Watch the video below (It is long but well worth it)
When you are finished, answer the following questions in a reply to this blog post
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
1. Yes, Rosalind Franklin was robbed.
2. Institutions own data generated by scientists, but contracts can specify details between institutions and scientists.
3. Watkins said that they saw Franklins data without her knowledge or without her giving them her data. I think this goes to prove indefinitely that they stole her data and it was not their findings!
4. No, Franklin did not steal Wilkins’ student. He was just transferred to her.
5. I think something like this could easily happen today. If a bunch of scientists are working on something together and the data is being shared and isn’t private, another scientist could take the ownership for something they did not conduct. Times have changed in certain aspects, but in others they haven’t. People still steal information and aren’t truthful, unfortunately.
6. I don’t think Watson and Crick were careless in their first model. I think science is all about trial and error, and this was one model that just wasn’t going to work. I don’t think Franklin was too cautious. I think she was doing everything right and she knew just what she had to do to get accurate information.
Point number 2 may be true legally, but how about ethically?
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
Watson and Crick essentially took credit for the research that Rosalind Franklin had worked her whole life to discover. Wilkins gave Watson and Crick photo 51 (of strand B), which was a product of the x-ray crystallography Franklin created. Had it not been for this photo, Watson and Crick would not be able to draw the conclusions they did today. They did not give her the credit she deserved for discovering the structure of DNA; instead, they took full credit for this discovery. They made it look like Franklin’s work just confirmed what Watson and Crick had discovered, instead of the other way around.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
It’s my understanding that scientists have the right to the intellectual properties of their data, as well rights to access of the data. They also have rights to the decimation of the data, unless they sell those rights to someone else. So essentially, they do “own” it unless they sell it to someone else.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
I think it’s pretty unfortunate and inconsiderate that either Gosling and/or Wilkins decided to just give her data to Watson and Crick without her knowing about it, especially given the fact that Gosling and Franklin worked so closely together.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
I don’t believe Franklin stole Wilkin’s student. He was simply transferred to Franklin while Wilkin’s was on vacation.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
I think something like this could absolutely happen again today, especially with unpublished research. In fact, I hear about this happening a lot with graduate students who complete research just to have their data taken by someone else. Unfortunately this happens all too often, with researchers taking credit for other people’s work.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
I think Watson and Crick could’ve spent more time on their first model, but science is all about trial and error. Franklin seemed to take the right approach with her research, and she took the time to look at the data over and over again to answer all the questions regarding the structure of DNA. Watson and Crick did not conduct nearly as much research or spend as much time analyzing their findings as Franklin had done. I don’t think Franklin was too cautious at all, I think she did an excellent job trying to answer all the questions regarding what DNA was and how it was structured.
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
Yes, Rosalind Franklin’s credit for discovering DNA’s structure was robbed as an influential woman in STEM.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
Legally, scientists have intellectual property of the data they collect. They also choose where they submit to publish this data, although they cannot decide who uses their work with proper citation.
Ethically, I believe they do not “own” this data and need to be held to certain standards for the general public. This could apply to many areas, although one idea that stuck out is if a scientist finds data suggesting a food/drink/etc. is extremely harmful to us, we should have the right to know.
Also, in my field of study, Anthropology, a person can withdraw their data at any time from a study, making it unusable to the scientist. It would be legally and ethically wrong to continue to use it, although a scientist had certain rights to it.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
I feel as though Gosling was flip about possibly giving the photo over and I believe it would be something you would remember. It seems like he is brushing off the fact that he was involved with her data being stolen.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
No, Gosling was transferred to her.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
I believe this has happened and will continue to happen. I have heard multiple stories of undergraduate/graduate students not receiving credit for the research they contribute to their mentors. Although we have place importance on giving credit where it is due, there are still misuses of power that exist in academia today.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this (as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
I found it interesting that Watson admitted himself that he didn’t entirely understand the meaning of the data after he had invited the scientists to view the model. I think that this was slightly careless. Franklin had more knowledge on the topic, which is why Watson attended her lectures. They produced the completely wrong model.
