsense. I have read so many people saying similar things, that I think we can, in all fairness, not treat this book as a reliable source. It seems to be, at best, a personal memoir, and at worst a novelised account. Most people involved, with the exception of Watson himself, do not seem to think that the book bears much resemblance to reality.
  • When Crick is asked if anyone at King's would have solved the structure he replies Oh, don't be silly. Of course Rosalind would have solved it....with Rosalind it was only a matter of time.
  • Crick of course got to know Franklin very well after the discovery of the structure, he says in interview that Wilkins's opinion of her was completely wrong. And what Jim put down in his book is all ideas he had from Maurice. Jim never really knew Rosalind, even afterwards. And Maurice had very fixed ideas which Jim accepted. I told him they were wrong.
  • Crick also says this, Maurice says Rosalind got the B form by accident. But I told him it wasn't an accident he'd managed to have for himself.
  • The three weeks-months quote goes like this Perhaps three weeks. Three months is likelier. I'd say certainly in three months, but of course that's a guess. Again the emphasis is mine.
  • Peter Pauling disputes there was any race at all in DNA- the race that never was
The only person who could conceivably have been racing was Jim Watson. Maurice Wilkins had never raced anyone anywhere. Francis Crick liked to pitch his brains against difficult problems. To my father nucleic acids were interesting chemicals, just as sodium chloride is an interesting chemical, and both presented interesting structural problems.

I find this information illuminating. I hope you do too.Alun 18:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

THE FRAME AROUND ROSALIND FRANKLIN'S PORTRAIT NEEDS REMOVING PLEASE.

John, will you please REMOVE that frame around Franklin's portrait as it is singularly inappropriate for her and yes, for Crick as well?

If I knew how to do it, I would have already deleted it - there was more to her scientific career and Crick's than the discovery of the structure of DNA. IT LOOKS AWFUL AND SHOULD BE REMOVED PLEASE!

195.92.168.166 08:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC) (Martin

I have removed the frame at your request, Martin. You were absolutely right.Alun 18:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

ALUN, WELL DONE SIR! CAN YOU PLEASE DO THE VERY SAME FOR CRICK, DELBRUK, WATSON, AND WILKINS AS WELL? (PAULING'S FRAME IS FURTHER DOWN THE PAGE!) PLEASE CONTACT ME ON: martin@packer34.freeserve.co.uk

MARTIN

Hi Martin, I'm not having a go, but you should know that it is considered bad form to remove stuff from talk pages. The reason is that it provides an archive of who said what and when etc. It's why talk pages are archived, and why I've just archived the last one. I presume you did it out of the best of intentions (as the last page was getting full).Alun 18:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Strange and irrelevant stuff creeping into article

  • I have twice had to remove the King's college Logo from this article. This is not an article about the college, use the Logo on articles pertaining to the college if you want to use it. It does not belong on this page.
  • I have removed links to BBC interviews with Watson and Crick, there are links to the Watson and Crick pages in the article, the correct place for these links is on the Crick and Watson pages.
  • I have removed reference to a plaque at Kings and who is mentioned on it. If someone wants to make reference to Dr. Franklin's mention on the plaque then please do it in the Recognition section, and please make it relevant to Rosalind Franklin, this is not an article about King's College, or about the people there who were working on DNA, this is a biographical article, for example it is irrelevant who is not mentioned on the plaque, and it is only marginally relevant as to who else is mentioned.Alun 18:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Biographical article

There seems to be some belief by editors of this page that this is the correct repository for any miscellaneous material relating to DNA research at King's College during the 1950s. This is not an archive, nor is it a King's College page, nor is it a page about DNA research in the 1950s. I get the impression that there is some sort of move to reduce Rosalind Franklin to a bit-part player on her own biographical article. I would greatly appreciate it if someone would spend one tenth of the time devoted to her work at King's (2years and 2months) to some other part of her academic career (15 years in total). There is far too much emphasis on DNA work, and nothing about her virus work, a little about her time in Paris (which I added months ago). The talk page doesn't mention the 85% of her career she spent not working on DNA, and where she seems not to have been considered difficult to work with.Alun 18:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Alun, you are really beginning to worry me! Are you a Rosalind Franklin 'stalker'? You seem to have an almost obsessive interest in her, my friend!! But on a more positive note, you will see that John has now removed the awful frame around REF's portrait at my request; I hope to persuade him to do the same for the other 4 scientists by the way, as it does not do them any favours either. I hope you agree?

