Talk:King's College DNA controversy

Started article to replace one started by banned user. -- FloNight  talk  12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this normal policy? Because some of the contributed body of this article was obviously lost... ~ clearthought 13:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That was the purpose of deleting the article. : - ) It was started by a banned user. We need to start it completely over again. FloNight   talk  13:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for letting me know. ... ~ clearthought 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is some discussion of this matter at Talk:Francis Crick. --JWSchmidt 13:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Without Franklin's knowledge
The controversy arose from the fact that some of the data were shown to them, without her knowledge, by her estranged colleague, Maurice Wilkins, and by Max Perutz.

Is it actually know that Franklin wasn't aware that the data were used by Crick and Watson? Or is this just supposition? I ask as it may be that this is just an extension of Watson's claim in The Double Helix (later refuted) that no one at King's was aware that their data were been used. Is it not more correct to state that we just don't know whether or not she was aware of the use of her data? For example Wilkins had been given the photograph by Gosling, who in turn had been given it by Franklin. As Gosling has said, Wilkins had every right to the photograph. It is also true that much of the data in the MRC report that Crick got from Perutz had been presented by Franklin a year or more earlier, in a talk attended by Watson. She must have been aware of his presence at the talk, and it was only his negligence in not taking notes that meant that Crick and Watson didn't have these crystalographic data a year earlier. Maddox has also pointed out that Franklin must have known her data had been used when she first saw the Crick-Watson model. Could it be that she knew full well that her data had been used but just didn't care, she had been unhappy at King's (and I don't think anyone disputes this), she had left it all behind and had a new project at Birkbeck to concentrate on. What's the feeling on this? Alun 17:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What did Franklin know? Maybe rather than try to make statements about what Franklin knew, Wikipedia should describe some of what Wilkins wrote about interactions he had with Crick, Watson and Franklin. I find that his account provides meaningful insights into the type of communications Franklin had with her fellow DNA researchers. If Wikipedia provides such an account, it will allow readers to make their own informed guess about what Franklin might have known and if that is really the most important question to ask. I think it is clear that due to his friendship with Crick, Wilkins knew more about what Watson and Crick were doing than Franklin did, but even Wilkins seems to have not been aware of the role played by Crick seeing the MRC report containing Franklin's data. There may have been a higher level path of information from to Bragg to Randall to Franklin, but that is just speculation.

We can try to use the autobiography of Wilkins as a guide to understanding the kind of relationship that he had with Franklin in the period leading up the Watson and Crick double helix model. The account offered by Wilkins of events in 1951, 1952 and early 1953 suggests to me that he had a poor level of exchange of information with Franklin. Just how bad was communication between Wilkins and Franklin? Wilkins describes what strikes me as a very formal scientific relationship with Franklin. In chapter 7 of his autobiography, Wilkins wrote of, "The lack of co-operative contact between Rosalind and pro-helix Stokes and me". Wilkins describes Franklin's explicit rejection of Wilkins' request for collaboration on DNA. In characterizing their interactions, Wilkins wrote, "To avoid any discussion with me, Rosalind was prepared to talk rubbish." This does not mean that they never had discussions. It seems to be a matter of Franklin finding ways of dismissing Wilkins when Wilkins wanted to interact and talk about DNA. Franklin was in control. Wilkins wrote about one situation in late 1951 when Franklin came to him and wanted to discuss her DNA data. Wilkins describes how this visit from Franklin was so unusual that he had to remind himself that it was not a dream. Franklin would not let Wilkins use the best available DNA and he did not offer to let her use his new camera. Wilkins wrote, "...the barrier between us seemed so solid".

In chapter 8 of his autobiography, Wilkins described how when Herbert Wilson arrived to join the DNA work he was, "puzzled by the schism between us DNA workers". By this time, Wilkins had mostly given up, "Rosalind seemed so negative that I did not want to be involved in asking her for anything." In contrast to the poor communications with Franklin, Wilkins remained on good terms with Crick even after the failed Crick & Watson model of late 1951, Wilkins sent a note to "My dear Francis" in early 1952, "I...look forward to discussing all of our latest ideas and results with you again." In contrast to this kind of open communication with Crick, Wilkins wrote that it was "quite without precedent" when Franklin finally allowed Gosling to give Wilkins one of the best B form DNA X-ray image in early 1953. In contrast to the poor flow of information between Wilikins and Franklin, Wilkins showed Watson the good B form image soon after he obtained it.

