The story is even more messed up when you consider the radiation she exposed herself to get the picture might have caused her cancer- aka she died for the discovery that she's hardly credited for.
@Voice of Reason Naming building after her is not proportional to the contribution she had for science. How many textbooks do you think Watson and Crick's name are written in and the Nobel Prize for DNA itself is a bigger credit than any building that can be named for anyone
the back story is she is a crystallographer and the technique, x-ray crystallography combined with not knowing the dangers of being exposed to xrays (it was only recently discovered then) she was exposed to a large amt of xrays which lead to her cancer and eventual death from it. quite unfortunate though
some of them just like to keep a low profile whilst continuing their research, for rosalind's case it was very unfortunate for her research to be "stolen" not to mention downplayed by those who benefitted directly from her work
Thats because "most" aren't. As with all things there are exceptions. For example Hook and Newton were bitter enemies, and in the end Newton won out, despite much controversy about who discovered what. To say "most important scientists" is beyond hyperbolic. There are always bad people, taking credit for other peoples work, and in some instances, they get away with it. Everyone's work depends on the work that came before. As such we might as well contribute all scientific, indeed all work every done, to the first single celled organism, as without it, none of it would have happened. Hope you can see the fault in what your saying :)
Disney should really make a movie about science's forgotten princess : Rosalind Franklin. It would teach children to always be fair and never to steal credit for someone else's work.
Well, feminism is a good thing,, femi-nazism isn't. When it's women = men it's true, when it's women = men exept when this is a tenious part of life it's false.
+Latte Cat society splits feminist by 2 categories. Normal feminists who want Equal rights in a non-violent action and RADICAL feminists who are insane and are Femi-Nazis who want women to be not equal to men but superior.
Latte Cat "If someone does not fit the definition of feminist, they aren't a feminist. It's that simple." Go tell that to those feminists who advocate anything but equality. And when did I deny the definition? I meant that most feminists do not act as implied by the definition, yet they call themselves such.
It's so anoying that people continue to say *'Oh well Watson & Crick didn't really steal from Franklin. They just built upon her work.'* Well technically they *did* steal her work. By not crediting Franklin as the source of the photo. & allowing others to belive that. They were responsible for the discovery through their work. Watson & Crick falsely allowed people to think they alone were responsible for the discovery. That's theft through omission & it would stand up in any court of law today.
I’m Japanese university student, and I’m studying about DNA. By the way, Watson and Crick are very famous, so all students of science university know them. But I haven’t known her until I read “ Rosalind Franklin and DNA”. I think that she should be known as Historical Great women.
We always had Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins mentioned next to Watson and Crick. "Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA with the help of Xray diffraction studies by Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin" Tho to be fair, Crick was a VERY famous scientist, who put his hand in several parts of evolutionary theories
@@boomgoesthesingularity4337 No offense but, But Crick and Watson stole Rosalind Franklin's work, not that they relied on it. It's that they gave credit to the wrong people. In addition to not giving her the credit she deserves, her backstory is not given as much importance. Where she died for that work, while others earned the credit. There are "geniuses" who steal the work of true geniuses who are not even mentioned in history, nor with awards.
So many women contributed such amazing things to science and history. Man's fear and insecurity did not allow him to give credit where credit was due. As a man, I find this offensive to all. I'm glad to live in a day and it's where we are starting to realize that sexism gets us nowhere. Also sharing what we've discovered is more important than personal credit. Those who are seeking personal recognition over the good of their fellow man are not scientists but businessmen
I always love the "as a X" comment. How about "as a human"? Being a woman or a man doesn't in anyway affiliate you with someone elses wrongs, or endore you with special privilege at particular instances. Also overblowing what was, and probably still is, part of the very competitive nature of scientific progress, into a "sexist" problem (thought admittedly, back then that didn't help), is just as wrong, as what was done to Rosalind. Scientists has been furiously fighting and stealing work from each other as far back as time goes. Its an unfortunate, but very human trait.
relo999, if you can step off black and white thinking, that'd be nice. OP doesn't say personal credit is unimportant. He says sharing what we discover is more important. See, what he did there? deadfish45films, sexism isn't a means to steal someone else's work. It does make it easier. OP speaks of "over the good of their fellow man".
Surprised at the responses, as if folks cannot just admit that women have been suppressed for a long time. Finding a flaw in the argument, or my comment, does not detract from the point I was making. relo999 You took my claim out of context, read again. I said recognition OVER the benefit to mankind is the problem. We all like to be recognized ,this is what pushes innovation. deadfish45films What I meant was that the women had no recourse, and you know this. If a man stole another man's work, they are often called out on it. Until recently, women would just be ignored and laughed at if they claimed a man stole their work. XuQifei I did not say women did not contribute; I said that they were looked down on by their peers. Folks really need to see the forest AND the trees. Sexism is such a soft spot, people get ridiculously defensive as if it never existed. Like racism, pretending it does not exist doesn't make it go away. Times have changed, but were not always this way.
carpo719 "Surprised at the responses, as if folks cannot just admit that women have been suppressed for a long time. Finding a flaw in the argument, or my comment, does not detract from the point I was making" While I can understand what you are "trying" to say, I'll just point out, that this line of reasoning is one that effectively leads you into a circlejerk of "i'm right, no matter the evidence". Most people don't agree women were oppressed. At best most of feminist arguments are arguments that fits anyone who was poor back in the day. Given that men typically held responsible, as responsibility use to come with the consequence of having to go to war, men tend to hold power as well (unlike in modern times, power and responsibility tended to, and indeed should, go hand in hand) Women tended to be careful, and protected. Now you might see that as sexist, but given that life use to be a constant struggle, I suspect not having to do the actual "struggling" wasn't such a bad deal. What is today, wasn't what was tomorrow. Be careful not to equate the two.
True, especially that Franklin died 38 years old, there was also an Egyptian physicist called Sameera Moussa died 35 years old in USA. she was legendary, too
+Stephen Blackwell maybe they are recognized more or did you not watch the video? Women are discouraged from science and math everyday but here we are making amazing contributions. So shove your head up your own ass and be on your way.
Even if her name is not as famously known as her colleagues' ones, and even though she wasn't recognized for her work when she was alive, I am happy that the truth about her story is available for the ones really interested in science history and genetic discipline. She was a real scientist, in the right sense of the term, unlike her coworkers who prefered glory over teamship...
Wrong, she didn't even believe DNA was a helix at all. She took 1 photo that was used in a study and emotional morons decided that means she deserves all the credit. You are a victim of misinformation.
My undergrad molecular biology professor did the same, wen he was giving a lecture on dna structure & function he made sure every single student in that lecture hall knew wat Rosalind Franklin's work was & how important it was to the discovery of double helix structure of dna & he also told us the story of how Watson & Crick stole her work & didn't credit her for it, one of the best professors I've had tbh ...
I studied about the DNA in my school days..where even Watson was not given much importance. Now I am reading a book named Gene by Siddhartha Mukherjee.. infact I am reading many other things parallel .. now only I understood her importance
"Plain-dressing, belligerent scientist" my heart is pounding and I literally want to beat them up for my girl Rosalind here, you stole ALL her life achievement and you're STILL badmouthing her? Why are her clothes important? Smh I'm so pissed off.
