Biologist James D. Watson is famous for co-discovering the double helix structure of DNA. However, Watson appears to have greatly underestimated Rosalind Franklin’s contributions to the Nobel-winning discovery, which has not gone unnoticed by historians and scientists. But a new study offers unusual evidence, hidden between the lines of Franklin’s lab notes. Published in the Journal of the History of Biology, the essay argues that Rosalind Franklin did not overlook the significance of her image as evidence of the helical structure of DNA, as implied by Watson’s account of her first encounter with Photograph 51. According to the article, the earlier photograph 49 used the same DNA sample as 51, and Franklin’s own notes strongly suggest that she recognized its importance. The same notes indicate that photograph 49 was not good enough to publish, so Franklin adjusted the camera and took a better version: photograph 51, which helped reveal the double helix structure of DNA. A composite image showing how photograph 51 was further cropped for publication. © Sutton et al., 2026 By suggesting that he simply did not “get it,” colleagues and later commentators “rhetorically erased his skill and judgment by describing it as if nature spoke for itself through the image, and to Watson, but not to Franklin,” study co-authors Alistair Sponsel and Brian Sutton, a historian and crystallographer at the Science History Institute and King’s College London, UK, respectively, wrote in the paper. Human scientist James Watson’s memoir, The Double Helix, was published a decade after Franklin’s untimely death in 1958. Franklin therefore never read it or responded to descriptions that biographer Brenda Maddox later called “extravagantly Cauvinistic” in a 2003 Nature essay (to Watson’s credit, she praised Franklin’s achievements as a scientist in the preface and afterword). impression of “something like deliberate deafness on Franklin’s part” that photograph 51 demonstrated the double helix, according to the recently published essay. Unfortunately, that interpretation held up, also in part because Franklin’s lab notes on Photograph 51 were poor compared to his other notes. © Sutton et al., 2026 However, what Sponsel and Sutton argue is that it was not a “happy accident” that Franklin “did not exploit” what was presented in Photograph 51. Rather, the photograph only exists thanks to Photograph 49: the “investigation”, or less visually attractive version of 51, but detailed enough for Franklin to interpret it as a propeller. “This passage of notes [on Photograph 49] filled much more space in their lab notebooks than the discussion of any previous DNA diffraction pattern,” the team wrote. In fact, their notes on Photograph 51 are “absolutely” simple, but for a different reason than previously believed, or a “refined image taken after the fact to document the particularly successful outcome of that experiment,” the pair added. Between the lines Unfortunately, we cannot confirm with Franklin that all of this was actually his intention. However, outside experts consulted by Science in the new work overall She seemed convinced of her conclusions. For example, scientific historian and magazine editor Betty Smocovitis said that Franklin “knows exactly what is in front of her” and that the latest analysis “adds justice, that’s what it adds.” “Just what I would do if I had a great result,” he told Science that one crystallographer can understand another crystallographer, which is why Franklin apparently briefly changed his approach to Photograph 51. “I’m a crystallographer, so I want data-rich photographs,” he said. “I can’t do much with a photograph that only has six spots. “However, simply highlighting Franklin’s technical acumen risks condemning her with weak praise for her contributions to the discovery of the double.” helix,” the couple added in the article. The new analysis demonstrates how Franklin was a scientist fully capable of designing complex experiments and running a lab of students and staff, and delivering earth-shattering results (yes, I think the authors may be big fans). So let’s continue celebrating his legacy.