When Crick and Watson first showed Wilkins their double helix model, they asked him to be co-author on the double helix publication, Wilkins said no. Wilkins had both1) given Crick and Watson permission to resume molecular model buildingand2) had shared with Watson the B form X-ray image that was so clear it allowed the layer lines to be read off and counted at a glance. However, Wilkins felt that since he had not directly helped to make the double helix model, he should not be listed as an author. At that time, the antiparallel strands of the double helix model were sprung on Wilkins and his description of his thoughts at that time indicates that he was aware that Franklin's data indicated that DNA should be symmetrical if flipped end for end. I would really like some confirmation that anyone at King's College had this realization before Crick. Crick had recognized this fact upon reading Franklin's report to the MRC, but few people besides Crick were in the position to know that the DNA space group implied that the DNA molecule must have dyad symmetry. It would be nice to know if Wilkins knew at that time how Crick had come to be confident that the strands were antiparallel. Did Wilkins know that Crick had learned this from Franklin's data in the MRC report? He never indicated that he was aware of this at the time. Wilkins wrote about the bad feelings he had upon being shown the double helix model and how those feelings prevented a rational discussion of "Who Had Done What" in contributing to the discovery. Rather than discuss co-authorships, it was eventually decided that three different papers from Watson & Crick, Wilkins and Franklin would be published at the same time.

By that time, Franklin had moved out of King's College. Even if Wilkins had known about Crick reading the MRC report containing Franklin's data, would Wilkins have told Franklin? Would anyone have told Franklin? Would it have mattered to Franklin? Would she, like Wilkins, have rejected the idea of being a co-author on the Watson and Crick double helix article? Franklin had made a deal with Wilkins that he could work on the B form DNA while she worked on the A form. Wilkins reports that at her seminar in early 1953 Franklin had suggested that B form DNA was helical while A form DNA was not. In contrast to the failure of the two research institutions to find a way to formally collaborate on DNA, Wilkins mentioned a successful collaboration between these institutions at that time on muscle. Franklin had a chance to collaborate with Wilkins and after Franklin left Wilkins did set up a team that went on to confirm many of the details of DNA structure. Had Franklin been open to collaborated with Wilkins, could members of a King's College team have found the double helix structure? Wilkins wrote, "If she had discussed the problem, there would have been little to prevent us from finding the Double Helix".--JWSchmidt 03:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My main concern was that the article includes a specific statement that The controversy arose from the fact that some of the data were shown to them, without her knowledge I know that there has been speculation that this is the case, and that Watson claims this in his book The Double Helix. But Watson's account (in this regard) has been discredited, and I don't think anyone knows what Franklin knew or didn't know at the time, is it a fact?. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that The controversy arose from claims that some of the data were shown to them, without her knowledge? I agree with your above analysis, though I'm not sure we need to go into that much detail to deal with the controversy. Alun 05:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about my long-winded post above. I was "thinking outloud" and seeking an alternative to the the idea that Wikipedia should try to trace the root of the controversy to a simple cause: the picture that Wilkins showed to Watson and data that Crick read in the MRC report....all apparently without Franklin knowing about it. I think that is an over-simplification. If that is all people know about, it is all to easy to jump to the conclusion that there was "data theft". It was not that simple. I think we need to describe some of the nuances of the situation...open up a deeper understanding for Wikipedia readers. The failure of Wilkins and Franklin to get along created a bad situation. A bad situation does not justify bad behavior, but it can often account for the strange behavior of people who are involved in the bad situation. I agree that "The controversy arose from claims that some of the data were shown to them, without her knowledge?" is better. An alternative would be "The controversy arose from the use of Franklin's research results without clear attribution of credit to her." --JWSchmidt 06:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My personal view is that your suggestion is the better one, "The controversy arose from the use of Franklin's research results without clear attribution of credit to her." Should we just make the change? I think you make a compelling case for including a more detailed account of what happened, and it certainly fits better in an article like this than say including different versions in all of the individual articles. I will look at cutting down on this section in the Rosaind Franklin article and linking the section there to this article for those that want more detail. Alun 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To Alun: Speaking for myself, I think you may be the Wikipedia editor who has done the most reading about Franklin....you are an active editor and other interested editors should be able to orient and organize around your energetic contributions. I have never read Sayre's book and many other sources and feel no great confidence in deciding how to tell the "DNA Controversy" story (or stories). I encourage you to take the lead. --JWSchmidt 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Title of article
Why is London in the title of the article in parentheses (like this (London))? The King's College London article isn't like this, and neither is it the name of the college on their homepage. Is there a reason for this? Alun 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alun,