You do seem to have a rather unhealthy interest in the late Dr.R.E. Franklin - what do you hope to achieve by all of this? (I hope you are not also interested in collecting Edgar Allan Poe? It's a silly joke!). So let's remember she's dead, she did not win a share of the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, but an American university has re-named itself after her AND there is a Franklin-Wilkins building at KCL. That's about it, Alun = no amount of stupid argument with John and/or myself is going to bring her back from the dead, restore her reputation, or give her a share of you-know-what retrospectively, posthumously or whatever. All serious scientific reputations have their ups and downs, eg Pauling and Vitamin 'C' for example, and possibly even Crick in his new biography; in Wilkins' case, the only was was 'up' - as he did not have much of one to begin with. So to sum up, REF was part and parcel of Randall's team at KCL, whether you personally like it or not; I do like Maddox's biography of her, but hated the orange dustjacket and hope that Lynne Elkins' biography will be even more interesting for what Maddox left out. As for Sayre, it's what's called a 'hagiography' (look it up) but to give Sayre her due, it's written from the heart in a reaction to Watson's The Double Helix. One of these days when you have read Crick's WMP and Wilkins' TTMOTDH (and Olby on Crick) we may be able to discuss REF more rationally, until then...195.92.168.163 20:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC) (MP)

My pathology is that of the pedant (look it up (I have even wikified the text to make it easier for you), you see I can be patronising as well!!!). I like to be accurate and specific. It was I who changed the picture of Franklin at your request.Alun 12:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Article Preview This is her life 29 June 2002 Jane Gregory "New Scientist" Magazine issue 2349:

Pain in the neck or saint? Jane Gregory tries to track down the real Rosalind Franklin Rosalind Franklin: the dark lady of DNA by Brenda Maddox, HarperCollins, £20, ISBN 0002571498

HER scientific output was prodigious. Her crystallographic work at King's College London was a crucial contribution to the double-helix model of DNA discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick. But in his bestselling The Double Helix, Watson portrayed Rosalind Franklin as a mean-spirited and priggish blight on the new biophysics group at King's. Franklin had died of cancer long before the book was published, and her friends and feminists mounted a riposte that presented her as a secular saint: a scientific genius, a kind and generous woman tough only in response to misogyny, and a martyr to science.

So who was the real Rosalind Franklin? Brenda Maddox's biography, rather than striking a happy medium, argues that both portraits do some justice to a complex woman. Franklin came from a wealthy and not very warm Jewish family, ...

The complete article is 728 words long. To continue reading this article, subscribe! regards, 195.92.168.174 21:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC) (Martin)

ps see also: http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art36514.asp

WHAT IS A "WIKI" BIOGRAPHY REALLY SUPPOSED TO ACHIEVE PLEASE?

OK SO I SHOULD KNOW THIS ALREADY, BUT AM I STILL MISSING SOMETHING? IS A "WIKI" ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY REALLY JUST A POTTED VERSION OF EXISTING BIOGRAPHIES OR THE SUBJECT'S OWN AUTOBIOGRAPHY? IN THE CASE OF ROSALIND FRANKLIN, IN THE ABSENCE OF HER AUTOBIOGRAPHY AND FOLLOWING BRENDA MADDOX'S RECENT BIOGRAPHY - IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAN BE SAID ABOUT HER, THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN SAID?

I WOULD HATE TO BE A BIOGRAPHER, ESPECIALLY OF A LEADING SCIENTIFIC FIGURE, AS THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEONE OUT THERE WHO KNOWS BETTER! DOES YOUR BIOGRAPHY HAVE TO REFLECT EVERYTHING THAT IS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OR DO YOU TRY TO 'DIG UP' SOMETHING NEW OR DIFFERENT? "WIKI" BIOGRAPHIES ARE NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH OF COURSE, BUT SHOULD THEY REFLECT EXISTING KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT? IF SO WHY THE DEBATE OVER 'FRANKLIN' FACTS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?

