Rosalind Franklin And The Double Helix

When attempting to define what constitutes discovery in the realm of science, it helps to determine the motivations for doing so. In the case of the discovery of the double helix, for example, the most prevalent motivation is credit. With this as an incentive, it makes sense that someone might attempt to define discovery within a relatively constricting set of parameters. If you were to look at it from a more philosophical standpoint however, you might find discovery a lot more difficult to define. Michelle G. Gibbons, in her essay, “Reassessing Discovery: Rosalind Franklin, Scientific Visualization, and the Structure of DNA”, attempts to expand upon the common restrictions on what is considered discovery. Specifically, her argument involves
Within James Watson’s own account, “The Double Helix”, this is clearly evident. Several pages of this narrative seem only to serve as a rostrum he can spout misogyny from- mostly directed at Rosalind Franklin.4 Watson’s account also details the foul play that occurs, specifically when Maurice Wilkins shares Franklin’s x-ray pictures without her permission.5 Both of these factors make it easy to argue that Franklin deserves credit for her work, even suggesting she may have figured out the structure on her own if her data hadn't been shown to Watson. This, however, is not the argument Gibbons wishes to make. She poses a “philosophical question that has to do with conceptions of
Ultimately, every discovery is the culmination of centuries of human progress. Through insight and labour, the foundation of scientific knowledge grows, allowing us to answer questions we would have never even thought to ask. This broader,collaborative, definition of discovery, one that isn’t limited by “the encasement of the human skull”10, is what Gibbons seems to be driving at. Her specific argument seeks to validate an “externalist sense of discovery”10. The implication, briefly discussed in the conclusion of Gibbon’s essay, is this: once we begin broadening our definition, at what point do we stop? Imagine a scientific paper with a list of contributors hundreds of pages long, including every scientist that ever assisted in advancing the field. From a practical standpoint, the line has to be drawn somewhere- if only to save