What about Erick Erickson himself? I heard he is a golem constructed by an evil sorcerer out of ear wax and cold Reagan jizz. Someone should try igniting him.

I love how so many people here are complaining about all the proselytizing of nonmonogomous people how pushy and judgmental they are, and yet so far I don't see anything like that at all in the comments. In fact, the only judgmental person I've seen in the comments is exceedingly anti-nonmonogamy, which isn't…

Ugh, they each have their own set of salt and pepper shakers? IS THIS WHAT MY TAXES ARE PAYING FOR?!?!?!? (they're not, I'm Dutch)

Who thinks that this is good music?

I feel like being ridiculous. Hold onto your butts.

He would not be a terrible rodeo clown. Bulls can smell douche.

Yo, where all the quaternions at?

Its a famous saga of douchiness. And no doubt Franklin was never accorded the acclaim she ought to have been ... however the Nobel can't be awarded posthumously so Franklin wasn't in the running anymore. And, as time has gone on Academics have made sure that her legacy and contributions are accorded their full due.

ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE, LAURA

Except the acknowledgement section is not exactly a place of honour. If they wanted to be fair, they would have given Franklin co-author status.

Well, fair enough: she received some credit. But every reliable source available says that until way after her death, they never acknowledged the importance that her image 51 played in devising the model.

Yes....? What's your point, Vanessa?

Of course what she presented in the lecture would help W&C's modeling efforts—that's how science works—you build on theories, use data to bolster or eliminate possible models/explanations for phenomena. Her presentation probably also helped Pauling, who was simultaneously working on a model. And probably some other…

Except... they didn't. It was image #51—taken in 1952 that led them to their model. They have both admitted as much.

The photos used by W&C and by Franklin to figure out the structure of DNA were taken in 1952. So, they weren't in whatever presentation she gave in 1951.

Right, but that was before her research was secreted to them. She knew they were researching the same thing she was—she didn't know that they had her data and were using it to construct their own model. That's what's relevant, here. She thought she was publishing her work to stand on its own. Only after she'd…

Her article was published as support with W & C's because theirs was accepted for publication first. She had no choice but to publish her work as corroboration for their model. They didn't collaborate with her—it wasn't some, "yeah, as a team, we're gonna publish all this data!" thing. She had no idea that they had…

Geek girls have nothing to prove; hold signs proving they are geek girls.

She actually discovered the structure before Watson and Crick—they stole her data and published their paper (which was based on her stolen data) just days before she published her own paper. So they got credit. And she didn't. Then she died from cancer from x-ray exposure. And they got a Nobel Prize.