document_title: Cricket World Cup

question_text: when was the first cricket world cup held

text: Cricket World Cup

text: History[edit]

text: Before the first Cricket World Cup[edit]

text: The first international cricket match was played between Canada and the United States, on 24 and 25 September 1844.[2] However, the first credited Test match was played in 1877 between Australia and England, and the two teams competed regularly for The Ashes in subsequent years. South Africa was admitted to Test status in 1889.[3] Representative cricket teams were selected to tour each other, resulting in bilateral competition. Cricket was also included as an Olympic sport at the 1900 Paris Games, where Great Britain defeated France to win the gold medal.[4] This was the only appearance of cricket at the Summer Olympics.

text: The first multilateral competition at international level was the 1912 Triangular Tournament, a Test cricket tournament played in England between all three Test-playing nations at the time: England, Australia and South Africa. The event was not a success: the summer was exceptionally wet, making play difficult on damp uncovered pitches, and attendances were poor, attributed to a "surfeit of cricket".[5] Since then, international Test cricket has generally been organised as bilateral series: a multilateral Test tournament was not organised again until the triangular Asian Test Championship in 1999.[6]

text: The number of nations playing Test cricket increased gradually over time, with the addition of West Indies in 1928, New Zealand in 1930, India in 1932, and Pakistan in 1952. However, international cricket continued to be played as bilateral Test matches over three, four or five days.

text: In the early 1960s, English county cricket teams began playing a shortened version of cricket which only lasted for one day. Starting in 1962 with a four-team knockout competition known as the Midlands Knock-Out Cup,[7] and continuing with the inaugural Gillette Cup in 1963, one-day cricket grew in popularity in England. A national Sunday League was formed in 1969. The first One-Day International match was played on the fifth day of a rain-aborted Test match between England and Australia at Melbourne in 1971, to fill the time available and as compensation for the frustrated crowd. It was a forty over game with eight balls per over.[8]

text: In the late 1970s, Kerry Packer established the rival World Series Cricket (WSC) competition. It introduced many of the now commonplace features of One Day International cricket, including coloured uniforms, matches played at night under floodlights with a white ball and dark sight screens, and, for television broadcasts, multiple camera angles, effects microphones to capture sounds from the players on the pitch, and on-screen graphics. The first of the matches with coloured uniforms was the WSC Australians in wattle gold versus WSC West Indians in coral pink, played at VFL Park in Melbourne on 17 January 1979. The success and popularity of the domestic one-day competitions in England and other parts of the world, as well as the early One-Day Internationals, prompted the ICC to consider organising a Cricket World Cup.[9]

text: Prudential World Cups (1975–1983)[edit]

text: The inaugural Cricket World Cup was hosted in 1975 by England, the only nation able to put forward the resources to stage an event of such magnitude at the time. The 1975 tournament started on 7 June.[10] The first three events were held in England and officially known as the Prudential Cup after the sponsors Prudential plc. The matches consisted of 60 six-ball overs per team, played during the daytime in traditional form, with the players wearing cricket whites and using red cricket balls.[11]

text: Eight teams participated in the first tournament: Australia, England, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, and the West Indies (the six Test nations at the time), together with Sri Lanka and a composite team from East Africa.[12] One notable omission was South Africa, who were banned from international cricket due to apartheid. The tournament was won by the West Indies, who defeated Australia by 17 runs in the final at Lord's.[12]

text: The 1979 World Cup saw the introduction of the ICC Trophy competition to select non-Test playing teams for the World Cup,[13] with Sri Lanka and Canada qualifying.[14] The West Indies won a second consecutive World Cup tournament, defeating the hosts England by 92 runs in the final. At a meeting which followed the World Cup, the International Cricket Conference agreed to make the competition a quadrennial event.[14]

text: The 1983 event was hosted by England for a third consecutive time. By this stage, Sri Lanka had become a Test-playing nation, and Zimbabwe qualified through the ICC Trophy. A fielding circle was introduced, 30 yards (27 m) away from the stumps. Four fieldsmen needed to be inside it at all times.[15] The teams faced each other twice, before moving into the knock-outs. India, an outsider, quoted at 66–1 to win by bookmakers before the competition began, were crowned champions after upsetting the West Indies by 43 runs in the final.[9][16]

text: Different champions (1987–1996)[edit]