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
Yes, Rosalind was certainly robbed of the credit for her own work that she deserved. The conclusions that Watson and Crick were able to produce wouldn’t have been possible without Franklin’s data. Even further the images were spread without her knowledge and published after the fact as agreeing with their conclusions instead of being the foundation it was built on. She deserved recognition for the discovery of the double helix structure that she worked hard to uncover.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
Scientists should have legal rights to protect the ideas that are their own. They have the choice over the distribution and publication of their own data, and even when published when it is references it has to be cited to acknowledge another person’s work.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
Since he was unsure who passed it on, it seemed that Gosling thought the fact that her data was spread without her knowledge was pretty insignificant to himself and the others that were involved since it wasn’t even noteworthy enough to remember. It also seems that they were indifferent to how this event caused her lack of recognition.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
No, Wilkins was on vacation when Franklin arrived so Gosling was placed to work with her.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
I’d like to think that today this sort of thing wouldn’t occur today through more specific protections of an individuals idea and greater professionalism between researchers overall. It seems as a common decency that the data a person has been compiling and the conclusions they can draw from it belong to them and must be credited accordingly. However, it doesn’t seem far off that among competitive research and in an attempt for someone to further their own career they would take credit for themselves.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
I think Watson and Crick were more focused on jumping to the end goal of finding the solution to the shape of DNA that they were attempting just to find a model that could work with the data that already existed rather than determining experimental data to investigate and pin point the model that it must be. I think the latter was the approach that Franklin took. She believed that through her hard work the data would present itself to lead to an appropriate model that fit all aspects. I don’t think this made Franklin too cautious but I believed it just showed how thorough she was with her ideas and research.
1. Was Rosalind Franklin “robbed”?
a. I do feel that Rosalind Franklin was “robbed”. Her photo of the DNA double helix was crucial for Watson and Crick’s research, however Watson and Crick received all of the credit for the discovery of the structure of DNA.
2. What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
a. Scientists “own” their data, as the data is their intellectual property. Ethically, I agree with this. I think that scientists should have a right to do whatever they want with their data – keep it to themselves, share it publicly, share it with select other scientists, etc.
3. What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
a. It’s crazy that Gosling says that he’s unsure if he or Franklin showed the data to Wilkins. He does not seem very concerned with that distinction, but it seems like a very important distinction to me. If it was in fact Gosling who shared the data with Wilkins, he should have only done so with Franklin’s permission!
4. Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
a. It doesn’t seem like Franklin purposely “stole” Wilkins’ student; Gosling began working for Franklin while Wilkins was on holiday, and then continued working for her after Wilkins returned. Rosalind didn’t actively convince Gosling to work for her.
5. Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
a. I think that something like this could happen today. I know that scientific research can be very competitive and that scientists often feel like they are in a race to publish results first or make discoveries first. I would hope that there are legal repercussions for taking others’ data, but it can be difficult to prove who willingly shared their data vs who had their data shared without their knowledge.
6. Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this (as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
a. Scientific research involves a lot of trial and error. I think it’s quite possible that Watson and Crick were too careless in their first model, especially because Franklin was able to find many faults with the model. I also think that it’s possible that Franklin was too cautious. This is a good illustration of the different approaches people can take when it comes to scientific research, with Watson and Crick using modeling and Franklin using experimentation.
1. Yes, Rosalind Franklin was robbed of her recognition for her work on DNA. Watson and Crick took credit for the work that Franklin spent her career to achieve. Not only did they steal Photo 51, Rosalind’s work on the project was not even acknowledged until after her death.
2. Scientist have the “rights” to their data, as it is their intellectual property. Therefore, scientist can submit and publish their work if they choose. Additionally, when their work is used by others, they must be properly cited, showing that they almost “own” the information.
Ethically, I think that scientist have the duty and responsibility to society to share their findings to further science and research.
3. Gosling states that he is unsure who passed along the information to Watson and Crick, but in my opinion, I feel like Gosling was very hesitant in telling the truth about this topic. Either way, I think it is very careless and disrespectful
4. No, Franklin did not steal Gosling. When she arrived at the lab, Wilkins was on vacation and Gosling was under her supervision. Though she may have had his help, possibly due to a miscommunication, she did not steal him.