You know, that's actually a correct comment about Franklin's personality. One of her friends describe her the same way - having a lot of hostility among the people she talk to and seems quite insensitive about it. Watson did also say Franklin "was so intelligent she rarely sought advice".
Khanh Linh Hoang sexism can do that to you....she was undermined her whole life, heck one of her colleagues thought that she was his assistant.....how do you think she would react to such a sick society....she Should get the recognition she deserves....
As a soon-to-be biologist Franklin is my biggest role model. I’m forever grateful for all that she discovered, her work is now the base of our discipline. I hope someday I’ll make the difference like she did
Unfortunately forgotten. What’s saddens me, is that when I searched “who discovered the double helix structure of dna” James Watson pops out, which is outrageous.
The following quote is from Watson and Crick’s first paper in Nature, April 1953: “We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King’s College, London.”
I was really fussed up about the fact that my biology professor never gave due to credit to her in class unlike how he always did before explaining us about any experiments or works. She wasn't given credit back then and isn't given even now. Some textbooks don't even mention her name.
luckily my biology teacher showed us this video today in class and talked about it. im glad they are starting to credit her even if its the bare minimum
moreso the picture and experiment which provided information. It seems like all of the 4 of them had the knowhow to describe the model from there on (they all wrote papers), but the Watson/Crick got most limelight, Wilkins as well with NP. I think Franklin would have got it if she remained alive.
Crick and watson who? I only know rosalind franklin. When I learned about DNA in my school my teacher always made sure to let us know it was Rosalind Franklin who did the work
The actual "true" story is more complicated. Search for the podcast "PastCast: The other DNA papers" on the Nature site. It includes excerpts of an audio account from Raymond Gosling, her research assistant, who did most of the work taking the X-ray photos. The unfortunate fact is that *she did not recognize the implications of Photo 51.* It was only after she had willingly and correctly turned over the photo to Wilkins that Crick and Watson saw it and knew _immediately_ it showed a double helix. Gosling (podcast @5:15): "Now, Rosalind was absolutely determined that there was so much information in structure A’s diffraction pattern that was what she wanted to do and therefore put this photo 51 on one side and said we’ll come back to that. I only wish I’d been able to plug the value of looking at structure B as well as Structure A."
Makes me really cry for the injustices great women of history had to indure. Imagine, we keep teaching our students in school about this great men, unable to emphasize that they are not so great at all.
Whoa Whoa Whoa.... This video is over-exaggerating many things. Put it this way. Franklin had diffraction images of dry A-DNA and wet B-DNA. She decided to work on dry A-DNA because it had more information. She probably believed that in its dry form it took on a more rigid and less flexible structure (though it is true that the cell environment is highly aqueous, and that structurally important 'chelated' water molecules are abundant in nearly all biomolecular structures, this was not as obvious at the time). When she finally turned her attention to B-DNA, she had trouble working out the symmetry point group and consulted Dorothy Hodgkin. Both her and Hodgkin were unable to work out the symmetry group, but Hodgkin's PHD student, was able to say that, since there was only one biologically relevant isomer of ribose, this meant that (through process of elimination) the point groupwas C2. This did not help Franklin discern more of the structure at the time. It was only until the release of Max Perutz's MRC seminar notes (which included Franklin's notes) that Crick saw that Franklin had determined DNA's symmetry to be C2. This meant it had 2-fold rotational symmetry. This led to Crick's genius analysis that both strands must be anti-parallel. Watson later paired the bases (inspired from Chargaff's ratio). Franklin's 1st draft of the paper was written before she had seen Watson and Crick's 1953 model. She independently discovered: 1. Phosphate backbone was on the outside (arguably the most important structural feature) 2. That DNA had a major and minor groove and that the major groove was 5/3 times larger than the minor. 3. Definitive proof that DNA was indeed helical. 4. That DNA was double stranded. What she missed was only the anti-parallel nature of the strands and the way the bases paired. Without a doubt she would have won the Nobel prize. Firstly, Franklin knew Watson and Crick used her data before her death (this is a clear mistake in the video) her photo 51 (actually taken by her student Raymond Gosling) was in their 1953 Nature paper. Secondly, she worked as a student on the Tobacco Mosaic Virus with Aaron Klug who won the nobel prize mainly for his work with Donald Kaspar involving the quasi-equivalence theory. When Wilkins showed Watson the photo 51, Watson could only discern that it was a helix, this is due to crick's paper on the Crick-Cochran theory of how helical structures diffract and show an X shape in accordance with the Bessel function mathematical predictions. Finally I want to point out that this video hardly acknowledges Maurice Wilkins at all. He produced the first ever crystals of DNA and carried out analysis before anyone else and recognized immediate key features. This video portrays him as a thief, he was not (and was in fact an exceptionally decent man), he did not steal the photo from a draw, all her research notes were given to him (by John Randall) when she left. Also Randall told Wilkins that Franklin was to be his 'assistant', this was of course not true and was the cause of the two of them falling out. EDIT: After skimming through @Giorgi Paris's comments it appears I may have gotten MANY details wrong. He has provided quotes and sources for each inaccuracy, so I am assuming he is correct and evidently has a very keen eye on the details of the stories provided in the books he refers to. My original post had been written based on conversations I had with my professor who was a close colleague with Wilkins, and worked on the photo 51 play with Nicole Kidman in it. What I want to state is that having Wilkins and Crick look like crooks does not do justice to these brilliant scientists. Rosalind Franklin was also a brilliant scientist and was an idol of mine through my bachelors. EDIT2: Nature wrote an article outlining the truth. (link: www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5) which i do believe aligns with how i said they did not steal her research, and how franklin knew that the duo had used her data before her death.
wow this is very interesting, not to offend you but do you have sources? i would really like to understand the backstory behind the dna crystal structure
Unfortunately the information is scattered all around the internet. Some of the lesser know information is from Professor Brian Sutton, who knew Wilkins personally and also from having seen and held Franklin's original draft of her paper.
The sources worth reading i guess would be: Wilkins:Third man of Double helix The dark lady of DNA (Rosalind Franklin biography) Crick: What mad pursuit Watson: The double helix (Crick fell out with Watson after he read Watson's first draft of the book and pressed for it not to be published) Perutz: I wish I made you angry earlier The Dorothy Hodgkin autobiography (idk the name off top of my head) and there should be a chapter in 'the eighth day of creation' (Horace Freeland Judson)
A big salute to this great scientist. The scientific community should acknowledge her contribution by crediting her with the discovery of DNA along with the other 2 who got the Nobel Prize.
I always made sure to mention Rosalind Franklin when talking about the discovery of DNA's structure. I think they were more likely to remember the history behind because the back story was so fascinating.
So much more to this story. She should be credited for developing the genius techniques and science to be able to get the photo but I disagree with the overall message of this video. The working out calculations of bond angles between the atoms in the double helix was what they got the prize for. She should have received a prize for her radically genius development of being able to capture the image in its macro form. The picture did not reveal the cheat code like everyone here will believe. Let the hate comments begin even though all I say is she should have received a different Nobel prize of her own and Watson and crick their own. Science builds on other discoveries ALL THE TIME.
it was written about her along with Watson and Crick in my biology textbook but she was mentioned too less so I came to this video it's really informative
Oh God. Rosalind Franklin had already announced her findings of Photo 51 before Wilkins showed the photo to Crick and Watson. Also, Franklin and Wilkins and Crick and Watson published two different papers on the same topic mutually in Nature.