LYNTON STRACHEY (HE OF "EMINENT VICTORIANS") SAID QUOTE: "IT IS NOT (THE BIOGRAPHER'S) BUSINESS TO BE COMPLIMENTARY, IT IS HIS BUSINESS TO LAY BARE THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS HE UNDERSTANDS THEM".. "IF THE BIOGRAPHER IS WISE, HE WILL ADOPT A SUBTLER APPROACH. HE WILL ATTACK HIS SUBJECT IN UNEXPECTED PLACES; HE WILL FALL UPON THE FLANK, OR THE REAR; HE WILL SHOOT A SUDDEN, REVEALING SEARCHLIGHT INTO OBSCURE RECESSES, HITHERTO UNDIVINED. HE WILL ROW OUT OVER THAT GREAT OCEAN OF MATERIAL, AND LOWER DOWN INTO IT, HERE AND THERE, A LITTLE BUCKET, WHICH WILL BRING UP TO THE LIGHT OF DAY, SOME CHARACTERISTIC SPECIMEN, FROM THOSE FAR DEPTHS, TO BE EXAMINED WITH GREAT CURIOUSITY." Should this apply equally to 'Wiki' biographies? (What are all these arguments over Franklin really about, Alun/John?)

195.92.168.164 15:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

ANOTHER USEFUL POTENTIAL SOURCE (NON PRINT) FOR THE 'FRANKLIN' DEBATE?

http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/bms/medical/synopses/wilkins.html!

195.92.168.175 18:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

ALUN, FROM AN ORIGINAL SOURCE! THE ANSWERS ARE FROM JAMES WATSON:

"Q: Could you characterize Rosalind Franklin's role and importance to your discovery of the double helical structure and comment on the controversy, which has survived for so long?

A: I helped generate the controversy through my book, which tried to tell the story as I saw it on a day-by-day basis. Later, particularly now that I've read a very fine biography of her by Brenda Maddox, I think if we'd known what she was like when we met we wouldn't have been so hostile toward each other. So she took the famous photograph, and when I saw it that day, I said, Boy Ð it was a helix. There were other photographs already existing that should have told me it was a helix, but this was…even a dumb guy would say, It's a helix. It would have taken a little more guts to take the 1938 photograph by Astbury and say that showed that DNA was a helix. Even though now in retrospect, you can see that Linus Pauling should have looked at that 1938 photograph and not come up with such a bad picture.

Both Pauling and Rosalind should have found the structure. Crick and I shouldn't now be famous for this. Rosalind missed it really because her relations with Maurice Wilkins were very bad. They couldn't stand each other, and Wilkins said it was a helix. And I think that just kept Rosalind from wanting to have it a helix. So late in November of 1951, when we built our terrible model, and we were told not to build any more models, we took down the molds to build the models so they could build models. They never used them. Rosalind, in fact, if she'd just started building models after Wilkins wanted to Ð which was the summer of 1951 Ð she should have had that structure in six months, or sooner. So she really kept herself from being famous. We didn't keep her from being famous. After Pauling came in, we weren't going to, and we still had a chance, we were determined, the people in Cambridge particularly, to get the right answer. So when I wrote The Double Helix, my initial title was Honest Jim. Francis, who's very bright, mistakenly believed that that title meant I believed I was telling the honest truth. In reality, what "Honest Jim" usually means is a used car dealer. Okay? And I had been called Honest Jim by someone who worked in Wilkins'lab.

It was a question: Did we have any right to build models after we saw the photograph? Well, I think we did. Because they weren't building models. It turned out that just that fateful month, Rosalind, because she was leaving King's College, really looked at photograph 51, concluded that the B form of DNA was helical, and she knew the number of base pairs and all that. But at the time we got the answer, she still was not trying to think about how the bases formed hydrogen bonds. There's no reason why she wouldn't have gone on and done that. I'm glad she didn't like Wilkins. You know, I have to say that, because then I would have arrived in Cambridge and the structure of DNA would be solved and I'd still be working on bacterial viruses at somewhere like University of North Carolina. No, no, that's too good a place. No, I meant to say North Dakota, you know, someplace removed from any form of rat race."

195.92.168.175 19:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC) (MP)

Randall implied

"Randall had implied that Franklin alone would be working on DNA" <-- The article needs a specific citation to support this statement. This statement seems factually wrong for a trivial reason: Gosling had been doing X-ray diffraction work prior to Franklin's arrival in London, Randall told Franklin that Gosling would continue to experimental work on DNA, and he did. --JWSchmidt 20:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

From Maurice Wilkins The Third Man of DNA:
p.144 regarding the famous letter to Franklin about her working on X-rays.
This letter made clear why Rosalind had believed I would leave X-ray work- a belief I had inadvertently reinforced by missing Rosalind's first staff meeting at which Randall had discussed DNA research with her, Stokes and Raymond.....However, years later, Raymond told me that his impression was that the meeting without me had indeed obscured my role in the X-ray work
p.145
He (Randall) seems to have wished to be closer to the DNA work: it was clearly implied that Rosalind would be responsible for continuing it, and Randall may have hoped to achieve that closer link with Rosalind since she was directly responsible to him as Head of the Physics Department, whereas I was Assistant Director of the MRC Unit and only loosely attached to the department. That Randall intended to manoeuvre me out of the work was amply confirmed by a correspondence we had the following summer, 1951, while I was at the Gordon Conference in the USA, when he advised me that the MRC had expressed the view that I should concentrate on microscope work.
p148
My opinion is very clear: that Randall was very wrong to have written to Rosalind telling her that Stokes and I wished to stop our X-ray work on DNA, without consulting us.