5. Something like this could definitely happen again and will continue to happen as more scientific discoveries are made. Though it may be thought to be common courtesy to give credit when due, often undergraduate students/assistants don’t get the credit for the work they did to assist those in charge. Often without the work of assistants, the researcher wouldn’t be able to accomplish their work. Even though times have changed, this definitely could happen again, and is definitely happening in labs. I do believe it would be slightly harder if the work is published though, as we have accesses to scientific databases and its easier to prove the information was already discovered.
6. I believe that Watson and Crick were too careless in their first model and did not fully understand the information they were working with. Even though it was careless, a lot of science is trial and error, building upon models and developing early research. I don’t think that Franklin was too cautious, clearly understanding the information and research she was doing. I believe she was more knowledgeable about the topic, as Watson was at Franklin’s lectures.
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
Yes, Rosalind Franklin was robbed, she did not receive the credit she deserved.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
I believe scientists do have all the rights to their discoveries and data. Basically, they do own it unless they were to sell the rights.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
I felt as though Gosling knew these actions were wrongful but did not seem to take ownership. They seemed to care little that Franklin did not get the appropriate recognition.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
No, Gosling started working with Franklin while Wilkins was away on vacation.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
I would like to think there are legal and ethical guidelines in place to prevent something like this from happening today. However, I do think it is still possible. I think scientists would want the credit for other’s data or discoveries especially if it would further his or her own career.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
I think trial and error definitely has its place in scientific research. Watson and Crick were possibly too careless in the first model. Someone more detail-oriented, or thorough, like Franklin, was able to find the faults in this first model. Her caution produced a better understanding of the data.
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
Yes, indeed she was robbed of what she deserved.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
If someone discovers something first or make something first they have the rights to the idea. It is very ethically based because it is very hard to prove you were the first to do it. Especially back in the day with very little technology. I believe some things are not meant to own or be your property like for example a new molecule discovered.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
Gosling says that he’s unsure if he or Franklin showed the data to Wilkins but I think it is crazy how they talked about it like it is no big deal. They came across her research and essentially hijacked their work and while they were all smart her data helped greatly.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
Since Wilkins was one vacation it would look like the data was not stolen.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
Yes, I think it very well could. I think it is much harder though now because of all the electronic records and how many ways to instantly show the world what you have discovered.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
You can not say for sure because it is a debate if they stole it from her. Given the nature of scientific research trial and error is very common and is needed to do a thorough and well experiment.
1. I do believe Rosalind Franklin was robbed. Her research and dedication was so important in the discovery for DNA’s details; however she was not rewarded or recognized for any of her hard work and was completely overlooked.
2. If a scientist puts in the work and makes a ground-breaking discovery, they should have the right to “own” that data. They deserve to take the credit for what they figured out, and that should be protected legally.
3. Gosling’s statement leads me to believe that he does not want to admit who passed her photo along. Sharing her research finding without her permission was a huge deal, and I’m sure he would remember something like that.
4. I don’t think that Franklin stole Gosling. He became more of her student because he spent more time with her when Wilkins was away.
5. I think this could happen today but hopefully there are more laws and legal rights in place for scientists to prevent this. There is still so much to discover out there and scientists should be able to take full credit for what they do.
6. Although trial and error is a part of science, Watson and Crick may have been a little too careless in their model. They came up with their model in only a week, rushing through it completely. Franklin wasn’t too cautious, she took her time and found faults in their model.
1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
yes, Rosalind Franklin was robbed from her well deserved credit for being responsible for the image of DNA.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
Scientists should own the rights to their own research, it is their intellectual property. Although they don’t own it, Scientist do have a choice on where they want their research to be published.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
He says that he didn’t know who showed the data ( if it was him or Franklin), which seems that (maybe not purposely) he did give them the data? It makes you think that he had something to do with it.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
No, he was just transferred to Franklin because Wilkins was gone on vacation.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
I don’t think times have change, things like this happen all the time and sadly I think we have a long way to go for it to come to an end.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
I believe science is all about trial and error. and I think Waston and Crick could have spent a little more time working on the model. Franklin on the other hand, had more knowledge on the subject and was more precise and passionate, which showed through her work.
1. Rosalind Franklin was “robbed” as a crucial part of Watson and Crick’s conclusions reached was based on the x-ray crystallography taken of DNA.