Photo 51 was not shown to anyone but Raymond Gosling (He was the one who showed it to Wilkins, who later showed it to Watson. Watson sketched Photo 51 down on a newspaper and gave it to Crick who could understand what Photo 51 meant in terms of the double helix), you're thinking of Photo A and Photo B, which Rosalind originally used in lectures and talks, but were nowhere near detailed enough to make an accurate model of the double helix. The Findings published in Nature (under instruction of Watson) were set out in a way that suggested that Rosalind's Photo 51 was just backing up their model, not that their work was based off of Photo 51. Rosalind's article was the last of three in that issue: Watson and Cricks first, Wilkins and collaborators second, and Franklin and Gosling last. Even John Maddox (a former editor of Nature) said that Rosalind's contribution was obscured by Watson and Crick. The documentary "DNA The Secret of Photo 51" explains it all in a lot more detail, and even includes Wilkins, Gosling, Aaron Klug (A collaborator with Rosalind), and close friends and colleagues.
@@emp8653 Photo 51 was Gosling's. It was not used at all in the model, but then they got a copy in late March it was consistent with their model. The one piece of data they did use from King's was Gosling and Stokes calculation of the point group.
@@liverpoolirish208 Photo 51 was not Gosling's. Photo 51 was taken by Gosling under the instruction and supervision of Rosalind and was her idea. It was not his to share, especially not without her knowledge. The only thing Watson and Crick were sure of was that the model was *helical*, that tells them nothing about how many strands it has, and that was even with the knowledge of the Erwin Chargaff rules (A-T, C-G). They could only conclude it was a double helix *after* they were shown Photo 51. Originally they believed it was a triple helix, not a double helix. Group theory was used years before the structure of DNA was being considered, it was Erwin Chargaff’s rules that gave them the basic model. King's College: "‘Photo 51’, taken by Dr Rosalind Franklin and Ray Gosling at King’s in 1952, can claim to be one of the world’s most important photographs, providing confirmation of the helical structure of DNA. " Also King's College: "This photograph (together with their own deductions) enabled James Watson and Francis Crick of the University of Cambridge to build the *first correct model* of the DNA molecule."
Oscar-winning actress, Nicole Kidman, recently won awards and accolades for her performance as Rosalind Franklin in the hit play, 'Photograph 51,' on London's West End (Great Britain's version of Broadway).
Oh my god. The way we learned this in school made it sound like "her photo" was a photo of her DNA, not a photo that she took! This was really informative!
There is the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science not too far from where I live. Many people around here are familiar with her background due to that university.
In the obituaries he wrote for the Times and Nature, J. D. Bernal praised her beautifully executed researches, carried out with apparently effortless skill, and her gift for organizing research projects. He noted, "As a scientist Miss Franklin was distinguished by extreme clarity and perfection in everything she undertook. Her photographs are among the most beautiful x-ray photographs of any substance ever taken." Her life, he concluded, was a perfect example of single-minded devotion to research. The Rosalind Franklin Papers profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/KR/p-nid/188
Instead of feeling or being pissed off , correct what’s right in front of your eyes (in your day to day lives ) because if it’s not brought to justice , clarity and equality then these kinds of stories might never end ! Wake up !
Franklin's role has been credited in biochemistry texts for decades. It appears the first person to publicly give credit to her was Watson himself. I think this story has been twisted around by people who want to stir outrage.
The most unrecognized scientist,if u ask me is Roosevelt franklin and Tesla, they dont get the cridit for what the breakthrough discovery they did ....god i am feeling sad for them......😢😢
I have a random story to share. I know an Emeritus Prof who met them ages ago and Watson was apparently a huge ass even then. The prof who I worked for said Crick was a "genius" and most of their good work came from him. He said the only reason why Watson was named first on their paper (The convention is that the order of authorship is in decreasing amount of work completed, except when there are many authors. If there are many authors, the last author is the lab's primary investigator.) was because he bullied his way to the top. (I know a few people like that in my lab. Insufferable.) Crick was actually pretty nice. Watson is still a jerk, even after so many years (he made some comments that were in the news recently). Too bad Crick isn't still around.
Great video I’d like to have seen more commentary on the anti-Semiticism that she experienced as well, than again for a less than 5 minute video you still put in a lot of facts I didn’t know about beforehand like the 2nd nobel prize and how Wilkins thought she was his assistant. Ted-Ed, you’ve done it again!
It was Maurice Wilkins idea to take the picture in the first place. If he couldn’t then share the picture with Watson and Crick, it sounds like Rosalind was the one trying to steal someone’s idea and take all the credit, but she failed. As Wilkins may have wanted Watson and Crick’s help.
Watson not much likeable as he is too much straightforward with his word that our society doesn't accept nonetheless master of his field .. crick ..you will appreciate and respect his hard work after knowing the complete story
Yes, since I watched the PBS show on Rosalind, she has been my hero. I knew that if I would have a daughter, I should consider the name Rosalind. Alas, I don't have a daughter, but my son, who watched this video with me, thought she got a bum deal too.
I'm so glad someone is finally mentioning her! We learned about her in science class and it made me soo angry that nobody knew of her genius. Twas a male dominated culture. Sad.
Likewise, Watson and Crick could study and analize the photo to make the correct calculations to reveal the now accepted structure. Of anyway that, and nothing more, justifies the fact of discriminate and not to take her the deserved recognition to Rosalind.
really i cant express how i m feeling sad for franklin who worked on DNA even she lose her health bt very few know her work in every course book of our just crick and waston names are mention so i just appriciate the brave and very talentex girl and her work ..
I just finished Watson's book "The double helix". He gave clear credits to Rosalinds work, so, saying that she was forgotten is truly false. Rosalinds fault was to accept very late the helix-structure of the DNA . She took the famous photo 51 , an X-ray photo of crystallized DNA. This photo shows that the structure is a helix. She also refused to build an atomic model , as Watson and Crick did it. By sticking to X-ray analysis she was less fast than Watson and Crick, this rigidity finally cost here the appearance on the author list of Watson and Cricks publication. So, no, she isn't forgotten, but as usual one or 2 bad decisions can lead to getting known as Einstein or unknown as - her.
Double helix has described Rosalind as "uncooperative, unattractive, and incompetent in her field." I have the book too :) It barely even gives credit to her,infact it calls her incompetent. Imagine someone stealing your work & calling you incompetent even after you died. It doesn't change the fact that she had the photo 51 & that they have stolen it.
We really need a statue or a kids movie of Roslin Franklin. I honestly don't understand why Sexism, Racism and other unfair things exist among people who have different opinions on life.
The reason Watson and Crick weren't keen on providing credit towards Franklin was because of their previous work relationships. Watson and Crick were open about their discoveries and wanted feedback from Franklin regarding their hypotheses that DNA was a triple helix and that the bases were on the outside not the inside. Franklin completely discredited their work which almost prevented Watson and Crick from being able to complete further work on DNA thanks to their work being seen as a failure and not as a mistake in the right direction I think there was just a lot of beef between them and it is unfortunate that neither one was willing to respect and credit each others discoveries
Feminists will never research this part. They just prefer being perpetual victims. Its history and history can be forged, changed and forgotten. We can only know what we are told. I personally believe that there is more to this story than is been told.
