Several times, Rosalind's male colleagues feel she's overly concerned about making sure her data is correct, and criticize her for being slow to share her results. Is this criticism just?

Several times throughout the book Rosalind's male colleagues – even those who admire her – feel she's overly concerned about making sure her data is correct, and criticize her for being slow to share her results.

Is this criticism just? Is she reasonably cautious or overly so, in your opinion? Do you feel their concern would have been the same had she been a man?

I feel Rosalind felt she had to be absolutely sure of her findings and more sure of her findings being she was a woman and a brilliant one also. She was overly cautious but I understood why. The men scientists felt she was spending too much time on it and, of course, being a woman was too cautious being they wanted to be first and win the prize.

Absolutely not! I believe she was more careful because she had to be perfect in order to exist in a male environment. But she was actually following proper procedure, she wasn't into competition, she was more into precision and making scientific progress.

I do kind of wonder if the criticism was actually just. Part of that is because it seemed to be a universal opinion; it was mentioned in conjunction with her work at all three institutions. And there's such a thing as being TOO careful. I love my husband, but often projects that should take a day or two stretch on for months because of his perfectionism.

I don't feel like she was overly cautious because of her gender. I think it was more a personality thing. In this case, I suspect the criticism would have been similar for a male scientist.

I agree with the opinions above that say the criticism was not just. Rosalind was being judged by a harsher standard than her male colleagues. And maybe she was successful because being perfectionistic was part of her nature. Behavior often has more than one simple antecedent.

AS a scientist, she did not speculate. She wanted to be sure of her findings before presenting them as facts.

Her insistence on being correct before presenting her findings was just part of who she was. The criticism was almost certainly because the men around her were looking for faults.

Franklin wanted her work to be perfect. She wasn't interested in being first, but rather best. She wasn't competing with anyone but herself. The men were after the prize and weren't too particular about how they got there.

In an ideal world, Franklin was perfectly justified in not releasing her findings until she was certain of their scientific integrity. However in the real world, where scientists are always striving for research funding, it is imperative to stake a claim on your scientific data first. Otherwise, you may not get the next grant money to continue your work. So ethics and practicality are in conflict.

So I understand Franklin's reluctance to release early results of her findings, however, by her reluctance, she was shortchanging both her own funding and the funding of her institution.

It has always been important for scientists to perform careful research and calculations before announcing a breakthrough. However, I am sure there is always pressure to announce discoveries as quickly as possible due to competition for recognition. If scientists were to rush their experimentation to conclusions that are not carefully researched we would not trust the results.

I do not think there should be such a thing as "too careful" in Science - there have been instances where medications were rushed to market, only to be found to cause more harm than good. There have been theories put forward that were not properly vetted or tested, that make us lose trust in the Science. The rush to be first, to publish, to get to market should never take precedent over testing and re-testing.

The scientific literature is littered with studies that can’t be replicated. It would be better if more people had the exacting standards that Franklin had.

Rosalind was not interested in fame. Her main concern was her contribution to humanity

This criticism is not justified. In Rosalind's case, some of her male colleagues were lazy and unprofessional in their research. Rosalind, on the other hand, wanted to do every test and every step required to meet the scientific standards

It was Rosalind’s nature to be extra careful with her data. I agree she wanted to solve the puzzle of DNA but not at the expense of imperfect data.

This was a hard part of the book for me to understand. Many scientists want to be sure of their conclusions before publishing. But if the desire for fame and or money is greater, I can imagine them rushing conclusions. Also this was during the Cold War and it was very important to beat the USSR on any search.