2. Scientists have the right to get credit for their discoveries. Funding is based on reputation and past research success so getting proper credit is important. Data should not be owned for two reasons. First, scientific research is meant to further our understanding of the world as a whole. Secondly, peer review is an important control to ensure new ideas are tested by other experts. Repeatability is part of the scientific method.
3. I think Gosling’s statement is an absolution of responsibility.
4. No, you cannot steal people.
5. Increased transparency and ease of electronic information has likely made a lot of these types of issues less common.
6. Watson and Crick tried to claim more than what they knew and relied on Rosalind Franklin’s x-ray data more than they cared to admit. Yes, science does not move forward in a perfect way and trial and error are a big part of advancing science. Franklin was the better scientist and did not try to claim more than she knew.
(1) Yes, Dr. Franklin was robbed of her due credit.
(2) Had I been asked this question ten years ago, I would’ve answered a flat “no, scientists do not own their data.” Since a young age, I’ve been very involved in computer programming, in one way or another. Most often as a hobby, and historically as a member of some open source software communities. “Open source,” for those who may not know, refers to software whose source is freely available to the public, often accompanied by a “copyleft” license, such as the GNU General Public License. The GPL dictates that any project which incorporates even a little bit of GPL-licensed code must be rendered -fully- open source.
Ten years ago, I would’ve regarded science with the same copyleft philosophy as software development—because free access to information informs a free society. I’ve since grown away from that way of thinking. In short, yes, I believe that a scientist generally retains rights to their own data, individual contracts and extenuating circumstances notwithstanding.
(3) It’s incriminating, for sure, and highlights how bizarre this specific case is in contrast to other likely cases of intellectual property theft.
(4) Not in particular, no.
(5) Yes, if only because the field of research and discovery is no less cutthroat. In some cases, I’d say, even more cutthroat. I can’t state definitively that this takes place, but I imagine graduate research assistants and undergraduate students are particularly at risk of this, and perhaps much more insidiously. For example, the principal investigator may choose to claim first-author, essentially taking responsibility for the student’s work.
(6) I’d say no, researchers should be open to trial and error. There is a point in the evolution of all things which work where they… didn’t work. Risking “carelessness” is one method of inquiry, and Franklin’s rigorous determination is another method.
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
I do think Rosalind Franklin was “Robbed”. She was robbed of credit that was due for the image that she developed that revealed the double helix structure of DNA. She essentially discovered the blueprint as to how DNA is arranged and passed down throughout generations. However Francis Crick and James Watson received all the credit while Franklin received none. They used her findings without her knowledge and gave her no credit for it.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
The “rights” that scientists have to their data based on my understanding is that they legally “own” their data. They own the intellectual property of their data and have the ability to choose who publishes it. They essentially own their data unless they decide to sell it to someone else. But in all, scientists have the right to their data as their intellectual property and the right to share their data and choose who publishes it. Also if one uses their work they must cite that, that is where they got their information from. Ethically I believe when a scientist discovers something important to organism health and wellbeing they shouldn’t be able to not share it forever. There definitely should be a common medium.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
I think that his statement honestly seems kinda of fishy. The photo of DNA B aka photo 51 was at the time the clearest photo of that form of DNA, it was definitely something that would be hard to forget. So the fact that Gosling states that he can’t remember if it was himself or Franklin that showed Wilkins the photo doesn’t seem completely honest to me. I think you would remember something that important. Regardless though Franklin should’ve been the one to share her data and no one else. It is so horrible what Wilkins did.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
Roslind Franklin did not “steal” Wilkins’ student Raymond Gosling. Gosling was a PhD student at King’s College at the time of Franklin’s arrival. When Franklin arrived at the college Wilkins was on holiday and Gosling was put under her supervisor. She did not take him as her student, rather he was placed under her by the director of the lab.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
I think that while times have indeed changed that even today things like this could happen. Especially when research is still being completed and work is unpublished, it may be harder than it was years ago, but it will always be something that is a problem when it comes to research. Far too often in the past and today people claim the rights and completion of other peoples’ work whether it be science, inventions or discoveries.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
In regards to their first model I believe that Watson and Crick were indeed slightly careless in their depiction, maybe more Watson than Crick. Watson goes to Franklin’s presentation on her X-ray crystallography findings and he admits he didn’t know enough about it to understand and was more concerned with her looks. To me it seems that if he would have cared more about understanding the findings for the structure of DNA their first model wouldn’t have been such a disaster. I agree that science does work by trial and error and one almost never reaches the correct answer the first time, however Watson admits his carelessness by stating although he did not understand her explanation, he still failed to try to understand it before creating the model. I do not think Franklin was too cautious. She was one of the best of her time at X-ray crystallography and knew the questions that she felt needed to be answered before she could reach a conclusion about the structure of DNA. She made sure to answer those questions first.
