[cmpb]

I'm not familiar with Margaret Oakley Dayhoff, but I am aware that Rosalind Franklin [1] was extremely important for our understanding of DNA, comparable to Watson/Crick, with whom she co-discovered the structure of DNA. So it seems "Rosalind" is at least very appropriate as a name for a genomics tool such as this.

Not to say the other names mentioned aren't also deserving of similar honors

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

[philipallstar]

Rosalind Franklin was the team lead of the research team that photographed DNA.

The actual team member that took the key photo[0] was Raymond Gosling.

That team didn't interpret the double helix structure of DNA that the photograph had captured - that was Watson and Crick working it out from the photograph.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_51

[groby_b]

It's not quite that clear-cut. Franklin was pretty clear on the helical structure in both research notes and papers, but she didn't quite nail the overall structure (2 strands with opposing winding, complementing bases).

Fundamentally, she suffered the curse of the experimental scientist - waiting for actual data before being willing to build a model. Watson & Crick postulated ahead based on partial data.

[dnautics]

> Franklin was pretty clear on the helical structure

the type of diffraction her lab was doing only makes sense on helical structures. it being helical was already kind of? established -- linus pauling was contemporaneously working on some sort of alpha-helix inspired single helix model.

watson and crick immediately recognized the position of the diffraction spots fit the distances suggested by their chemical modeling of a, t, c, g, which franklin was not able to do since she hadn't made a structural prediction.

> postulated ahead based on partial data

not quite. if you know that a t c and g are the raw chemicals made, you can make a (possibly even literal) model and say, "this ball and stick model predicts diffractions here".

this is arguably better science than waiting for data and fitting a model to the data, falsifiability and all that.

[samuell]

> So it seems "Rosalind" is at least very appropriate as a name for a genomics tool such as this.

Indeed. The only argument against it might be that Rosalind is already a pretty well-known website for doing bioinformatics exercises and have them automatically graded:

https://rosalind.info

[flobosg]

> I'm not familiar with Margaret Oakley Dayhoff

Then you’re one of today’s lucky 10,000. Any time!