

Did Watson and Crick Really Steal Rosalind Franklin’s Data? - wrongc0ntinent
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/23/sexism-in-science-did-watson-and-crick-really-steal-rosalind-franklins-data

======
Jedd
Fascinating article. Though one expects better of The Guardian - from their
misunderstanding of the proper use of the word protagonist, through to the
bewildering closing comment:

"As the Tim Hunt affair showed, sexist attitudes are ingrained in science, as
in the rest of our culture."

There seems to be an abundance of these kinds of stories about science that
eschew scientific method in their own interpretation and conclusions.

------
kmonad
I apologize for my ignorance, but this article seems to forget to mention what
exactly Watson's contribution was. From reading this one gets the impression
he rather delayed than accelerated the important discoveries. Surely this
wasn't the case. Can anyone comment on this?

~~~
dekhn
Read "The Eighth Day of Creation", it covers this in exhaustively cited
detail.

------
Blackthorn
Regardless of the answer to the question in the headline, Rosalind Franklin
not receiving the Nobel Prize was and always will be a disgusting travesty.

~~~
barry-cotter
She was dead. You have to be alive to receive the Nobel Prize, any of them.

~~~
Blackthorn
I am well aware of the rule, I simply disagree with it because of cases like
this.

~~~
kzhahou
That makes no sense. _Every single time_ the rule is applied, somebody is
posthumously denied this greatest of scientific distinctions. The existence of
the rule guarantees that every year, someone will be denied their due credit
in the history books, while the lucky-living take the prize.

~~~
frozenport
Dead people can't use the funds to further their work.

