Medical Research Cor:ricil

E r! 3 I;: n d

te!cphonc Cam!)i.idge ( 0223 ) 4sjO'Il

telex - 81532

14 April 1976

Dr. P. Sielrcvitz,
Pres i dent ,
The New York Academy of Sciences,
2 Xast 63rd Street,
New York,
N.Y. 10021, U.S.A.

Dear Phil,

   Thank you for your letter of 26 March. I am not sure what you
would like from me. I have written two articles (Nature (1968) 219,
808-810 and Nature (1974) -' 218 787-783) setting out Rosalind Franklin's
contribution to the solution of the structure of DNA, and I think
everyone agrees siie played a major role in it. We also now know that
she WPS closer to the solution than many people realiscd, but,
characteristically, didn' t complain at being "beaten" since there never
was a "race".

   However, if she is to be honoured, it should be not so much as a
"woman of sciencc"but for her crucial contributions in sorting out the
A and the E forms, establishing that the phosphates were on the outside
and determining the helical parameters which iitfrc" used by Crick and
Watson in their model.

   The fact is Rosalind was never an active feminist, but simply
evoked or created respect in her own right as a person, arid I think
she might have found some of the present attitudes soinewnat distasteful.
There is also, inevitably, a fair amount of discussion ss to whether
she would have solved the structure on her own. One caa only guess,
but my view, as stated, is that she would have done so eventually,
though not c.ith the characteristic flourish of Crick. It is sometlines
said that she madz a strategical clistzke in pursuing the A form, and
so on, but I think again one is only saying that she wasn't Francis Crick.

   It is clear that she was an outsxandingly good experimental
scientist with acute pwers of observation anu a clear powcriul mind ,
but not of the highly imaginative variety. I think she was of' the first
rank and , doubtless, had she lived, would have accumulated nany honours.

Yours sincerely,