Alun 19:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Alun: These quotes are not relevant to the claim that "Randall had implied that Franklin alone would be working on DNA". At best you can say that Randall's letter said that Franklin and Gossling would be the ones doing X-ray experiments on DNA. This in no way ruled out other people working on DNA. Franklin may have assumed that only she would be working on DNA, but other people did work on DNA at King's College while Franklin was there. I think the only safe thing for you to do is directly quote Randall's letter and then describe how Franklin interpreted what Randall had written. When Wilkins talks about "the DNA work" he is obviously talking about X-ray experiments on DNA. There were other kinds of DNA work done at King's College. --JWSchmidt 22:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

These quotes are relevant. The only thing which needs amending is the text of the article to read:
Randall had implied that Franklin alone would be doing X-ray work on DNA
I think that this change would make the article more accurate, and the evidence directly supports this rewording. You are quite right, I had not noticed that the article says that Randall had implied Franklin would have the whole DNA work to herself. As far as I am aware no one has claimed that Franklin thought that she alone would be doing DNA work, just that she had been lead to believe that she would have the X-ray work to herself, hence her get back to your microscopes comment. Well spotted JWSchmidt. I will make the relevant change and if you dispute it you can let me know. Alun 08:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest furore about Rosalind Franklin and Asperger's Syndrome

Double helix double take By Ishani Ganguli

It's not often that you get to witness a major scientific figure watch his own theatrical indictment. But at the 2005 annual Sloan Film Summit presented by the Tribeca Film Institute in New York earlier this month, the attendance of Nobel laureate James Watson provides just that opportunity.

The afternoon opened with a panel discussion on "Good Science in Good Films" in which Watson revealed that he had been "upset" by Jeff Goldblum's depiction of him in the 1987 film The Race for the Double Helix. "I thought he was unpleasant," he said. But he quickly conceded that "a friend of mine did say I was unpleasant at the time. You're bound to seem crazy to most people."

Despite this familiarity with unflattering publicity, Watson didn't seem prepared for the final excerpt in a series of readings from upcoming science-based films of a screenplay entitled The Broken Code. Watson himself was not depicted in the excerpt, but the real- life version watched from the back of the Directors Guild of America Theater, mouth open, blinking incredulously, with the occasional wry grin. The script dramatizes the quest of Rosalind Franklin's close friend Anne Sayre to reveal Franklin's true role in the discovery of DNA's structure, a direct to response Watson's less-than-generous account of the King's College scientist in his uninhibited 1968 memoir The Double Helix, written 10 years after Franklin's death.

The performance featured director Peter Bogdanovich, and the cross- dressing British comedian Eddie Izzard in the more muted roles of both Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick. In it, the softly indignant Sayre, voiced by Rosemarie DeWitt, says, "Watson lied about her ... Why did he need to slander a dead woman?" When Sayre goes to Wilkins to find out the truth, he calls Watson "the snoop" who filched Franklin's X-ray diffraction results, without which he and Crick could not have solved the structure. Finally, Crick calls The Double Helix "a contemptible pack of damn nonsense," saying that Rosalind could have easily solved the structure herself. "It was lucky for us it turned out the way it did," he says.

After the performance, Watson's self-preserving reactions jumped from that of the sore winner ("Well, we figured out the structure") to the misunderstood ("I wrote the book as novel") to the almost apologetic ("I might have been wrong about Rosalind"), as the screenplay's author, David Baxter, stood by with placatory words, assuring Watson that the rest of the screenplay would mitigate his concerns. Despite Watson's assertion that he "didn't know Rosalind well," he proffered a psychiatric diagnosis for her: Asperger syndrome, the autistic spectrum disorder, which he insisted is common among women who are talented at science. "She found it very hard to make new acquaintances," Watson says. "Rosalind was very bad at absorbing social cues." But that idea is "absurd and unfounded," writes Lynne Osman Elkin, who is the film's science advisor and is writing a biography entitled Rosalind Franklin and The Double Helix, in an E-mail. "I never heard a whisper of this suggestion." Ever since The Double Helix was published, of course, critics have pointed out inaccuracies and exaggerations, and what many called Watson's misogynistic treatment of "Rosy." Watson later wrote an epilogue to his book, a syrupy but perfunctory tribute to the late Franklin's scientific acumen, which he also pointed out in his defense.

Watson called the real Sayre "a battleaxe" who was not nearly as attractive as the actress playing her. But in the end, he said, "as far as I know, [there was] no hostility" between himself and Franklin, citing an amicable dinner they shared at Linus Pauling's house shortly before her death. And he conceded that "if Francis had had an hour with her," she would have figured out the structure herself. After all, he said, "the first model we proposed was crappy."

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity re. Asperger's Syndrome.

http://www.aspar.klattu.com.au/aspdesc.htm, ie:

"What people with AS contribute to society: Outstanding special abilities, sometimes "genius".

Many of our greatest scientists, engineers, mathematicians and inventors may belong on the Autistic Spectrum - including Lord Cavendish, Nikolai Tesla, Paul Erdos, Jeremy Bentham, Bill Gates, Rosalind Franklin

Outstanding competence and reliability in areas of special interest

Able to act independantly of group pressure to follow own goals"

195.92.168.163 17:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not a Chatroom

This is a discussion page about the Rosalind Franklin article. The purpose of this page is to discuss the article. This is not a newsgroup or a chatroom. If you want to have a general chat about Rosalind Franklin and any interesting articles about her then I suggest you find a more appropriate forum. If you want to make specific comments about the article, then please make them. This section seems not to make any comment about the article at all, and I am at a loss as to the reason for it's inclusion here.
I urge all editors of this page to read this guideline:
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
with particular reference to these points:

Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia.
For issues which have a verifiably correct and relatively undisputed answer, please do feel free to use the talk pages to facilitate fact checking (which sometimes includes resolving disputes over factual accuracy).

Alun 13:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

what is "irrelevant" to User:Wobble

User:Wobble: most users who come to the Franklin page will do so because of Franklin's participation in the dicovery of the structure of DNA. It makes sense to have a statement above the table of contents saying that Franklin is most known for her work on DNA. You are not doing a service for wikipedia users by pretending that information about Franklin's work on DNA is "irrelevant". Maybe you should continue your efforts to describe the rest of Franklin's life while leaving description of her role in the discovery of DNA to others. If you continue to remove material that you personally have no interest in, which happens to be the material that most other people are interested in, then you are just going to start a revert war. --JWSchmidt 13:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "User: Wobble" will have the courtesy of telling us what he apparently has against the following form of words which have just been added back into the introductary statemnent: "Her personal contribution to the overall determination of the structure of DNA was recognised by the co-award of the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine to her colleague Maurice Wilkins of the King's College London team (under Sir John Randall), together with James Watson and Francis Crick of the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge (under Sir Lawrence Bragg); both teams were funded by the Medical Research Council. It's nice to have you back Alun! 195.92.168.166 14:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC) (MP)

JWSchmidt's groundless accusation

It makes sense to have a statement above the table of contents saying that Franklin is most known for her work on DNA. You are not doing a service for wikipedia users by pretending that information about Franklin's work on DNA is "irrelevant".

My refutation

Here's the intro as it was originally:
Rosalind Elsie Franklin (25 July 1920 - 16 April 1958) was a British physical chemist and crystallographer who made very important contributions to the understanding of the fine structures of coal and graphite, DNA and viruses.
I have emphasised DNA for those of you who failed to take note of it (selective reading? possibly akin to selective hearing?) and so needlessly started making groundless and easily refutable accusations.
This new sentence:
Franklin is most noted for her contributions to the discovery of the structure of the DNA double helix.
Is relevant and concise.
It is this that is irrelevant
Her personal contribution to the overall determination of the structure of DNA was recognised by the co-award of the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine to her colleague Maurice Wilkins of the King's College London team (under Sir John Randall), together with James Watson and Francis Crick of the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge (under Sir Lawrence Bragg); both teams were funded by the Medical Research Council.
This is too long winded for an introduction and contains far too much irrelevant detail. This sort of detail belongs in the main body of the article. Even then it is relates to events which occurred after Dr Franklin's death, and so should be included in the Recognition section.Alun 20:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)