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
Yes, Watson and Crick were given her crystallography photo 51 without her permission or knowledge. Without her data and her feedback, Watson and Crick never would have come to their conclusion about DNA’s structure.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
Scientists have the right to take credit for their data and are able to choose who can see that data. This data is representative of many months or years of hard work and should be protected from people who might try to steal or release that data before the researcher is ready. The scientist(s) who perform the experiments/research own the data they produce. However, the data is also owned by the lab in which the research is performed. This was the major problem in Rosalind Franklin’s case.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
Gosling claims that he does not remember if Rosalind or himself gave Wilkins photo 51. I think he must be lying because this was such a betrayal to Rosalind to not be memorable. I highly doubt Rosalind would share that data as she was not ready to publish it herself, so it must have been Gosling that shared the data.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
No, Rosalind Franklin joined the lab while Wilkins was away on a vacation and his student Raymond was placed under Franklin’s supervision by the lab director. Franklin did not knowingly take Raymond from Wilkins, so I don’t think she stole his student. If anybody is to blame, it is the director of the lab.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
This kind of academic erasure continues to happen today. If research data is not protected thoroughly, there are plenty of shady “scientists” who will steal that data and publish it or use it to influence their own research. Times have improved for sure, but similar situations are not unheard of.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this (as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
Watson and Crick were too careless in their first model. They even admitted that they did not know enough about X-ray crystallography to fully understand the images. I don’t think Franklin was too cautious, she was just very thorough in her work. I do think she could have benefited from some collaboration with other scientists. However, she probably would have been taken advantage of regardless.
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
Yes, Rosalind Franklin’s legacy has survived but much of it is shrouded in obscurity. She deserves much more credit for her work in advancing the field of genetics.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
This depends on what we’re referring to when we say ‘data’. This also depends on who the scientist is working for. If it’s numbers and figures (empirical results), produced in a private think tank, contractual obligations rule supreme, although I think scientists should have a right to releasing their data. If the person is in academia, then yes, scientists must own their data. This is essential for proper freedom of research. An ‘idea’ or discovery or theory cannot be ‘owned’. For example the Pythagorean theorem (originally developed in Babylon). But scientists should have the right to publish their results and claim credit for their hard work.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
His statement is definitely suspicious. It is not data he would likely have forgotten. Franklin definitely deserved to release her data herself.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
No, it seemed circumstantial, considering that she did not actively pursue him.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
No, academia has always been, and possibly always will be a very cutthroat and political place. Just take into consideration the amount of lobbying it takes (often on part of the university) to launch and win a Nobel prize campaign. So something like this could definitely happen today, although I hope past mistakes have granted us some wisdom.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
Trial and error is an essential part of science. Consider the Newtonian model of physics, replaced by Einstein’s theories of relativity, which were in turn replaced by quantum physics. Often when tense races are suspected, it is prudent to release your idea early. However, it must receive the care and attention it deserves. Franklin could have attempted to release the concrete parts of her ideas so she could have gotten the credit she deserved.
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
– Yes, she was “robbed”. She wasn’t given the credit for her work. If it wasn’t for her photo of the DNA, Watson and Crick wouldn’t have been able to come to the conclusions they made.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
-I think scientists do “own” their data. And I think scientists should have the rights to decide what they want to do with their work (i.e if they want to entirely publish it or have a copyright or some legal authorization over their work).
