Talk:King's College DNA controversy

message: Started article to replace one started by banned user. --FloNight talk 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this normal policy? Because some of the contributed body of this article was obviously lost... ~ clearthought 13:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the purpose of deleting the article. : - ) It was started by a banned user. We need to start it completely over again. FloNight talk 13:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks for letting me know. ... ~ clearthought 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

message: The controversy arose from the fact that some of the data were shown to them, without her knowledge, by her estranged colleague, Maurice Wilkins, and by Max Perutz.
Is it actually know that Franklin wasn't aware that the data were used by Crick and Watson? Or is this just supposition? I ask as it may be that this is just an extension of Watson's claim in The Double Helix (later refuted) that no one at King's was aware that their data were been used. Is it not more correct to state that we just don't know whether or not she was aware of the use of her data? For example Wilkins had been given the photograph by Gosling, who in turn had been given it by Franklin. As Gosling has said, Wilkins had every right to the photograph. It is also true that much of the data in the MRC report that Crick got from Perutz had been presented by Franklin a year or more earlier, in a talk attended by Watson. She must have been aware of his presence at the talk, and it was only his negligence in not taking notes that meant that Crick and Watson didn't have these crystalographic data a year earlier. Maddox has also pointed out that Franklin must have known her data had been used when she first saw the Crick-Watson model. Could it be that she knew full well that her data had been used but just didn't care, she had been unhappy at King's (and I don't think anyone disputes this), she had left it all behind and had a new project at Birkbeck to concentrate on. What's the feeling on this? Alun 17:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern was that the article includes a specific statement that The controversy arose from the fact that some of the data were shown to them, without her knowledge I know that there has been speculation that this is the case, and that Watson claims this in his book The Double Helix. But Watson's account (in this regard) has been discredited, and I don't think anyone knows what Franklin knew or didn't know at the time, is it a fact?. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that The controversy arose from claims that some of the data were shown to them, without her knowledge? I agree with your above analysis, though I'm not sure we need to go into that much detail to deal with the controversy. Alun 05:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about my long-winded post above. I was "thinking outloud" and seeking an alternative to the the idea that Wikipedia should try to trace the root of the controversy to a simple cause: the picture that Wilkins showed to Watson and data that Crick read in the MRC report....all apparently without Franklin knowing about it. I think that is an over-simplification. If that is all people know about, it is all to easy to jump to the conclusion that there was "data theft". It was not that simple. I think we need to describe some of the nuances of the situation...open up a deeper understanding for Wikipedia readers. The failure of Wilkins and Franklin to get along created a bad situation. A bad situation does not justify bad behavior, but it can often account for the strange behavior of people who are involved in the bad situation. I agree that "The controversy arose from claims that some of the data were shown to them, without her knowledge?" is better. An alternative would be "The controversy arose from the use of Franklin's research results without clear attribution of credit to her." --JWSchmidt 06:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal view is that your suggestion is the better one, "The controversy arose from the use of Franklin's research results without clear attribution of credit to her." Should we just make the change? I think you make a compelling case for including a more detailed account of what happened, and it certainly fits better in an article like this than say including different versions in all of the individual articles. I will look at cutting down on this section in the Rosaind Franklin article and linking the section there to this article for those that want more detail. Alun 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Without Franklin's knowledge

message: Why is London in the title of the article in parentheses (like this (London))? The King's College London article isn't like this, and neither is it the name of the college on their homepage . Is there a reason for this? Alun 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of article

message: "King's College (London) DNA Controversy is a dispute about whether Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins were given proper credit for their contribution to the determination of the double-helical structure of DNA."
Maurice Wilkins received a third share of the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine, alongside Watson and Crick; so what more 'proper credit' is necessary? There is NO dispute over 'whether Maurice Wilkins was given proper credit for his contribution to the determination of the double-helical structure of DNA.' Maurice Wilkins was offered joint authorship of the Watson and Crick paper in "Nature" and he turned it down, see his autobiography! QUED! Nitramrekcap
:I think this form of words is a relic of the previously deleted article. Let's change it to "King's College (London) DNA Controversy is a dispute about whether Rosalind Franklin was given proper credit for her contribution to the determination of the double-helical structure of DNA." Alun 19:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: King's College (London) DNA Controversy → King's College London DNA controversy OR King's College DNA controversy – "Controversy" not typically not capitalized (like Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) and as there's only one King's College involved in a DNA controversy, I see no reason to add the (London) disambiguation. Hbdragon88 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addem: Apparently it is the name of the college, so I'll leave the move options open. Hbdragon88 19:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: "Controversy" is indeed not typically capitalized on Wikipedia. See most articles in :Category:Controversies. —Lowellian (reply) 01:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have long held the view that we need a general article about controversies surrounding DNA. Something like DNA controversies. It could include the controversy over Franklin, but also those regarding Chargaff, Avery, Astbury etc, none of who seem to have been given as much credit as they deserve. Alun 06:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The title is not really the point, the point is that we should have one article that is concerned specifically with the discovery of the structure of DNA (and not just what happened between 1951-1953). The article could then cover all the various controversies. This article is way too specific IMHO, for example what is of particular note about this controversy? Alun 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support King's College DNA controversy. Just because King's College needs to be disambiguated, doesn't mean that the "London" modifier needs to carry over. If there's other King's College DNA controversies (which I doubt) we can disambiguate the controversy, rather than the school part in the title. (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. - Mgm|(talk) 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The page is not really about King's College at all. Surely a more appropriate name would be DNA structure credit controversy or Rosalind Franklin credit controversy. – Smyth\talk 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have long held the view that we need a general article about controversies surrounding DNA. Something like DNA controversies. It could include the controversy over Franklin, but also those regarding Chargaff, Avery, Astbury etc, none of who seem to have been given as much credit as they deserve. Alun 06:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The title is not really the point, the point is that we should have one article that is concerned specifically with the discovery of the structure of DNA (and not just what happened between 1951-1953). The article could then cover all the various controversies. This article is way too specific IMHO, for example what is of particular note about this controversy? Alun 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion