New Evidence: Watson and Crick Didn’t Steal Franklin’s Data — How the Double Helix Was Really Discovered

Reassessing a Famous Origin Story

In early 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick in Cambridge proposed the double‑helix model of DNA while Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins at King’s College London were independently working on the molecule’s structure. A persistent public narrative holds that Watson and Crick reached their breakthrough by appropriating Franklin’s X‑ray images. New documentary evidence and careful reappraisal of the original papers show a more nuanced and less accusatory account.

Watson’s Memoir Versus the Documentary Record

Much of the myth traces back to Watson’s candid but unreliable memoir, The Double Helix, in which he describes seeing X‑ray diffraction photographs at King’s in January 1953 and becoming electrified. Watson does not explicitly identify who produced the photos, and his recollection is colored by hindsight and personal perspective. Archival research, interviews, and a reading of contemporary documents indicate that the discovery process was not simply a matter of using someone else’s decisive image.

What the Archives Reveal

Working with historian Nathaniel Comfort, the evidence shows that in January 1953 Rosalind Franklin suggested Crick speak with a colleague who had an informal summary of the work she and Wilkins were doing. The records give no indication that Franklin was unwilling to share her results. Contemporary interviews with Crick and a close reading of Watson and Crick’s research papers further indicate the crucial insight arose from building models and applying basic chemical reasoning—not from clandestine use of Franklin’s data.

Rather than borrowing a single decisive photograph, Watson and Crick spent weeks manipulating cardboard cutouts representing DNA’s components, guided by chemistry and stereo‑geometry; only after assembling a satisfactory model did they see that it matched the X‑ray evidence from King’s.

Relationships and Collaboration

Contrary to portrayals of enmity, Franklin continued to exchange data and ideas with both Watson and Crick. She later developed a warm friendship with Crick and his wife, Odile: she visited their Cambridge home, joined social occasions and, after her cancer diagnosis, recuperated with the Cricks on two occasions. Contemporary correspondence and recollections capture this collegial and, at times, affectionate relationship.

Crick’s Later Career: From Molecules to Minds

After the DNA work, Crick broadened his ambitions to include the brain: he moved to the Salk Institute in 1977 to pursue questions about consciousness. He advocated for precise anatomical approaches to brain science, helping lay intellectual groundwork for later large‑scale brain mapping projects. In the 1980s he engaged with cognitive scientists and early connectionist researchers—figures such as Geoffrey Hinton and John Hopfield—who helped establish ideas that would influence today’s neural‑network research.

Consciousness, Collaboration, and Creativity

With Christof Koch, Crick developed a materialist research program for consciousness that shaped subsequent scientific interest in the subject. He published widely, contributed essays to Nature, and reached a broad readership with his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis, which helped frame public and scientific discussion about the mind.

A Scientific Mind with a Literary Side

Less commonly known is Crick’s long‑standing engagement with poetry. He admired and corresponded with American poet Michael McClure for decades: they exchanged drafts, criticism and visits, revealing a subjective, intuitive facet of Crick’s personality. This literary friendship complements—not contradicts—his scientific interests, showing how playful insight and disciplined reasoning both fed his creativity.

Takeaway: Archival material and reanalysis show Watson and Crick’s model came from model‑building and chemical reasoning; Franklin’s work remained central as corroborating evidence, and professional relationships of the time were complex and often collaborative rather than openly hostile.

Source: Adapted from a feature originally published in Nautilus.