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
-Gosling says that he is unsure of who passed on the data. He seemed least concerned about it and does not consider it to be a big deal. Which I think is a very unprofessional and careless behavior.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
-No, I don’t think she stole Wilkins’ student. He was just transferred to her when Wilkins’ was on vacation.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
-Times definitely have changed and there are more legal actions and rules in place. However, that doesn’t mean such things don’t happen at all these days. It is very easy to take credit for other people’s work and sometimes its hard to truly know who is behind the work. Research work is a huge task and its usually done in groups however not everyone is given credit for it.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
– Trial and error is a part of research however Watson and Crick were definitely careless in their first model. Franklin on the other hand took her time and brought good and successful results. Her cautiousness lead to her success.
1) Yes, I think that she deserved credit which she never got.
2) Achievements made my scientists “belong” to the scientist, unless they perform it under the umbrella of an institution or research organization and a pre-existing contract specifies that the institution holds ownership of any accomplishments made by the scientist while working under said umbrella.
3) I think that Gosling knows the truth about what occurred, but he refuses to acknowledge that Rosalind was wronged and as a result is simply displacing the blame for his own actions.
4) No the student made the decision to work with Rosalind because his original mentor was away.
5) I think in today’s world it would be harder to claim credit for someone else’s accomplishments due to media, and a much better records system. However, I also think that institutions are far more likely to tie researchers up ahead of time via contract to ensure that they have the legal rights to any achievements made through the use of their funding.
6) I do not think they were too careless. It is easy to say that for us now, however at the time they were simply looking for answers that they did not have, and they chose the route they deemed best to find those answers, or at least attempt to do so. I think that in hindsight, Franklin may have been a little too careful, but it seems as if she was more focused on making sure her work was accurate than about claiming the prize.
1. Rosalind Franklin was most definitely robbed of her work on the x-ray crystallography of DNA. Her images, ideas, and interpretations were used without her knowledge or consent by individuals with no intention of giving credit or recognizing her massive achievement.
2. I would say that scientists have rights to their own data to the extent that it should not be used against their will or knowledge. However, ethical considerations of this are present as well— if a scientific discovery is in someone’s hands that could change the world or add to a growing body of knowledge, I think that it is only ethical to expect that they would attempt to share and publish their findings.
3. Hearing Gosling so casually mention that he couldn’t recall whether it was Rosalind or himself who had shown photo 51 to Wilkins is incriminating at best. This was an incredibly huge discovery and here it is treated as if it’s nothing.
4. Gosling worked better with Franklin than with Wilkins and recognized that she was a better mentor.
5. I do think that ethical standards are more rigorously upheld now and that there are thorough checks in place to ensure proper credit, however, sexism in science is alive and well.
6. I don’t think that Watson and Crick should be condemned for creating a false model; science is so largely a process of repeated attempts. I think that Franklin may not have realized the kind of ideas that could come from the data she had.
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
I absolutely believe she was robbed. It is really unfortunate the sentiment is made that she was influenced by Watson and Crick’s work and that her ideas confirmed them. They also accepted the Nobel Prize without any mention of her name. If they wanted to at all stand by their work and claim credit, the least they could have done is mentioned her and even shared the inspiration they received from the photograph. None of this occurred.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
I think that scientists have the right to the ideas they discover, but I do think it becomes complicated with laws and contracts with the universities they are under. I think the word “own” is complicated because how can we own pieces of science and data within this? However, these are groundbreaking discoveries for the wellbeing of furthering our developments in science, so credit for ideas should always be properly awarded.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
I thought it was disheartening to hear him so casually say that he wasn’t completely sure how Wilkins saw the data. He states that it may have been Rosalind herself or maybe it was him, but he wasn’t totally sure. How can a person be so unsure of such profound data? If you showed someone scientific data as such, surely you would remember. To also pass it off as “Well maybe she did or maybe I did” is completely unfair to Rosalind because this was not the case and she would have said this.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
I do not think Rosalind stole Raymond Gosling from Wilkins because she did not push him to come to her and Gosling freely came to her as a better mentor.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
I think mistakes will always be prevalent in science, even today. It is highly competitive and it seems like there is always a constant race to see who can get the latest and biggest development. For example, the COVID vaccine of today. It wouldn’t shock me to see this kind of behavior, however, because we are in a much different world today with laws and morals, it may not be done quite as easily as this move by Watson and Crick. Universities have tight restrictions and policies in place to protect themselves, as well as the abundance of media coverage we have today.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
I think that Franklin was very determined to get it correct. As far as Watson and Crick, the fact that they were willing to take idea’s as well as Watson being oddly interested in Rosalind’s appearance more than the model displays less passion for the job at hand than Rosalind’s fierce determination to be correct. I think that the times were just different then, and it would have been hard for her to ever get the credit and respect she deserved. To say that she should have just collaborated doesn’t seem correct either because how can we be sure she would have been able to do this.