I remember watching a movie-ish documentary about the discovery of the DNA and that being the first and honestly only time I saw her name relating to this topic. Everytime I open my biology book and read the names Watson and Crick, my brain automatically inserts ,,Rosalind Franklin,, and I wonder how little people have ever heard of her
+TED-ed Could you please not contribute to misunderstandings?? I realy love TED education, but this video is way too biased. Franklin was a really good scientist and her work got published, just as you say. BUT it didn't have "all the position of the atoms". Her paper was very dull, even the title was boring: "Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate"; unlike that, Watson and Crick's title was much more direct: "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid". Watson and Crick's paper was absolutely void of data, it was more like a letter to the editor than a research paper. Its popularity lies only in their bold proposal of the structure. Both Wilkins and Franklin's papers were, by comparison, much more conservative. They postulated a simple and constant structure, where the phosphate groups would be outside, but neither of them explicitely proposed the structure. Photo 51 was one of many, and yes, Franklin knew she was onto something, but ultimately, she had bad luck. If only she had sent her ideas earlier instead of insisting of analyzing every bit of data first, she would be more known.
Marco Antonio she probably wanted to sure of the facts before she told the world. Let pretend that the boys theroy that they told the world was actually wrong. Think how that would change dozen of things we have today. Plus they would have been told that they should have checked the fact first.
Indeed. And it's a shame they didn't mention how tragic dracula's story was in frankenstein books. Fuckin idiot, they're telling one strory, why bring up a different one
Why you do you have to get into a dick measuring contest? How bad Tesla's is doesn't negate Franklin's. Nor does telling Franklin's story dismiss Tesla's, because he's a man. Go tilt at windmills.
Tuğrul Şahin Probably because its annoying, having these stories being twisted into some ideological tool. Scientists have been in strong competition with each other since the beginning the sciences, and while sexism at that time didn't help, it is unfortunately the result of competitiveness and bad people, which all areas have its fair share.
***** Thought that may be true I'll take TED-ed's credentials over commenters with arguments that might not even be the case here and trust TED-ed did their research. Only thing I could do to object this is read their sources and bring up facts about this particular case rather than offer generalised observations that "scientists have always been like this" and "all areas".
They should award her heirs. I love that a man put this together. Humans don't always acknowledge humans but whatever we say and do the universe is always listening;)
Why can't the Nobel prize be awarded posthumously? It's often granted several decades after the discovery in the first place. The money could benefit the family. I remember hearing the in 1948 they didn't award a Nobel Peace Prize because Gandhi had just died. That's ridiculous
Watson and Crick did not deserve that Nobel Prize because it was credit stolen from Rosalind's hard work. She was the one that deserved to have that Nobel Prize.
The story is even more messed up when you consider the radiation she exposed herself to get the picture might have caused her cancer- aka she died for the discovery that she's hardly credited for.
YellowKabob she didn't take the photo, lol she had one of her students do it for her
@Voice of Reason Naming building after her is not proportional to the contribution she had for science. How many textbooks do you think Watson and Crick's name are written in and the Nobel Prize for DNA itself is a bigger credit than any building that can be named for anyone
@@JohnJigglywiggly So did Rutherford make his students perform the alpha scattering experiment. Does that in any way belittle his contribution?
She didn't take the photo, her (male) PhD student did.
@@soumyanathroy491 nope he didn't.
She died at the age 38 without being credited for her work....Damn ..I am feeling so sad right now
the back story is she is a crystallographer and the technique, x-ray crystallography combined with not knowing the dangers of being exposed to xrays (it was only recently discovered then) she was exposed to a large amt of xrays which lead to her cancer and eventual death from it. quite unfortunate though
Zhi Jian Ng Now that is even more depressing to hear
Yeeees so unfair!!!!!!!
+Zhi Jian Ng damn poor girl. So brave
She was credited for her work, she just couldn't get a nobel prize for it.
People had no problem giving her credit.
Is surprising that most of the important scientists are practically unknown or whit out recognition
some of them just like to keep a low profile whilst continuing their research, for rosalind's case it was very unfortunate for her research to be "stolen" not to mention downplayed by those who benefitted directly from her work
+Zhi Jian Ng yeah you're right
Thats because "most" aren't. As with all things there are exceptions. For example Hook and Newton were bitter enemies, and in the end Newton won out, despite much controversy about who discovered what. To say "most important scientists" is beyond hyperbolic. There are always bad people, taking credit for other peoples work, and in some instances, they get away with it. Everyone's work depends on the work that came before. As such we might as well contribute all scientific, indeed all work every done, to the first single celled organism, as without it, none of it would have happened. Hope you can see the fault in what your saying :)
+Sokar oh yeah thanks! !!!!! is best learning from a mistake than never be corrected
Gian Luca Cherubini That is the scientific method. Best of luck to you in the future :)
Disney should really make a movie about science's forgotten princess : Rosalind Franklin. It would teach children to always be fair and never to steal credit for someone else's work.
Good idea.
I'd pay to see it at the cinema & I only go to see 2 movies a year max generally.
I agree. Sadly I think it's not going to happen soon, or at least not by Disney since they seem more fantasy based
Disney would screw the story up so badly. All I can think of is Pocahontas when I contemplate Disney doing "history"
Theyd probably mess it up tho.
Say what you want about Feminism today, this woman is truly a heroine.
Feminism is fine but radical feminism is when it crosses the line for equality to inequality
Well, feminism is a good thing,, femi-nazism isn't.
When it's women = men it's true, when it's women = men exept when this is a tenious part of life it's false.
+Latte Cat 'By definition' isn't the same with 'in practice'.
+Latte Cat society splits feminist by 2 categories. Normal feminists who want Equal rights in a non-violent action and RADICAL feminists who are insane and are Femi-Nazis who want women to be not equal to men but superior.
Latte Cat "If someone does not fit the definition of feminist, they aren't a feminist. It's that simple." Go tell that to those feminists who advocate anything but equality. And when did I deny the definition? I meant that most feminists do not act as implied by the definition, yet they call themselves such.
It's so anoying that people continue to say *'Oh well Watson & Crick didn't really steal from Franklin. They just built upon her work.'*
Well technically they *did* steal her work. By not crediting Franklin as the source of the photo. & allowing others to belive that. They were responsible for the discovery through their work.
Watson & Crick falsely allowed people to think they alone were responsible for the discovery. That's theft through omission & it would stand up in any court of law today.
Yeah I know,they are so annoying .I hate all of them who ever says they are helping Franklin
Well said.
@Em Eye Kay no
ruclips.net/video/1vm3od_UmFg/видео.html&ab_channel=biointeractive
Plus they tried crediting Wilikins who was Franklins's assistant
I’m Japanese university student, and I’m studying about DNA. By the way, Watson and Crick are very famous, so all students of science university know them. But I haven’t known her until I read “ Rosalind Franklin and DNA”. I think that she should be known as Historical Great women.
So, did she discover DNA ?
@@antoineansart4707 No, she helped a lot though. Shouldn't we acknowledge those who helped humanity strive further? Or is it farther?
@AREEN KRIKORIAN and he named it nuclein
We always had Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins mentioned next to Watson and Crick.
"Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA with the help of Xray diffraction studies by Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin"
Tho to be fair, Crick was a VERY famous scientist, who put his hand in several parts of evolutionary theories
@@boomgoesthesingularity4337 No offense but,
But Crick and Watson stole Rosalind Franklin's work, not that they relied on it. It's that they gave credit to the wrong people.
