But not with Wilkins. He was the real culprit. He had jealous nature for Franklin.

Nope

@@pissmillahgandullah9523 what Nope?

@@devashishpathak2857 no share! Stop simping!

cry

Mike Wazowski!

@LOCAL COPE who discovered DNA?

@@omega0195 with that user name, and that image of Tucker Carlson I'm not sure if he actually expects anyone to take him seriously in the first place.

Unlike the rest of KZfaq, people here actually have brain

I want to interview the Watsons

​@@kpopmember1233 Yep

she died due to excessive exposure to x rays which were instrumental in her discovery of DNA

Very sad that she died too soon - probably due to her personal contribution to science - but that was her all-consuming occupation? She was part of a huge scientific jig-saw and we have to say the rest is history because that is life - everyone gets their spot in the sun - just some longer than others!

cant shes dead

She had her photo for eight months and did nothing with it. She was part of a team and she hid it from everyone. I do think she deserves more credit.

she made fun of watson and crick for thinking it was helical, she openly derided them and wasted her time trying to prove them wrong

@@kenshikenji But that is not PC

Rosalind Franklin wasn’t given The credit due!

How she discovered the structure of DNA

@@irishguy200007 Yeah that's y I wrote We becoz they didn't gave the credit to whom it was.

Yes westen sir and Crick sir both contributed to discover dna

How we stole the idea of structure of DNA should be the title.

@@ankitathakur6858 Franklin*

Rosalind too deserved the Noble......sadly she was the victim of sexism and cancer......❤

Tesla Nope, the shapes A and B were by her

@@dennisroy6615 So did Maurice😃

I'm glad someone mentioned this

He & Francis Crick used LSD and discovered the double helix under the influence of the Psychedelic!" 🍄➡️🗝➡️🧩☯️

sounded off to me too

A whole phd in chemistry *smh

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eK-AY8-K18rNon0.html do watch if you wish to broaden your horizons :)

@The Snow Nigro are you crazy at one hand you saying that she had given the x ray of dna and she had contributed nothing after providing suvh big clue about dna how can you say that

@@sivaniy.s.k.7819 sorry to say that but you have not enough information about dna discovery because you are still in class 12 when you know enough about dna discovery then come to this debate kid

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z9ydZtKVxLvRdps.html&ab_channel=biointeractive

@The Snow Nigro rosalind actually spent all her time and effort trying to prove watson and crick wrong, she wanted the dna form to be non-helical

He's a scam.

Too bad he lied about it all :/

@@lupyleaf2065 he did not.

@@The_Revolutionist he is a legend

@@ugandanwarrior5657 FRR bro he is.

❤️❤️❤️ this guy doesn’t deserve to be called “sir”

Ray Gosling didn’t give the photo, he was loyal to Franklin, it was actually Maurice Wilkins.

@@amaladasu I'll call him sir, he deserves to be sir.

"Rosalind Franklin really did 99% of the work," No she didn't? Watson and Crick were the ones who were able to piece together the puzzle; Franklin's picture was only a part of the puzzle, not the majority. Furthermore, Watson and Crick also used other scientists' findings to discover DNA, essentially. "Other researchers had made important but seemingly unconnected findings about the composition of DNA; it fell to Watson and Crick to unify these disparate findings into a coherent theory of genetic transfer. The organic chemist Alexander Todd had determined that the backbone of the DNA molecule contained repeating phosphate and deoxyribose sugar groups. The biochemist Erwin Chargaff had found that while the amount of DNA and of its four types of bases--the purine bases adenine (A) and guanine (G), and the pyrimidine bases cytosine (C) and thymine(T)--varied widely from species to species, A and T always appeared in ratios of one-to-one, as did G and C. Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin had obtained high-resolution X-ray images of DNA fibers that suggested a helical, corkscrew-like shape. Linus Pauling, then the world's leading physical chemist, had recently discovered the single-stranded alpha helix, the structure found in many proteins, prompting biologists to think of helical forms. Moreover, he had pioneered the method of model building in chemistry by which Watson and Crick were to uncover the structure of DNA. Indeed, Crick and Watson feared that they would be upstaged by Pauling, who proposed his own model of DNA in February 1953, although his three-stranded helical structure quickly proved erroneous." (profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/Views/Exhibit/narrative/doublehelix.html)

oh so you´re saying that she took the picture, but didn´t realize that the dna has a double helix?@@madripurn123

Kreuzritter Pionier that's not correct. She provided a X-ray diffraction image of the DNA that was key for Watson & Crick's model. The problem was that Wilkins, who provided the picture, didn't do it with Rosalind Franklin's approval. She didn't win the Nobel Prize because she died years before the nomination. Probably. if she hasn't died and had received the Nobel Prize with Watson, Crick and Wilkins, history would have forgiven Wilkin's act and Watson would have not treated her like "some assistant" in his book.

