The nature of discovery is a psychological term reconsidered multiple times by scientists. Many perceive it as a moment of a leap of insight based on cognitive processes like Watson and Crick’s visualizations of DNA. Others claim that perceiving a hypothesis through predictions is at least rational, like Franklin’s discovery of DNA through crystallography. Thus, scientists should expand the idea about the nature of discovery without relying only on insight or results, acknowledging Franklin as a discoverer of DNA structure.
The nature of discovery has been challenged several times throughout history. It is often defined as a repeated cycle of eureka experiences based on speculations1. For example, Watson and Crick received a Nobel Prize for such scientific assumptions that resulted in the discovery of DNA. However, all scientists who connect the nature of discovery to stable cognitive thinking disregard Franklin’s crystal-clear photograph of the structure of DNA. Although she was trying out various models and speculations, she never used them in her discovery, which made her crystallographer distrusted intuitive guessing. Thus, her discovery through photographs and observed intensities make her ineligible for the title of discoverer based on traditional views of the nature of discovery.
The whole world underestimated Franklin’s role in discovering DNA, letting her die without a Nobel prize. She is the first scientist who captured DNA X-ray diffraction images at high humidity. Without Franklin’s findings, Watson and Crick would have never published their book The Double Helix, revealing the DNA structure2. Her Photograph 51 clearly illustrates the double helix nature of DNA continuing in both directions around the central X. This is a significant discovery based on observations rather than speculations that challenge the whole nature of discovery.
To conclude, Franklin’s findings led to numerous researches in microbiology today, which makes her a discoverer of DNA structure. Watson and Crick are the ones who received all fame for discovering the DNA structure, but they are not the only ones whose merit it is. The nature of discovery should be more flexible. It is time to reconsider the nature of discovery and Rosalind’s role in the discovery of DNA.
Bibliography
“DNA: The Secret of Photo 51.” Youtube video, 4:51. Posted by Dark Uprise. 2021.
Michelle Gibbons, “Reassessing Discovery: Rosalind Franklin, Scientific Visualization, and the Structure of DNA,” Philosophy of Science 79, no. 1 (2012): 67.
Footnotes
- Michelle Gibbons, “Reassessing Discovery: Rosalind Franklin, Scientific Visualization, and the Structure of DNA,” Philosophy of Science 79, no. 1 (2012): 67.
- “DNA: The Secret of Photo 51,” YouTube video, 4:51, posted by Dark Uprise, 2021. Web.