In addition to not giving her the credit she deserves, her backstory is not given as much importance. Where she died for that work, while others earned the credit.
There are "geniuses" who steal the work of true geniuses who are not even mentioned in history, nor with awards.
So many women contributed such amazing things to science and history. Man's fear and insecurity did not allow him to give credit where credit was due. As a man, I find this offensive to all. I'm glad to live in a day and it's where we are starting to realize that sexism gets us nowhere. Also sharing what we've discovered is more important than personal credit. Those who are seeking personal recognition over the good of their fellow man are not scientists but businessmen
Why do you assume Men stole Womens work because of sexism? Scientists have been stealing other Scientists work for centuries
I always love the "as a X" comment. How about "as a human"? Being a woman or a man doesn't in anyway affiliate you with someone elses wrongs, or endore you with special privilege at particular instances.
Also overblowing what was, and probably still is, part of the very competitive nature of scientific progress, into a "sexist" problem (thought admittedly, back then that didn't help), is just as wrong, as what was done to Rosalind. Scientists has been furiously fighting and stealing work from each other as far back as time goes. Its an unfortunate, but very human trait.
relo999, if you can step off black and white thinking, that'd be nice. OP doesn't say personal credit is unimportant. He says sharing what we discover is more important. See, what he did there?
deadfish45films, sexism isn't a means to steal someone else's work. It does make it easier. OP speaks of "over the good of their fellow man".
Surprised at the responses, as if folks cannot just admit that women have been suppressed for a long time. Finding a flaw in the argument, or my comment, does not detract from the point I was making.
relo999 You took my claim out of context, read again. I said recognition OVER the benefit to mankind is the problem. We all like to be recognized ,this is what pushes innovation.
deadfish45films What I meant was that the women had no recourse, and you know this. If a man stole another man's work, they are often called out on it. Until recently, women would just be ignored and laughed at if they claimed a man stole their work.
XuQifei I did not say women did not contribute; I said that they were looked down on by their peers.
Folks really need to see the forest AND the trees. Sexism is such a soft spot, people get ridiculously defensive as if it never existed. Like racism, pretending it does not exist doesn't make it go away. Times have changed, but were not always this way.
carpo719 "Surprised at the responses, as if folks cannot just admit that women have been suppressed for a long time. Finding a flaw in the argument, or my comment, does not detract from the point I was making"
While I can understand what you are "trying" to say, I'll just point out, that this line of reasoning is one that effectively leads you into a circlejerk of "i'm right, no matter the evidence".
Most people don't agree women were oppressed. At best most of feminist arguments are arguments that fits anyone who was poor back in the day. Given that men typically held responsible, as responsibility use to come with the consequence of having to go to war, men tend to hold power as well (unlike in modern times, power and responsibility tended to, and indeed should, go hand in hand)
Women tended to be careful, and protected. Now you might see that as sexist, but given that life use to be a constant struggle, I suspect not having to do the actual "struggling" wasn't such a bad deal. What is today, wasn't what was tomorrow. Be careful not to equate the two.
Marie Curie, Ada Lovelace, and Rosalind Franklin.
The top 3 female scientists of all time.
Bravo to all female scientists. 👏👏👏
Male scientists achieved more.
True, especially that Franklin died 38 years old, there was also an Egyptian physicist called Sameera Moussa died 35 years old in USA. she was legendary, too
+Simply_Ana the comment was more than unnecessary, it was offensive
offensive but true :(
+Stephen Blackwell maybe they are recognized more or did you not watch the video? Women are discouraged from science and math everyday but here we are making amazing contributions. So shove your head up your own ass and be on your way.
Even if her name is not as famously known as her colleagues' ones, and even though she wasn't recognized for her work when she was alive, I am happy that the truth about her story is available for the ones really interested in science history and genetic discipline.
She was a real scientist, in the right sense of the term, unlike her coworkers who prefered glory over teamship...
Wrong, she didn't even believe DNA was a helix at all. She took 1 photo that was used in a study and emotional morons decided that means she deserves all the credit. You are a victim of misinformation.
Not only was she a woman, but she was also Jewish. She not only battled sexism but also anti semitism.
Give it a rest.
+Constantine n
Sure. That too
VICTIM JACKPOT!
that was not a huge issue until hitler came in
I am so happy that in my education, I never learnt about Watson and Crick. I was always taught about Rosalind Franklin credited for DNA.
Me too. I had a professor that explained me all the story, so I gave to Watson, Crick and Franklin the same importance
My undergrad molecular biology professor did the same, wen he was giving a lecture on dna structure & function he made sure every single student in that lecture hall knew wat Rosalind Franklin's work was & how important it was to the discovery of double helix structure of dna & he also told us the story of how Watson & Crick stole her work & didn't credit her for it, one of the best professors I've had tbh ...
Same here in Pakistan
We also learnt about Rosalind
@@ariankhan8371 Same here in the Philippines lol
I studied about the DNA in my school days..where even Watson was not given much importance.
Now I am reading a book named Gene by Siddhartha Mukherjee.. infact I am reading many other things parallel .. now only I understood her importance
Poor Rosalind Franklin. May she rest in peace, and may this video spread far and wide so she is credited for her hard work.
Correction, rest in power.
I am so happy she is getting the due credit she deserves. She should not be forgotten.
"Plain-dressing, belligerent scientist" my heart is pounding and I literally want to beat them up for my girl Rosalind here, you stole ALL her life achievement and you're STILL badmouthing her? Why are her clothes important? Smh I'm so pissed off.
You know, that's actually a correct comment about Franklin's personality. One of her friends describe her the same way - having a lot of hostility among the people she talk to and seems quite insensitive about it. Watson did also say Franklin "was so intelligent she rarely sought advice".
Khanh Linh Hoang sexism can do that to you....she was undermined her whole life, heck one of her colleagues thought that she was his assistant.....how do you think she would react to such a sick society....she Should get the recognition she deserves....
Exactly and since when did scientists have to dress all fancy
As a soon-to-be biologist Franklin is my biggest role model. I’m forever grateful for all that she discovered, her work is now the base of our discipline. I hope someday I’ll make the difference like she did
At 3:48 I got goosebumps... Literally what a marvelous biography.. Every science student would feel proud of her
That statue at the end needs to be a real thing! Who knows any good builders?
I'm glad we have come a long way in terms of gender equality of opportunities. Dr. Franklin you will not be forgotten.
this annoys me that people just ignored her
Unfortunately forgotten.
What’s saddens me, is that when I searched “who discovered the double helix structure of dna” James Watson pops out, which is outrageous.
There are lots like this.
@@MrScorpion360x Because he did, cope. She took a photo, that is it. She didn't even support the theory.
Wow. I wonder what kind of work she'd have made if she lived 20 to 30 years longer.
ruclips.net/video/S7dIBQ83cEw/видео.html
I came to the comments prepared for the worst, and now I'm happy to be disappointed.
Me also
Without her image, they would never have guessed the structure - they stole her research data they do not deserve the Nobel Prize.
If I discovered a new element I would name it Frankliniam. Three cheers for Franklin!!!
