The Double Helix was Discovered 59 Years Ago, but We Still Don't Know Who Did it

Consider every organism that’s ever lived on Earth. From dinosaurs to bacteria, the number is near infinite, and overwhelming majority have their entire structures and lives dictated according to their DNA. The DNA molecule is life itself, and it’s astonishing that we’ve only known what it looks like for less than a century. But it’s true: In one of the most groundbreaking papers ever published, James D. Watson and Francis Crick described the double-helix structure of DNA in Nature, 59 years ago today.

The April 1953 issue of Nature (published April 2, despite being dated April 25) will forever be known for one paper, which, looking back on it, was titled almost hilariously simply considering the ramifications: ‘A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid.’ The opening lines are equally reserved:

We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.). This structure has novel features which are of considerable biological interest.

Think about this for a moment: Watson and Crick showed how the compound that controls nearly all the life on Earth is structured, pushing forward the biomolecular field by lightyears and giving a basis for the mechanisms of evolution. Adenine and thymine, cytosine and guanine: Those four nucleic acids, in their respective pairs, are the building blocks that we’re built from. Thanks to intermolecular forces, those pairs bind, stack, and twist themselves into the long swirling ladder that is our DNA, the building block of life. And, in one of the great understatements in scientific history, Watson and Crick describe it as having "novel features!"

The discovery, something we take as such basic fact that Michael Crichton was filling pages of A-T C-G sequences in Jurassic Park two decades ago, wasn’t without controversy and intrigue. When the praise for Watson’s and Crick’s work started pouring in, tensions rose behind the scenes over who deserved ultimate credit.

In 1968, Watson published The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, an autobiographical account of the DNA research. It was roundly criticized by Crick and Maurice Wilkins (who also worked on the double-helix research, and who, with Watson and Crick, had won the Nobel Prize in 1962) for making caricatures of the people involved. That included what was considered a sexist portrayal of Rosalind Franklin, another key player in the discovery, who had died before the book was even published.

Watson’s book was novel in that it offered a personal look into a discovery being made, which was rare at the time. It was also the largest salvo in a long history of fighting over who got the most credit – Watson was listed first in the Nature paper, but one wonders how much his book solidified the pair as "Watson and Crick," and not the other way around.

It’s also important to note that, while Watson, Crick and crew were indeed correct, they weren’t the only folks researching the structure of DNA. Linus Pauling and Robert Corey had published a paper earlier in 1953 in Nature describing a triple-stranded DNA molecule whose structure was essentially correct, aside from a superfluous strand of molecules.

While Watson and Crick showed that strand couldn’t physically bond to the DNA structure, their work still borrowed heavily on the base of knowledge laid down Pauling, Corey, and countless others. To add to the intrigue, sometimes that borrowing was a little heavier-handed than most, as The Double Helix suggests.

But, as is always the case in research, all the credit goes to the first people to get it right and public. Of course Watson and Crick deserve it; after all, they did publish what has gone down as one of the most influential papers ever. Yet Wilkins, despite having also received the Nobel, likely has a bone to pick with history for being regularly left out. And Wilkins, even, may have snatched the basis for the work from Franklin. The question of who actually discovered the double helix will likely never be answered, partly because Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and Franklin likely all played parts. That’s the most frustrating aspect of the confluence of science and fame: Watson and Crick, by virtue of being senior, got their names on the paper that brought them all fame.

Still, the thing that’s so incredible is that the paper is only 59 years old. Compare the knowledge gained before and after 1953: In six decades, we’ve learned more about the very mechanisms that control life than in the thousands of years prior. While that’s certainly not solely due to Watson and Crick – knowing how DNA is structured doesn’t make building a gene sequencer easy, for example – it’s mind-blowing how far we’ve come since they discovered what gives us life. As mapping the human genome gets easier, and as medicines tailored to your genetic makeup loom on the horizon, it’s easier to wonder how much farther we’ll go.

Follow Derek Mead on Twitter: @drderekmead.

• Quantum Entanglement Could Be Working In Our DNA
• Synthetic DNA Is Promising Us A Very Cylon Future
• Who Really Discovered the Structure of DNA?