Please note the following amendment to the introduction to the Francis Crick article: "most noted for being one of the four co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953." It goes without saying who the fourth person was, she died in 1958 of course.

Nitramrekcap

Opening paragraph
"King's College (London) DNA Controversy is a dispute about whether Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins were given proper credit for their contribution to the determination of the double-helical structure of DNA."

Maurice Wilkins received a third share of the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine, alongside Watson and Crick; so what more 'proper credit' is necessary? There is NO dispute over 'whether Maurice Wilkins was given proper credit for his contribution to the determination of the double-helical structure of DNA.' Maurice Wilkins was offered joint authorship of the Watson and Crick paper in "Nature" and he turned it down, see his autobiography! QUED! Nitramrekcap


 * I think this form of words is a relic of the previously deleted article. Let's change it to "King's College (London) DNA Controversy is a dispute about whether Rosalind Franklin was given proper credit for her contribution to the determination of the double-helical structure of DNA." Alun 19:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
King's College (London) DNA Controversy → King's College London DNA controversy OR King's College DNA controversy – "Controversy" not typically not capitalized (like Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) and as there's only one King's College involved in a DNA controversy, I see no reason to add the (London) disambiguation. Hbdragon88 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Addem: Apparently it is the name of the college, so I'll leave the move options open. Hbdragon88 19:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Controversy" is indeed not typically capitalized on Wikipedia. See most articles in Category:Controversies. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 01:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The request succeeded. --Dijxtra 15:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Support King's College DNA controversy. Just because King's College needs to be disambiguated, doesn't mean that the "London" modifier needs to carry over. If there's other King's College DNA controversies (which I doubt) we can disambiguate the controversy, rather than the school part in the title. (See Naming conventions. - Mgm|(talk) 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support King's College London DNA controversy. The name of the college is King's College London, it is not a modifier nor is it required for disambiguation. It would therefore be incorrect to call the college King's College. Alun 04:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support King's College DNA controversy, per Mgm. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal. Passer-by 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
The page is not really about King's College at all. Surely a more appropriate name would be DNA structure credit controversy or Rosalind Franklin credit controversy. – Smyth\talk 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have long held the view that we need a general article about controversies surrounding DNA. Something like DNA controversies. It could include the controversy over Franklin, but also those regarding Chargaff, Avery, Astbury etc, none of who seem to have been given as much credit as they deserve. Alun 06:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"DNA controversies" is way too vague. This is about the credit for the discovery of the structure of DNA, and I don't think you can express that in less than three or four words. – Smyth\talk 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The title is not really the point, the point is that we should have one article that is concerned specifically with the discovery of the structure of DNA (and not just what happened between 1951-1953). The article could then cover all the various controversies. This article is way too specific IMHO, for example what is of particular note about this controversy? Alun 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Then please feel free to add the extra content to the page. :) – Smyth\talk 22:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The line "Brenda Maddox suggested that because of the importance of her work to Watson and Crick's model building, Franklin should have had her name on the original Watson and Crick manuscript" seems out of place. This is an opinion of a modern historian, while the rest of the paragraph deals with the authorship solution arrived at by the Watson, Crick etc. at the time of discovery. Moreover, why is Maddox's opinion alone worthy of presentation above that of dozens of other historical writers? JustPassingBy [Tue Jan 2 14:29:17 EST 2007]