Honestly, I'd take back the nobel prizes from watson and craig if i were part of the nobel prize team or sumthin
She dedicated her life for finding the structure of DNA by getting cancer from X-rays what a legend 😢😭 *R.I.P Mother of Double Helix*
LOL she didn't even support the theory, the two men who ACTUALLY discovered the double helix did, she just took a photo they used.
shes my inspiration
Thats nice, Onision fanboy
+EmptyGamer HEY! Bananas are cool!
+Nicholas starr but Onision's a psychopath
ohmygreg She didn't really do anything. This is Feminazi propaganda
The following quote is from Watson and Crick’s first paper in Nature, April 1953:
“We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King’s College, London.”
I saw a play about this in the west end London with Nicole Kidman playing Rosalind - brought me to tears. The play was called photograph 51
I was really fussed up about the fact that my biology professor never gave due to credit to her in class unlike how he always did before explaining us about any experiments or works. She wasn't given credit back then and isn't given even now. Some textbooks don't even mention her name.
luckily my
biology teacher showed us this video today in class and talked about it. im glad they are starting to credit her even if its the bare minimum
My book has her name and our teacher actually shared her story
In high school, I actually learned that Franklin is credited with the discovery of the structure of DNA. Times have changed.
moreso the picture and experiment which provided information. It seems like all of the 4 of them had the knowhow to describe the model from there on (they all wrote papers), but the Watson/Crick got most limelight, Wilkins as well with NP. I think Franklin would have got it if she remained alive.
You were lied to at school I'm afraid.
You were fed revised history, not real history.
Crick and watson who? I only know rosalind franklin. When I learned about DNA in my school my teacher always made sure to let us know it was Rosalind Franklin who did the work
The actual "true" story is more complicated. Search for the podcast "PastCast: The other DNA papers" on the Nature site. It includes excerpts of an audio account from Raymond Gosling, her research assistant, who did most of the work taking the X-ray photos.
The unfortunate fact is that *she did not recognize the implications of Photo 51.* It was only after she had willingly and correctly turned over the photo to Wilkins that Crick and Watson saw it and knew _immediately_ it showed a double helix.
Gosling (podcast @5:15): "Now, Rosalind was absolutely determined that there was so much information in structure A’s diffraction pattern that was what she wanted to do and therefore put this photo 51 on one side and said we’ll come back to that. I only wish I’d been able to plug the value of looking at structure B as well as Structure A."
Makes me really cry for the injustices great women of history had to indure. Imagine, we keep teaching our students in school about this great men, unable to emphasize that they are not so great at all.
They were, you do not know what you're talking about.
Photo 51 was stolen by Wilkins from her desk. She died in 37 years only.she was amazing. But she lost her life by this x ray diffraction
Whoa Whoa Whoa.... This video is over-exaggerating many things.
Put it this way.
Franklin had diffraction images of dry A-DNA and wet B-DNA. She decided to work on dry A-DNA because it had more information. She probably believed that in its dry form it took on a more rigid and less flexible structure (though it is true that the cell environment is highly aqueous, and that structurally important 'chelated' water molecules are abundant in nearly all biomolecular structures, this was not as obvious at the time). When she finally turned her attention to B-DNA, she had trouble working out the symmetry point group and consulted Dorothy Hodgkin. Both her and Hodgkin were unable to work out the symmetry group, but Hodgkin's PHD student, was able to say that, since there was only one biologically relevant isomer of ribose, this meant that (through process of elimination) the point groupwas C2. This did not help Franklin discern more of the structure at the time. It was only until the release of Max Perutz's MRC seminar notes (which included Franklin's notes) that Crick saw that Franklin had determined DNA's symmetry to be C2. This meant it had 2-fold rotational symmetry. This led to Crick's genius analysis that both strands must be anti-parallel. Watson later paired the bases (inspired from Chargaff's ratio).
Franklin's 1st draft of the paper was written before she had seen Watson and Crick's 1953 model. She independently discovered:
1. Phosphate backbone was on the outside (arguably the most important structural feature)
2. That DNA had a major and minor groove and that the major groove was 5/3 times larger than the minor.
3. Definitive proof that DNA was indeed helical.
4. That DNA was double stranded.
What she missed was only the anti-parallel nature of the strands and the way the bases paired.
Without a doubt she would have won the Nobel prize.
Firstly, Franklin knew Watson and Crick used her data before her death (this is a clear mistake in the video) her photo 51 (actually taken by her student Raymond Gosling) was in their 1953 Nature paper. Secondly, she worked as a student on the Tobacco Mosaic Virus with Aaron Klug who won the nobel prize mainly for his work with Donald Kaspar involving the quasi-equivalence theory. When Wilkins showed Watson the photo 51, Watson could only discern that it was a helix, this is due to crick's paper on the Crick-Cochran theory of how helical structures diffract and show an X shape in accordance with the Bessel function mathematical predictions. Finally I want to point out that this video hardly acknowledges Maurice Wilkins at all. He produced the first ever crystals of DNA and carried out analysis before anyone else and recognized immediate key features. This video portrays him as a thief, he was not (and was in fact an exceptionally decent man), he did not steal the photo from a draw, all her research notes were given to him (by John Randall) when she left. Also Randall told Wilkins that Franklin was to be his 'assistant', this was of course not true and was the cause of the two of them falling out.
EDIT: After skimming through @Giorgi Paris's comments it appears I may have gotten MANY details wrong. He has provided quotes and sources for each inaccuracy, so I am assuming he is correct and evidently has a very keen eye on the details of the stories provided in the books he refers to. My original post had been written based on conversations I had with my professor who was a close colleague with Wilkins, and worked on the photo 51 play with Nicole Kidman in it. What I want to state is that having Wilkins and Crick look like crooks does not do justice to these brilliant scientists. Rosalind Franklin was also a brilliant scientist and was an idol of mine through my bachelors.
EDIT2: Nature wrote an article outlining the truth. (link: www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5) which i do believe aligns with how i said they did not steal her research, and how franklin knew that the duo had used her data before her death.
wow this is very interesting, not to offend you but do you have sources? i would really like to understand the backstory behind the dna crystal structure
Unfortunately the information is scattered all around the internet. Some of the lesser know information is from Professor Brian Sutton, who knew Wilkins personally and also from having seen and held Franklin's original draft of her paper.
He helped with the Nicole Kidman photo 51 play written by Anna Ziegler which Donald Kaspar (mentioned in original comment) attended.
The sources worth reading i guess would be:
Wilkins:Third man of Double helix
The dark lady of DNA (Rosalind Franklin biography)
Crick: What mad pursuit
Watson: The double helix (Crick fell out with Watson after he read Watson's first draft of the book and pressed for it not to be published)
Perutz: I wish I made you angry earlier
The Dorothy Hodgkin autobiography (idk the name off top of my head)
and there should be a chapter in 'the eighth day of creation' (Horace Freeland Judson)
+nick fisk hey man thanks for the sources! I'll get time to read through them
As a biology teacher I always tell my girls about rosalind achievements and focus on female scientist.
We need a Rosalind Franklin Day. Let’s start a hashtag #rosalindday The Mother of DNA 🧬
no thanks
@@RealNormHall why not? her research has greatly impacted science and dna knowledge. she deserves credit
@@astrolouise6904 na
@@astrolouise6904 no she doesn't
The mother of DNA
Sounds great
Our professor always told us 4 names for the discovery of DNA, Rosalind, Wilkins, Watson, and Crick. That's how it should be everywhere.