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
She absolutely was. She attempted to excessively keep her work away from these specific men in fear that they would steal it and they did without her knowledge or permission.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
In this time without publishing your data there was really no way of protecting it legally. In todays times there are laws and protections that can be put in place such as patents and documentation methods.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
He thinks the student was responsible for Wilkins seeing the data and that he showed to Watson and crick.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
In a sense she did. While gosling was away, she took over his lab and started teaching his student. In her defense she was far more knowledgeable than gosling and there was misunderstanding from the start about if she was working independently or as an assistant to gosling.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
I think it is still possible today for anyone in general to have there work discredited or stolen. In todays times we are not so bias to women so, I doubt that it would be due to that though it could be done out of spite or jealousy
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
I believe Watson and crick jumped the gun with their model. They were operating on assumption and little data. It would have been fine to play around with such a model, but not have released in until more data had been discovered to confirm or deny the model. I know in todays world that science is a lot of trial and error although trial should be based on educated guesses not partially investigated findings. I also don’t believe franklin was too cautious because she wanted to be accurate the first time and every time and didn’t know her life would be cut short although she knew there was race taking place.
1) I believe Rosalind Franklin was robbed of the recognition and credit she deserved. Without her data, Watson and Crick would not have discovered the structure of DNA and if they did it would not have been nearly as fast. They deserve credit for putting the puzzle together but she deserves credit for all of her hard work to obtain the data. She basically gave them all of the pieces of the puzzle and then they put it together.
2) Scientists should have rights to their data – it is intellectual property. One should at least have “ownership” over their data until they are able to analyze it or reach out for assistance. And if the data is used by someone else, the scientist who found the data should be given credit.
3) I was surprised at how casual he was about it. I would expect he would remember whether he showed Wilkins the photo or not, especially knowing their relationship was strained. Maybe he does not want to accept responsibility and receive the backlash that the others have gotten for their treatment of Franklin?
4) No, Rosalind Franklin didn’t steal Wilkins’ student. Saying she “stole” him implies it was done maliciously. If it was a miscommunication, then she did not realize Gosling was only supposed to be working with her while Wilkins was away or Wilkins did not realize that Gosling was supposed to be working with her and that she was indeed supposed to be independent.
5) I would love to say times have changed but the story sounds like a problem with egos and wanting to be the person to “win” and make a huge discovery. Those qualities are still prevalent in society. So, given the right people and right circumstances this could happen again. I think the sexism quality has improved over time so there is more respect, but it is still a process and there is more to be done.
6) It is hard to say if they were careless without having their knowledge and knowing their process. However, considering how badly they wanted to discover the structure of DNA, they must have given it their best effort with the knowledge and data they had. Sometimes science is trial and error and this was likely a case of that. I don’t think Franklin was too cautious. She was very focused on her work and chose to start with the A form before working on the other form of DNA. If she felt more confident tackling the A form first and believed she could solve that quicker then it makes sense for her to focus there.
(1) Was Rosalind Franklin “Robbed”?
Yes, she was robbed.
(2) What “rights” do scientists have to their data? Do they “own” it?
I think they would “own” their data, but I don’t think that is right. If some information could benefit society and help other people, they should publish it.
(3) What do you think of Gosling’s statement at the end of the video about who was responsible for Wilkins (and thus Watson and Crick) seeing the data?
He didn’t seem to care or be bothered.
(4) Did Rosalind Franklin “steal” Wilkins’ student (Raymond Gosling)?
No, Wilkins was away.
(5) Do you think something like this would happen today? Have times changed?
I think it would be harder to do so because there is an electronic trace, but I do think it’s possible.
(6) Were Watson and Crick too careless in their first model, or is this ( as some have suggested) just how science works, by trial and error? Was Franklin too cautious?
I think trial and error is an acceptable method. It might not always be the most efficient, but I don’t think it should be considered careless.