t t question a brilliant piece of detective  t of Franklin’s picture.

    tion of Nature carried a 900-icle by atson and Crick titled“A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid.” Accompanying it e articles byilkins and Franklin. It ful time in t about toclamber to top of Everest o be cro of life ly overlooked. It received a smallmention in the News Chronicle and was ignored elsewhere.

    Rosalind Franklin did not s t ty-seven in 1958, four years before ted. Nobel Prizes are nota certainly arose as a result of co X-rays t ed t Franklin rarely en steppedcarelessly in front of a beam. Oserity, t least isfaction of living just longenougo see ed. he died in 1955.

    atson and Crick’s discovery  actually confirmed until t took over ty-five years for our model of DNA to go from being onlyrato being very plausible . . . and from to being virtually certainlycorrect.”

    Even so, ructure of DNA understood progress in genetics , and by 1968ticle titled “t as t as,”

    suggesting—it  it is so—t tics  anend.

    In fact, of course, it  beginning. Even no deal about DNA tand, not least  actually seem to do anything.

    Ninety-seven percent of your DNA consists of not long stretcs prefer to put it. Only rand do you find sections t control and organize vital functions. thecurious and long-elusive genes.

    Genes are notructions to make proteins. tain dull fidelity. In te and notrifle monotonous. But combine te ce variety.

    Put all togeto continue tap sympenc