A big salute to this great scientist. The scientific community should acknowledge her contribution by crediting her with the discovery of DNA along with the other 2 who got the Nobel Prize.
I never knew the story before. Now I feel so proud for her.
" *Unsung Mother of Double Helix-DNA* "
I always made sure to mention Rosalind Franklin when talking about the discovery of DNA's structure. I think they were more likely to remember the history behind because the back story was so fascinating.
So much more to this story. She should be credited for developing the genius techniques and science to be able to get the photo but I disagree with the overall message of this video. The working out calculations of bond angles between the atoms in the double helix was what they got the prize for. She should have received a prize for her radically genius development of being able to capture the image in its macro form. The picture did not reveal the cheat code like everyone here will believe. Let the hate comments begin even though all I say is she should have received a different Nobel prize of her own and Watson and crick their own. Science builds on other discoveries ALL THE TIME.
it was written about her along with Watson and Crick in my biology textbook but she was mentioned too less so I came to this video it's really informative
She should get a t least one posthumous Nobel Prize!!
Thank u for telling us about the real hero.
Oh God. Rosalind Franklin had already announced her findings of Photo 51 before Wilkins showed the photo to Crick and Watson. Also, Franklin and Wilkins and Crick and Watson published two different papers on the same topic mutually in Nature.
Photo 51 was not shown to anyone but Raymond Gosling (He was the one who showed it to Wilkins, who later showed it to Watson. Watson sketched Photo 51 down on a newspaper and gave it to Crick who could understand what Photo 51 meant in terms of the double helix), you're thinking of Photo A and Photo B, which Rosalind originally used in lectures and talks, but were nowhere near detailed enough to make an accurate model of the double helix. The Findings published in Nature (under instruction of Watson) were set out in a way that suggested that Rosalind's Photo 51 was just backing up their model, not that their work was based off of Photo 51. Rosalind's article was the last of three in that issue: Watson and Cricks first, Wilkins and collaborators second, and Franklin and Gosling last. Even John Maddox (a former editor of Nature) said that Rosalind's contribution was obscured by Watson and Crick.
The documentary "DNA The Secret of Photo 51" explains it all in a lot more detail, and even includes Wilkins, Gosling, Aaron Klug (A collaborator with Rosalind), and close friends and colleagues.
@@emp8653 Photo 51 was Gosling's. It was not used at all in the model, but then they got a copy in late March it was consistent with their model. The one piece of data they did use from King's was Gosling and Stokes calculation of the point group.
@@liverpoolirish208 Photo 51 was not Gosling's. Photo 51 was taken by Gosling under the instruction and supervision of Rosalind and was her idea. It was not his to share, especially not without her knowledge.
The only thing Watson and Crick were sure of was that the model was *helical*, that tells them nothing about how many strands it has, and that was even with the knowledge of the Erwin Chargaff rules (A-T, C-G).
They could only conclude it was a double helix *after* they were shown Photo 51. Originally they believed it was a triple helix, not a double helix.
Group theory was used years before the structure of DNA was being considered, it was Erwin Chargaff’s rules that gave them the basic model.
King's College: "‘Photo 51’, taken by Dr Rosalind Franklin and Ray Gosling at King’s in 1952, can claim to be one of the world’s most important photographs, providing confirmation of the helical structure of DNA.
"
Also King's College: "This photograph (together with their own deductions) enabled James Watson and Francis Crick of the University of Cambridge to build the *first correct model* of the DNA molecule."
@@emp8653 Photo 51 taken by Gosling.....And Photo 51 is Gosling ideas .... Not a Rosalind idea ......
@@prajwalzare909 Photo 51 was never Goslings idea. It was under Franklin's strict induction and guidance.
Oscar-winning actress, Nicole Kidman, recently won awards and accolades for her performance as Rosalind Franklin in the hit play, 'Photograph 51,' on London's West End (Great Britain's version of Broadway).
It's so important to tell the stories of women in science!
Oh my god. The way we learned this in school made it sound like "her photo" was a photo of her DNA, not a photo that she took! This was really informative!
My teacher told this story in my online class , I became super excited to know all about this almighty lady. I quit my class and came to know 🥰🥰
There is the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science not too far from where I live. Many people around here are familiar with her background due to that university.
In the obituaries he wrote for the Times and Nature, J. D. Bernal praised her beautifully executed researches, carried out with apparently effortless skill, and her gift for organizing research projects. He noted, "As a scientist Miss Franklin was distinguished by extreme clarity and perfection in everything she undertook. Her photographs are among the most beautiful x-ray photographs of any substance ever taken." Her life, he concluded, was a perfect example of single-minded devotion to research.
The Rosalind Franklin Papers
profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/KR/p-nid/188
3:50 Someone needs to build that sculpture, pronto.
Yah!
Instead of feeling or being pissed off , correct what’s right in front of your eyes (in your day to day lives ) because if it’s not brought to justice , clarity and equality then these kinds of stories might never end ! Wake up !
How does it work? When you and a colleague win the Nobel Prize do you have to share the medal or do both of you get a medal?
both get a medal, but share the prize money
lol
Was thinking the same
Franklin's role has been credited in biochemistry texts for decades. It appears the first person to publicly give credit to her was Watson himself. I think this story has been twisted around by people who want to stir outrage.
The most unrecognized scientist,if u ask me is Roosevelt franklin and Tesla, they dont get the cridit for what the breakthrough discovery they did ....god i am feeling sad for them......😢😢
But Tesla is not a female, so no one cares.
If Tesla is underappreciated then I'm the pope.
I can’t be happier to be writing a biography for my chemistry class on her
So inspiring! These unsung heroes should be celebrated who lost their identity :(
Franklin isn’t unsung, though. Her role is well-known to anyone interested in the subject.
I have a random story to share. I know an Emeritus Prof who met them ages ago and Watson was apparently a huge ass even then. The prof who I worked for said Crick was a "genius" and most of their good work came from him. He said the only reason why Watson was named first on their paper (The convention is that the order of authorship is in decreasing amount of work completed, except when there are many authors. If there are many authors, the last author is the lab's primary investigator.) was because he bullied his way to the top. (I know a few people like that in my lab. Insufferable.) Crick was actually pretty nice. Watson is still a jerk, even after so many years (he made some comments that were in the news recently). Too bad Crick isn't still around.
crimsonrose James Watson was Francis Crick's junior, but as the story goes he one a coin toss.
Wow. I guess that's why watson ans crick had a fallout?
I’m so glad my science textbook at school recognises Franklin first and then the other two
A great women behind a great cause....contributed so much and gone without receiving honour...🥺..just like Gregor Mendel. May your soul rest in peace.
died at the age of 38 of cancer, likely due to all her work and exposure to x-rays. Her dying so young is a testament to how hard she worked.
Great video I’d like to have seen more commentary on the anti-Semiticism that she experienced as well, than again for a less than 5 minute video you still put in a lot of facts I didn’t know about beforehand like the 2nd nobel prize and how Wilkins thought she was his assistant. Ted-Ed, you’ve done it again!
It was Maurice Wilkins idea to take the picture in the first place. If he couldn’t then share the picture with Watson and Crick, it sounds like Rosalind was the one trying to steal someone’s idea and take all the credit, but she failed. As Wilkins may have wanted Watson and Crick’s help.
