I think this is a better article on the topic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5

It seems like there are several different parts to the discovery of the "structure of DNA" and different people contributed.

1. DNA is helical

2. DNA is a double helix

3. The ACGT copying mechanism

Part 1 was Franklin and Wilkins. Part 3 was Watson and Crick. Part 2 is the part under debate, to what degree was the double helix clear from just Franklin's imaging?

But really, how much does it matter? It seems like the four of them each contributed a lot. The Nobel prize only went to the other three, in large part because Franklin died before it was given out.

So did Franklin provably realize the double-helix structure of DNA first or not? A lot of beating about the bush here but the article stops just short of actually explicitly making the claim it's working so hard to imply, AFAICT...

(edit: should note the HN submission title (at present "Despite what Watson said, Rosalind Franklin understood structure of DNA first") does not actually occur in TFA)

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered

Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49969073

No-one should take Watson seriously. He exploited institutional sexism, systemic minimization, and unequal credit distribution to aggrandize his own contribution. It's a good example of why efforts like "DEI" are important - because if you leave things to people in a position of privilege, you get a completely distorted picture.