[p-e-w]

Look at some of the most ground-breaking research papers in the history of science, such as the Watson/Crick DNA structure papers. They literally discovered the core of life itself, which is infinitely more important than a room-temperature superconductor. Yet they are incredibly modest about it, and don't waste a single sentence waxing philosophical about what all this means etc.

In a similar vein, Andrew Wiles announced his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in a lecture modestly called "Modular Forms, Elliptic Curves and Galois Representations" – not "The Historic Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, with Endless Implications for the Future of Mathematics".

This isn't how science is typically done.

[dcow]

And the unsanctioned paper is titled: The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor. And the response paper is titled: Superconductor Pb10−xCux(PO4)6O showing levitation at room temperature and atmospheric pressure and mechanism.

Notably not “We’re fucking changing history”. What are you griping about? That the paper admits that this would be a significant finding with wide-ranging applications? Because that’s true…

[fbdab103]

Nice to be modest after building off of Rosalind Franklin's unaccredited work.

[supazek]

But she is brought up constantly and annoyingly in this regard. Why be a negative Nancy? There’s books from not long after the discovery that tell her story. You don’t think there are people who are legitimately forgotten in the process of every discovery?

[progman32]

I'm perfectly willing to forgive some hubris if their claims turn out to be accurate. Watson and Crick are not a great choice of role model for good character.

[SamPatt]

I read The Double Helix, Watson's autobiography (which I enjoyed), what are you referring to that he failed to mention?

[cthalupa]

Rosalind Franklin's work paved the way for Watson and and Crick. She and her PhD student took the photo that showed the double helix. The scientist leading the team at the lab, Maurice Wilkins, showed the photo to Watson and Crick. He and Franklin did not work together, and she was hired while he was not there, under the impression she would be working alone. And so she did. Wilkins was not involved in the taking of the photo, yet he shared her private research with Watson and Crick.

This photo was the missing piece for them to understand the structure of DNA and Franklin was not credited for it at the time. Wilkins, meanwhile, received the Nobel prize with Watson and Crick despite the single biggest contribution that came from the lab being Franklin's photograph.

It's nearly impossible to overstate just how pivotal and important this photograph was. There was no theory or model at the time that would have gotten them to understanding DNA. This x-ray crystallography photograph was THE missing piece.

Watson, Crick, and Wilkins could have properly credited her at any time. They included her photograph in the paper, explained how important it was. She wasn't even mentioned. They effectively plagiarized her work and took the credit.

[pie420]

You read a whole book, but can't be bothered to do a google search titled "watson and crick problematic"

Weird

[SamPatt]

The commenter made a point to mention this, so I asked a follow-up question to hear their thoughts.

It's called conversation and it's why online forums like HN exist.