Kreuzritter Pionier what an ignorant comment. show some respect to the memory of one of the most important woman science has had. her contribution to science opened a new area of study that is having a relevance this century comparable to that of penicillin on the 20s' so don't spread bullshit about a person so valuable as Franklin

+Renzo Lanfranco The importance of Rosalind was certainly emphasized in Watson's book. The thing about his book was that he didn't hold back on what he thought, he told of all of the positive or negative character traits that many people had. That is one of the reasons the book was so great, it was honest.

of course he should be humble, he should be glad he's up there speaking at all!

She was close but there is no guarantee she would have made it and she doesnt need a nobel now that shes dead. What is more outrageous is the exagerated accolades and fortune showered upon Watson who was little more than Cricks monkey, I mean spy. Crick at least was a genuine "brain" with enough decency to be a recluse and a potential for further contributions to science. That and he did technically do the work. Perhaps more subtle and pervasive problem yet is the whole thing of "I was here first, its mine". What is this, kindergarten. Wilkins is the only decent person with the proper (though socially naive) scientific attitude in the whole story of genetic pioneering, and he rode the bus.

Let's say you do something you're truly proud of, like raising a child very well, would it be wrong to give you the credit for it? I mean, after all, you likely didnt grow the food you fed your child, you likely didnt make the clothes, you likely didnt work on the electricity in the house, or the heat. My point is that, while you're right that we're maximally dependent in many ways, this shouldnt be used against honoring great achievements

Analogous Taking credit and intelectual property isnt the same of what happenend to the tesla and edison ? taking credit about the situation and yes was wrong into the end.

The problem is that he got to look at the photo because Maurice Wilkins showed him a photo without Franklin's approval

Yes indeed, but one must not steal. He was using her work without her approval. Using instruments made by other scientists ( mostly dead) for research is one thing When two scientists working on a same project separately Stealing ideas and critical information so that you can do it first is cheap and not respect worthy So don't talk nonsense

@@tobyiy This is definitely NOT a "great achievement".

Yes, him.

Rosalind Franklin

@@jenniferlawrence944 no.

@@anycolouryoulike8567 yuh.

Frankleen😅

Probably cause the others were dead long before

Okay he has his flaws but you gotta calm down. He’s done more for science then any of us in the youtube comments ever will

The feminazi's are out in full force

He's american so we can expect this from him

Padhe likhe gawar..

any evidence of ur words?

literally on every article about the double helical structure of the dna@@madripurn123

@@madripurn123 You've had a year to look it up yourself, how's that going?

I don't think Franklin's story is told correctly. The internet version of the story which is over aggressive (probably to gain attention) explains her work was simply stolen and she knew the discovery all along. Problem: Why would she keep the information to herself? She does deserve credit even though the most likely scenario is she didn't report the picture because she didn't realize how important it was.

Low IQ take!

super title , they did not steal but used the stolen one used it but did not give credit for that to her.

Womp wom0

+Dragnats Top10s troll

Dragnats pl and she died before 62 which the nobel prize was given to the people who stole her research...

true that :-)

Who is going to fix unfairness?

Dragnats pl - sources?

That's probably Linus Pauling's grand daughter.

haha i heard the same XD

He did, but in a different context. He's talking about weeding through the facts, says it right after he says "weed"

No he didn't, he said "I did nothing but read"

How is that at 7:19 dumb fuck It's at 7:08

+Sosuke Aizen feisty

Idk if it is him but even the camera is trying to locate him lmao. Btw this is the best comment! hahahaha

Ur talking like 99% of the population know what elucidate means..

@@cjhepburn7406 it means a type of raccoon

@@cjhepburn7406 Ur talking like 0% of the people who read this comment have access to the internet..

perfect title

Source?

Guilt does not allow him to be happy

Cheater

where?

He seems happy to me and he has a good sense of humor. Still happy, healthy, and sharp as a tack at 94 y.o.

believe me it's hard to fill your brain with hypotheses and theories and be confident of something

Lovely. I praise your humor as vice as Oscar Wilde. 💗

both are crooks who stole real work

Agreed

@The Snow Nigro looks like someone’s male ego is too fragile 🥺

@@angelachen9629@The Snow Nigro Actually, Roslind's partner, Wilkins told Watson and Crick about the new X-ray during a drink at the local bar near the university. The X-ray was a vertical image, so you could only tell it was a double helix at that moment. I'm saying this just to show that Watson and Crick weren't all bad at their discovery. Of course, Rosalind should have gotten a Nobel Prize with Watson, Wilkins, and Crick, but she sadly perished from cancer due to work with the Xrays in large, lethal amounts.

Agreed

@The Snow Nigro why don't you read books of 5th grade before studying about history of DNA discovery. I'm a man but I don't think it's required to mention cause you may probably think to be a man support a man nope let me correct you bro,,, To be a man support a human who's right, deserving.

@pinak-ig4yr "In a 1954 article, Watson and Crick acknowledged that, without Franklin's data, "the formulation of our structure would have been most unlikely, if not impossible""

"Please don't describe reality"

Don't think Bolsheviks. Think progressivists.

@En ki Think educated and not based on whimsical emotions

In 2014, Watson became the first Nobel winner to sell his prize because, he said, the race remarks made him an “unperson,” and he lost all but his academic income after being fired from the boards of companies he sat on. He hoped the sale of the prize (for $4.1 million) would help him to “re-enter public life.” I mean what a shame! 😡

Al James and Crick didn’t directly steal it. Wilkins, who was Franklin’s lab partner, stole the Photo 51 and gave it to Watson and Crick

By how he is speaking on this stage and the way he built initial models , says it all

if watson did not mentioned Franklin on hes DNA 1985 book we will never knew her name but after research they did find out was stole from her office..you have to understand she did the work and she did made the DNA helix structure Sequences...every one did they work however try to stab someone because you think you can??? will hunt you down.. here we suppost to talk abou a geneous who did discover DNA but yet Rosalin Franklin is always the ghost of the story...look at us now 7 years later qe still give credits to her... When i teach chemistry i teach her name as part of the credits..

He was given Rosalinds research (among others). Rosalind did not discover the structure of DNA, she only did important research. He and some other guys did figure out the precise structure of DNA.

@@mouwersor If you ever had your hands on her actual hand-written notes then you will see for yourself.

What Crick and Watson did was a summary of many published research done by many scientists about DNA. Then brainstormed a model based on all of those datas, but without Franklin's unpublished datas, they have zero clue to start with. So yeah, they are a fraud. They are nothing like Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel.

This isn’t about the discovery of DNA. The title is wrong. It’s about the discovery of the structure of DNA.

+Osman Ali Khan "Rosalind Franklin really did 99% of the work," No she didn't? Watson and Crick were the ones who were able to piece together the puzzle; Franklin's picture was only a part of the puzzle, not the majority. Furthermore, Watson and Crick also used other scientists' findings to discover DNA, essentially. "Other researchers had made important but seemingly unconnected findings about the composition of DNA; it fell to Watson and Crick to unify these disparate findings into a coherent theory of genetic transfer. The organic chemist Alexander Todd had determined that the backbone of the DNA molecule contained repeating phosphate and deoxyribose sugar groups. The biochemist Erwin Chargaff had found that while the amount of DNA and of its four types of bases--the purine bases adenine (A) and guanine (G), and the pyrimidine bases cytosine (C) and thymine(T)--varied widely from species to species, A and T always appeared in ratios of one-to-one, as did G and C. Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin had obtained high-resolution X-ray images of DNA fibers that suggested a helical, corkscrew-like shape. Linus Pauling, then the world's leading physical chemist, had recently discovered the single-stranded alpha helix, the structure found in many proteins, prompting biologists to think of helical forms. Moreover, he had pioneered the method of model building in chemistry by which Watson and Crick were to uncover the structure of DNA. Indeed, Crick and Watson feared that they would be upstaged by Pauling, who proposed his own model of DNA in February 1953, although his three-stranded helical structure quickly proved erroneous." (profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/Views/Exhibit/narrative/doublehelix.html)

No

Her work was published at the same time in the same paper as his actually. She did all the hard work - he used her stolen image to get his work done.

@@genericereal Thank you for the most accurate account of what truly transpired with All of these great humans. We have read writing's from Francis Crick, and he gave credit & praise to All the person's you have mentioned, Thanks

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eK-AY8-K18rNon0.html

Ok

without proper crediation which is plagiarism

Watson and Crick tried to publish their paper without giving credit to individuals like Rosalind Franklin, who's data was take without her knowledge and used to support their theory.

And Maurice Wilkins.

And where are you from Atharv Kulkarni...

@The Snow Nigro bingo!

@The Snow Nigro i appreciate you correcting all these people :)

Close...kinda like Tesla and electron microscope...

But Crick and Watson have been denying her contribution of anything until there was legitimate evidence and he still denies her credit. he's a thief and a narcissist.

+oxymoron Again, Franklin is cited in the Nature paper that got them the nobel prize: how is that "denying her contribution"?

Rambling On Actually only Wilkins was cited on the Paper not Franklin. It wasn't until a year after that they finally gave her credit and still they boasted about how little her contribution actually was.

Rambling On shut up

THANK you, Rambling On, for pointing out the TRUTH in FACE of ASSHOLES who INSIST on MANUFACTURING UNNECESSARY CONTROVERSY.