I first heard it wrong as "the unsung mother of the devil helix" instead of "double" 3:50
Hollywood need to make movie to remind her. Most of the biology students even dont know her name. Please spread this message on social media
by god, no. Hollywood does enough pseudo-scientific nonsense
Nah. Anyone truly interested in Biology knows her name pretty well.
I have no idea who Watson and Crick are, but I definitely don't like them
shame on you then
Superbookgirl? What books are you reading that you don't know Watson and Crick?
Um, the story isn't that accurate.
Watson not much likeable as he is too much straightforward with his word that our society doesn't accept nonetheless master of his field .. crick ..you will appreciate and respect his hard work after knowing the complete story
Alex Brittain um,how it isn’t accurate?
Actually, Franklin’s contribution is fairly well known to anyone who is interested in the history of science.
this girl is amazing. like omg
It's great that the guys are more unknown to us but I will remember Rosalind Franklin
Yes, since I watched the PBS show on Rosalind, she has been my hero. I knew that if I would have a daughter, I should consider the name Rosalind. Alas, I don't have a daughter, but my son, who watched this video with me, thought she got a bum deal too.
as a researcher, my feelings now is anguish beyond measure.
Of course, I only learned this information myself in college.
The video brings tears😢.
I'm so glad someone is finally mentioning her! We learned about her in science class and it made me soo angry that nobody knew of her genius. Twas a male dominated culture. Sad.
Also, Watson and Crick are assholes
What about the credit for Raymond Gosling who actually took the photo?
Likewise, Watson and Crick could study and analize the photo to make the correct calculations to reveal the now accepted structure. Of anyway that, and nothing more, justifies the fact of discriminate and not to take her the deserved recognition to Rosalind.
really i cant express how i m feeling sad for franklin who worked on DNA even she lose her health bt very few know her work in every course book of our just crick and waston names are mention so i just appriciate the brave and very talentex girl and her work ..
This is how feminism should be.
Feminism is dead, and now is used by totalitarians to rotten the society with their mentality. People should advocate egalitarianism instead.
chill
This is how feminism is
egalitarianism and humanism > feminism
But it should not be about distorting the history of science to make a political point. This video is not worthy of the TED name.
Great video. I knew Wilkins had stolen her photo but I didn't realise that she died not knowing. How sad.
I just finished Watson's book "The double helix". He gave clear credits to Rosalinds work, so, saying that she was forgotten is truly false.
Rosalinds fault was to accept very late the helix-structure of the DNA . She took the famous photo 51 , an X-ray photo of crystallized DNA. This photo shows that the structure is a helix. She also refused to build an atomic model , as Watson and Crick did it.
By sticking to X-ray analysis she was less fast than Watson and Crick, this rigidity finally cost here the appearance on the author list of Watson and Cricks publication.
So, no, she isn't forgotten, but as usual one or 2 bad decisions can lead to getting known as Einstein or unknown as - her.
Double helix has described Rosalind as "uncooperative, unattractive, and incompetent in her field." I have the book too :)
It barely even gives credit to her,infact it calls her incompetent. Imagine someone stealing your work & calling you incompetent even after you died. It doesn't change the fact that she had the photo 51 & that they have stolen it.
Respect increase for her...❤️❤️
I feel sad watching this video...
May God bless her...
Thank you Ted ed for this fabulous content
Thank you so much TED-ed, let we know the hiding figure in the true history, my eyes watering at 3:39, how a great and touching story T__T thumbs up
I am going to remember her forever ❤️ and will use her story to inspire women in science.
We really need a statue or a kids movie of Roslin Franklin. I honestly don't understand why Sexism, Racism and other unfair things exist among people who have different opinions on life.
The reason Watson and Crick weren't keen on providing credit towards Franklin was because of their previous work relationships. Watson and Crick were open about their discoveries and wanted feedback from Franklin regarding their hypotheses that DNA was a triple helix and that the bases were on the outside not the inside. Franklin completely discredited their work which almost prevented Watson and Crick from being able to complete further work on DNA thanks to their work being seen as a failure and not as a mistake in the right direction
I think there was just a lot of beef between them and it is unfortunate that neither one was willing to respect and credit each others discoveries
Feminists will never research this part.
They just prefer being perpetual victims.
Its history and history can be forged, changed and forgotten. We can only know what we are told.
I personally believe that there is more to this story than is been told.
I remember watching a movie-ish documentary about the discovery of the DNA and that being the first and honestly only time I saw her name relating to this topic. Everytime I open my biology book and read the names Watson and Crick, my brain automatically inserts ,,Rosalind Franklin,, and I wonder how little people have ever heard of her
please make a video on how LAC OPERON works .
it was a great video by the way
+TED-ed Could you please not contribute to misunderstandings?? I realy love TED education, but this video is way too biased. Franklin was a really good scientist and her work got published, just as you say. BUT it didn't have "all the position of the atoms". Her paper was very dull, even the title was boring: "Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate"; unlike that, Watson and Crick's title was much more direct: "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid". Watson and Crick's paper was absolutely void of data, it was more like a letter to the editor than a research paper. Its popularity lies only in their bold proposal of the structure. Both Wilkins and Franklin's papers were, by comparison, much more conservative. They postulated a simple and constant structure, where the phosphate groups would be outside, but neither of them explicitely proposed the structure. Photo 51 was one of many, and yes, Franklin knew she was onto something, but ultimately, she had bad luck. If only she had sent her ideas earlier instead of insisting of analyzing every bit of data first, she would be more known.
Marco Antonio she probably wanted to sure of the facts before she told the world. Let pretend that the boys theroy that they told the world was actually wrong. Think how that would change dozen of things we have today. Plus they would have been told that they should have checked the fact first.
Great. Another reason to cry now
The story of Nicola Tesla is even worst than hers!!!
Shhh! Tesla was a man, so that doesn't fit the narrative.
Indeed. And it's a shame they didn't mention how tragic dracula's story was in frankenstein books. Fuckin idiot, they're telling one strory, why bring up a different one
Why you do you have to get into a dick measuring contest? How bad Tesla's is doesn't negate Franklin's. Nor does telling Franklin's story dismiss Tesla's, because he's a man. Go tilt at windmills.
Tuğrul Şahin Probably because its annoying, having these stories being twisted into some ideological tool. Scientists have been in strong competition with each other since the beginning the sciences, and while sexism at that time didn't help, it is unfortunately the result of competitiveness and bad people, which all areas have its fair share.
***** Thought that may be true I'll take TED-ed's credentials over commenters with arguments that might not even be the case here and trust TED-ed did their research. Only thing I could do to object this is read their sources and bring up facts about this particular case rather than offer generalised observations that "scientists have always been like this" and "all areas".
They should award her heirs. I love that a man put this together. Humans don't always acknowledge humans but whatever we say and do the universe is always listening;)
she desrves a doodle from google on her birthday!!!
YEAH!!!!!!
Why can't the Nobel prize be awarded posthumously? It's often granted several decades after the discovery in the first place. The money could benefit the family. I remember hearing the in 1948 they didn't award a Nobel Peace Prize because Gandhi had just died. That's ridiculous
Watson and Crick did not deserve that Nobel Prize because it was credit stolen from Rosalind's hard work. She was the one that deserved to have that Nobel Prize.
This video needs more views