text: India and Pakistan jointly hosted the 1987 tournament, the first time that the competition was held outside England. The games were reduced from 60 to 50 overs per innings, the current standard, because of the shorter daylight hours in the Indian subcontinent compared with England's summer.[17] Australia won the championship by defeating England by 7 runs in the final, the closest margin in World Cup final history.[18][19]

text: The 1992 World Cup, held in Australia and New Zealand, introduced many changes to the game, such as coloured clothing, white balls, day/night matches, and a change to the fielding restriction rules. The South African cricket team participated in the event for the first time, following the fall of the apartheid regime and the end of the international sports boycott.[20] Pakistan overcame a dismal start in the tournament to eventually defeat England by 22 runs in the final and emerge as winners.[21]

text: The 1996 championship was held in the Indian subcontinent for a second time, with the inclusion of Sri Lanka as host for some of its group stage matches.[22] In the semi-final, Sri Lanka, heading towards a crushing victory over India at Eden Gardens after the hosts lost eight wickets while scoring 120 runs in pursuit of 252, were awarded victory by default after crowd unrest broke out in protest against the Indian performance.[23] Sri Lanka went on to win their maiden championship by defeating Australia by seven wickets in the final at Lahore.[24]

text: Australian treble (1999–2007)[edit]

text: In 1999 the event was hosted by England, with some matches also being held in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the Netherlands.[25][26] Twelve teams contested the World Cup. Australia qualified for the semi-finals after reaching their target in their Super 6 match against South Africa off the final over of the match.[27] They then proceeded to the final with a tied match in the semi-final also against South Africa where a mix-up between South African batsmen Lance Klusener and Allan Donald saw Donald drop his bat and stranded mid-pitch to be run out. In the final, Australia dismissed Pakistan for 132 and then reached the target in less than 20 overs and with eight wickets in hand.[28]

text: South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya hosted the 2003 World Cup. The number of teams participating in the event increased from twelve to fourteen. Kenya's victories over Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, among others – and a forfeit by the New Zealand team, which refused to play in Kenya because of security concerns – enabled Kenya to reach the semi-finals, the best result by an associate.[29] In the final, Australia made 359 runs for the loss of two wickets, the largest ever total in a final, defeating India by 125 runs.[30][31]

text: In 2007 the tournament was hosted by the West Indies and expanded to sixteen teams.[32] Following Pakistan's upset loss to World Cup debutants Ireland in the group stage, Pakistani coach Bob Woolmer was found dead in his hotel room.[33] Jamaican police had initially launched a murder investigation into Woolmer's death but later confirmed that he died of heart failure.[34] Australia defeated Sri Lanka in the final by 53 runs (D/L) in farcical light conditions, and extended their undefeated run in the World Cup to 29 matches and winning three straight championships.[35]

text: Hosts triumph (2011–2015)[edit]

text: India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh together hosted the 2011 Cricket World Cup. Pakistan were stripped of their hosting rights following the terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in 2009, with the games originally scheduled for Pakistan redistributed to the other host countries.[36] The number of teams participating in the World Cup dropped down to fourteen.[37] Australia lost their final group stage match against Pakistan on 19 March 2011, ending an unbeaten streak of 35 World Cup matches, which had begun on 23 May 1999.[38] India won their second World Cup title by beating Sri Lanka by 6 wickets in the final in Mumbai, and became the first country to win the final on home soil.[37] MS Dhoni later became the first captain in history to win all the major ICC tournaments - World T20 in 2007, Champions Trophy in 2013 and this edition of the World Cup.

text: Australia and New Zealand jointly hosted the 2015 Cricket World Cup. The number of participants remained at fourteen. Ireland was the most successful Associate nation with a total of three wins in the tournament. New Zealand beat South Africa in a thrilling first semi-final to qualify for their maiden World Cup final. Australia defeated New Zealand by seven wickets in the final at Melbourne to lift the World Cup for the fifth time.[39]

text: Format[edit]

text: Qualification[edit]

text: This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2018)

text: The Test-playing nations qualify automatically for the World Cup main event while the other teams have to qualify through a series of preliminary qualifying tournaments. A new qualifying format was introduced for the 2015 Cricket World Cup. The top two teams of the 2011–13 ICC World Cricket League Championship qualify directly. The remaining six teams join the third and fourth-placed teams of 2011 ICC World Cricket League Division Two and the top two teams of the 2013 ICC World Cricket League Division Three in the World Cup Qualifier to decide the remaining two places.[40][41]

text: Qualifying tournaments were introduced for the second World Cup, where two of the eight places in the finals were awarded to the leading teams in the ICC Trophy.[13] The number of teams selected through the ICC Trophy had varied throughout the years. The World Cricket League (administered by the International Cricket Council) is the qualification system provided to allow the Associate and Affiliate members of the ICC more opportunities to qualify. The name "ICC Trophy" has been changed to "ICC World Cup Qualifier".[42]

text: Under the current qualifying process, the World Cricket League, all Associate and Affiliate members of the ICC are able to qualify for the World Cup. Associate and Affiliate members must play between two and five stages in the ICC World Cricket League to qualify for the World Cup finals, depending on the Division in which they start the qualifying process.

