Why Rosalind Franklin, the scientist who photographed DNA, must be honored

April 25 is considered Biologist's Day in commemoration of the same day in 1953, which was when the magazine Nature Three consecutive articles on the structure of DNA were published, with just one image each. Two of the images show X-ray diffraction: one of the images is imprecise and is signed by Maurice Wilkins and collaborators; the other is clear and reproduced in all the books, obtained by Rosalind Franklin and her assistant Ryan Gosling. But the most iconic article, the one that contains only a drawn image of a double helix as a model of the structure of DNA and does not have any experiments, but is based on the results of other scientists, is signed by the famous James Watson and Francis Crick.

Nine years later, in 1962, the Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to three of the protagonists of that 1953: Watson, Crick and Wilkins. None of them were able to remember the scientist without whom they would not have obtained the precious award, and who unfortunately died in 1957 from ovarian cancer, at just 37 years old.

A Nobel Prize for her alone

But Rosalind Franklin deserves a Nobel Prize all to herself., not only for the magnificent image in which the helical distribution of DNA was inferred, but also for her doctoral thesis work on the structure and porosity of carbon, which gave rise to the activated carbon masks used during World War II to filter toxic gases. Also for her subsequent studies on the structure of plant and human viruses. In fact, her collaborators in recent years also won a Nobel Prize thanks, in part, to the work they had carried out together.

Franklin was a magnificent scientist, and her specialization in crystallography, with methodical and exquisite work, made her shine wherever she worked. But she was a woman, Jewish, and clever, in a rigid and macho male world where women weren't even allowed to have coffee where the other scientists met. The hostile environment she found in Cambridge made her look for other laboratories to do research in.

It is well known that Wilkins and Franklin were both working on the same topic, so to speak, competing for the same results, but with varying degrees of success. It is also well known that Watson and Crick wanted to discover the structure of DNA, but they lacked manual dexterity and didn't spend much time in the laboratory. However, they had many contacts and were aware of the most important results on DNA that were being produced in different laboratories around the world. They had the time and a privileged brain to think, elaborate, and connect ideas. In addition, they had the support of their superiors, who wanted to win the DNA structure game against Linus Pauling, an American scientist who had already won two Nobel Prizes.

In an act of dubious scientific integrity, Wilkins shared Franklin's results (since his own weren't that precise) without her knowledge. Without the precision of Franklin's image, Watson and Crick would never have been able to propose the structure of the double helix, and they acknowledged this in a 1954 article.

Curiously, the three protagonists of the 1953 Nobel Prize each wrote autobiographical books about it. All three were self-exculpatory, with different nuances. They have to mention Franklin, of course, but None of the three does him justice, since to recognize his merit would be to question the merit of his award.Watson clearly shows his more macho and mean-spirited side: he refers to Franklin as "Rosy, the Black Lady of DNA" and calls her "unsupportive, unattractive, and incompetent" in the same sentence. "Either she should go, or they should put her in her place," he adds. Crick is somewhat more amiable; he considered himself a friend of Franklin's. And Wilkins emphasizes his own research and dedication to the structure of DNA and ignores the contributions of Franklin, his direct competitor.

On equal merits

And what opinion did Rosalind Franklin have? Only her correspondence and laboratory notes survive. A recent book sheds some more light and shows that she was neither a scapegoat nor an incompetent who didn't know what she was doing. Franklin proposed that the phosphates should be on the outside of the molecule, writing that the crystallographic data supported a helical structure, but she wanted to obtain even more reliable and indisputable data and measurements. It is also deduced from multiple writings that Franklin, who was already preparing to leave Cambridge, knew that Watson and Crick were familiar with some of her results. In this situation, Franklin's role is even more evident, since it means that His contribution to proposing the structure of DNA is equivalent and of equal value to the three prizewinners.

April 25th is the day we celebrate the discovery of the structure of DNA, but it's not just Watson, Crick, and Wilkins Day; it's also Rosalind Franklin's legacy day, with equal merit.