Thread by @Byjessiemills

This week, researchers Matthew Cobb and Nathaniel Comfort claimed new 'evidence' shows Rosalind Franklin was an equal collaborator in the double helix and that she was comfortable with her data being shared with Nobel winners James Watson and Francis Crick.

The researchers cited a letter from a student in Franklin's lab that a supposedly invited Francis Crick to her lecture, citing it as 'evidence' that she was aware and indeed ‘relaxed’ about her data being used by competing laboratories.

In fact, this letter when taken in its proper context shows the very opposite. Another letter dated c. (23) January 1953 from Franklin's colleague Maurice Wilkins shows the invitation was made in error and that the meeting was always intended to be internal.

It is important to get the history right on this point. To overstate how aware Franklin was that her data was being used by scientists at a rival lab while she was writing her own paper whitewashes the injustice she was undoubtedly served.

The matter is contentious because Watson and Crick were working at a separate lab in Cambridge, the Cavendish laboratory, while she was based as part of professor John Randall’s Biophysics group at King’s College.

Scientists at both labs were part of the molecular biology working group at the Medical Research Council, where Franklin’s colleagues Randall and Maurice Wilkins were both directors alongside Crick’s supervisor Max Perutz.

Perutz famously showed Crick a copy of Franklin’s research report containing her data, along with an X-ray photograph, that was stored in the MRC annual anthology. Later archived letters between Randall and Perutz show Randall was of the opinion that data was confidential.

Furthermore, Watson visited the King’s lab to see Wilkins around the time of Franklin’s lecture c. (30) January 1953 where Wilkins showed him a copy of Franklin’s X-ray photograph of the double helix, known as ‘photo 51’ from her 51st experiment on the structure of DNA.

The Maltese Cross proved that DNA was shaped like a helix, or spiral, at high humidity and is arguably suggestive of two strands.

Researchers Cobb and Comfort falsely claim that Crick was openly invited to Franklin's lecture with her buy-in.

But a separate letter shows Wilkins wrote to Crick to explain that the lecture--the final one before she left due to take place c. (28) January 1953--was meant to be internal and so he swiftly retracted the invitation to Crick.

Wilkins, according to his letter stored at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory archive, took responsibility for Cowan's wrong-footed invitation.

This is a very different conclusion to the one reached, in a sweeping rewrite of history, by Cobb and Comfort. Taken together, it is a glaring example of how important it is to properly understand the context of any single piece of evidence or historical artefact.

It doesn't show a 'relaxed' attitude to data sharing that Cobb claimed meant Rosalind knew what was going on at all. When taken with the other letter it shows quite the opposite.

The letter cited by Cobb and Comfort addressed from a researcher in the King's lab to Crick (from a student called Pauline Cowan though that detail wasn't shared on most of the articles) is not new at all…

But most historians have realised (as the letter below shows) that it was shortly countered by Wilkins' letter stating that Cowan had invited Crick mistakenly.

In this other letter, Wilkins said to Crick: “There is also a silly muddle over Franklin’s talk here. I got a big notice saying it was internal only – just a discussion between colleagues who worked in the same
lab…

“Then a lot of notices went round about the Colloquium and I took it for granted all had had the other note. Hence [Pauline] Cowan’s remark to you.”

Wilkins goes on to say, ‘Let’s have some talks afterwards when the air is a little clearer’ referring to Franklin’s imminent departure. She was due to leave King’s that March.

He follows by saying: ‘I hope the smoke of witchcraft will soon be getting out of our eyes.’ The accusation of witchcraft is no veiled insult to Franklin and highlights clearly the misogyny she **openly** faced during her time working on DNA at King’s College.

These are hardly the words of a man collaborating openly with his colleague and collegiately sharing data with her consent. In fact Wilkins discussed how their discussions should be kept private, a ‘private fight’ between the colluders, he from King’s and them from Cambridge.

Wilkins ends his letter to Crick saying: “P.s. Tell Jim the answer to his question ‘When did you last speak to her’ is this morning. The entire conversation consisted of one word from me.”

Another unpublished article the researchers cited this week from Joan Bruce at Time magazine does not show in any way that Franklin knew her data was being used until as otherwise recorded she was asked to check Watson and Crick's April 1953 paper.

This was on the behest of respective Cambridge and King’s College professors Bragg and Randall (having already written her own, which was published alongside it and contained all the proof). Watson had written to Perutz saying he needed her data to prove the double helix.

The final piece of so-called ‘evidence’ cited this week, a Royal Society programme that the researchers suggest credited Franklin in June 1953 for the double helix theory by placing her name first in attribution, only proves that she should have won a Nobel, even posthumously.

That ends my thread on #rosalindfranklin, #jameswatson and #franciscrick, following the research presented by @matthewcobb and @nccomfort this week.