Reply to post: Much nonsense about Franklin.

Which scientist should be on the new £50 note? El Reg weighs in – and you should vote, too

Alan Johnson

Much nonsense about Franklin.

"Once she was dead the two esteemed gentlemen could not be bothered citing her work while collecting kudos and laurels. Do not even get me started on what is called not citing your source in science."

Nonsense the key paper in Nature specifically mentioned her. the idea she was treated unfairly makes a good story but isn't actually true. She was a very good experimentalist working at the forefront of her field who happened to be beaten to a key discovery by soemoen else. The story about the key photgraph 'stolen' by Crick and Watson ignores the fact she had publically announced these results and therefore Circk and Watson were perfectly entitled to use those results, as they did, with due credit, which they gave.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019