As a new PhD he worked during World War II on the improvement of cathode-ray tube screens for use in radar and then was shipped out to the United States to work on the Manhattan Project. Franklin did not attend. Wilkins was quiet and hated arguments; Franklin was forceful and thrived on intellectual debate. So in fact it raises a further point. And then it's, okay, where's the data? Period.Moreover, she became great close friends with Watson and with Crick. But when you look back at all the historical circumstances surrounding this particular problem, although Franklin did not get exactly the [recognition] which we all now think she deserved, she got a very big chunk of it. A glance at photo 51 could not shed any light on those details. Now a play about—a historical drama has to have a message that is true, I think. Using x-ray crystallography, she took photographs of the B version of the molecule. Although Watson and Crick were first to put together all the scattered fragments of information that were required to produce a successful molecular model of DNA, their findings had been based on data collected by researchers in several other laboratories. Whether we were talking about the Nobel Prize or the 1954 methods paper, which I'd be glad to quote if somebody doubts what I'm saying.

An aunt was involved with the Rosalind Franklin developed her interest in science at school, and by age 15 she decided to become a chemist.

So it was not an adequate acknowledgment but it was a very different story than stealing her discovery, which is the way it has been portrayed.And also to see how weak, false, even the first two or three were, before Wilkins got it to decimate it more compared to the draft they wrote about the first model, where they very very clearly acknowledged Franklin.Credit allocation is always a problem with—in science.
Those numbers were unwittingly provided by Franklin herself, included in a brief informal report that was given to Max Perutz of Cambridge University.

In February 1953, Perutz passed the report to Bragg, and thence to Watson and Crick. Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins received the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology in 1962 for this work, four years after Franklin's … His failure to explain the double helix structure was the reason why Watson and Crick were the person who were accounted by the discovery. Immediately following this article were two data-rich papers by researchers from King’s College London: one by Maurice Wilkins and two colleagues, the other by Franklin and a PhD student, Ray Gosling.The model the Cambridge duo put forward did not simply describe the DNA molecule as a double helix. So it has come back to Anna's play. And again, in the second paper he published in So in his original draft is, he says, "We thank Rosalind Franklin for her beautiful uh photo of DNA," which makes quite clear that this was what he was relying on. Crick and Watson used their findings in their own research.
It was very dramatic: you had—you had three teams racing for the same discovery and the odds-maker would have backed Linus Pauling of Caltech to have found it. The historical whodunnit, and the claims of data theft, turn on the origin of those measurements.

He also correctly hypothesized the existence of “transfer” RNA, which mediates between “messenger” RNA and amino acids. Her images of the B-form of the molecule, which revealed DNA as made of two helices (especially the "photograph 51" image), were shared with Wilkins, Watson and Crick without her permission. Modern biotechnology also has its basis in the structural knowledge of DNA—in this case the scientist’s ability to modify the DNA of host cells that will then produce a desired product, for example, insulin.The background for the work of the four scientists was formed by several scientific breakthroughs: the progress made by X-ray crystallographers in studying organic macromolecules; the growing evidence supplied by geneticists that it was DNA, not protein, in chromosomes that was responsible for heredity; Erwin Chargaff’s experimental finding that there are equal numbers of A and T bases and of G and C bases in DNA; and Of the four DNA researchers, only Rosalind Franklin had any degrees in chemistry. Like many other nuclear physicists, he became disillusioned with his subject when it was applied to the creation of the atomic bomb; he turned instead to biophysics, working with his Cambridge mentor, John T. Randall—who had undergone a similar conversion—first at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and then at King’s College London. And I say that because not having known her and not being a Rosalind Franklin scholar, as you are, I look to what happened when she went to Birkbeck [College] where she just blossomed and she did incredible work and everyone who worked with her loved her and respected her and—and you hear only good things about—and she worked with Aaron Klug, who—she was his supervisor. Their behaviour was cavalier, to say the least, but there is no evidence that it was driven by sexist disdain: Perutz, Bragg, Watson and Crick would have undoubtedly behaved the same way had the data been produced by Maurice Wilkins.Ironically, the data provided by Franklin to the MRC were virtually identical to those she presented at a small seminar in King’s in autumn 1951, when Jim Watson was in the audience. I do not diminish anybody's contribution to this work.