I didn't know that, and you're correct. Then to me the question is whether she would have won the prize instead of Maurice Wilkins (who gave away Franklin's x-ray diffraction image to Crick and Watson).
§ 4.
A prize amount may be equally divided between two works, each of which is considered to merit a prize. If a work that is being rewarded has been produced by two or three persons, the prize shall be awarded to them jointly. In no case may a prize amount be divided between more than three persons.
I do understand the desire to not grant a cash award to an estate but the Nobel Committee should be able to somehow honor those who worked hardest but who died before the achievement was recognized.
__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
There is nothing certain in this world but death and taxes. But to resign ourselves to never improving our world is a fate worse than both death and taxes.
__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
It's good that she is now recognized for her contributions (and the injustice done to her). Awards are great, but I think the true reward for a scientist is helping to deepen the collective understanding of the world we live in. I think it's pretty much indisputable that Rosalind Franklin made a profound contribution to our understanding of DNA.
It does seem clear that she passed away knowing just how much her contribution was, also that she was loved and appreciated, not the least of which by Watson and Crick.
__________________
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just build a better one.
"Almost" Good Answers: