March 17, 2020 @
The author of that article knows astonishingly little about the history of science, in particular the story of DNA.
First, in is just factually incorrect to state that Watson was stripped of his Nobel Prize.
But worse, the author dramatically overstates both the contribution and the victimhood of Rosalind Franklin. Yes, her X-ray crystallography was first-rate science, and very helpful to Watson and Crick, but she was not the first or only person doing X-ray crystallography on DNA. Nor was that the sole building block of the DNA model. There were other crucial facts, ranging from Chargaff’s Rules to the correct form of the base pairs (which Watson learned because he happened to sit next to a premier physical chemist, Jerry Donohue).
The author is engaging in a gross distortion to say that Franklin was “ignored by history, until eventually dying of cancer”. In fact, she was immediately famous for her work because she and Wilkins published their results in the same issue of Nature that featured Watson and Crick’s paper. If she had lived a few years longer she would certainly have had some share of a Nobel Prize, and rightly so.