text: Process summary in chronological order (2011-2014):

text:
2011 ICC World Cricket League Division Two: 6 Teams – Top 2 were promoted to the 2011–13 ICC World Cricket League Championship. The third and fourth-placed teams qualified for the 2014 Cricket World Cup Qualifier. The fifth and sixth-placed teams were relegated to the Division Three for 2013.
2011–13 ICC World Cricket League Championship: 8 Teams – Top 2 automatically qualified for the 2015 Cricket World Cup. The remaining six teams qualified for the 2014 Cricket World Cup Qualifier.
2013 ICC World Cricket League Division Three: 6 Teams – Top 2 were qualified for the 2014 Cricket World Cup Qualifier. The fifth and sixth-placed teams were relegated to the Division Four for 2014.
2014 Cricket World Cup Qualifier: 10 Teams – Top 2 qualified for the 2015 Cricket World Cup and the 2015–17 ICC World Cricket League Championship. The third and fourth-placed teams qualified for the 2015–17 ICC World Cricket League Championship. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth-placed teams remained in the Division Two for 2015. The ninth and tenth-placed teams were relegated to the Division Three for 2014

text: Tournament[edit]

text: The format of the Cricket World Cup has changed greatly over the course of its history. Each of the first four tournaments was played by eight teams, divided into two groups of four.[43] The competition consisted of two stages, a group stage and a knock-out stage. The four teams in each group played each other in the round-robin group stage, with the top two teams in each group progressing to the semi-finals. The winners of the semi-finals played against each other in the final. With South Africa returning in the fifth tournament in 1992 as a result of the end of the apartheid boycott, nine teams played each other once in the group phase, and the top four teams progressed to the semi-finals.[44] The tournament was further expanded in 1996, with two groups of six teams.[45] The top four teams from each group progressed to quarter-finals and semi-finals.

text: A distinct format was used for the 1999 and 2003 World Cups. The teams were split into two pools, with the top three teams in each pool advancing to the Super 6.[46] The Super 6 teams played the three other teams that advanced from the other group. As they advanced, the teams carried their points forward from previous matches against other teams advancing alongside them, giving them an incentive to perform well in the group stages.[46] The top four teams from the Super 6 stage progressed to the semi-finals, with the winners playing in the final.

text: The format used in the 2007 World Cup involved 16 teams allocated into four groups of four.[47] Within each group, the teams played each other in a round-robin format. Teams earned points for wins and half-points for ties. The top two teams from each group moved forward to the Super 8 round. The Super 8 teams played the other six teams that progressed from the different groups. Teams earned points in the same way as the group stage, but carried their points forward from previous matches against the other teams who qualified from the same group to the Super 8 stage.[48] The top four teams from the Super 8 round advanced to the semi-finals, and the winners of the semi-finals played in the final.

text: The format used in the 2011 and 2015[49] World Cups featured two groups of seven teams, each playing in a round-robin format. The top four teams from each group proceeded to the knock out stage consisting of quarter-finals, semi-finals and ultimately the final.[50]

text: It is proposed that in 2019 World Cup, the number of teams participating will go down to 10 and all the teams will play against each other once in round robin format, before entering the semifinals. This would be similar to the one used in 1992 World Cup.

text: Trophy[edit]

text: The ICC Cricket World Cup Trophy is presented to the winners of the World Cup. The current trophy was created for the 1999 championships, and was the first permanent prize in the tournament's history. Prior to this, different trophies were made for each World Cup.[51] The trophy was designed and produced in London by a team of craftsmen from Garrard & Co over a period of two months.

text: The current trophy is made from silver and gilt, and features a golden globe held up by three silver columns. The columns, shaped as stumps and bails, represent the three fundamental aspects of cricket: batting, bowling and fielding, while the globe characterises a cricket ball.[52] The seam is tilted to symbolize the axial tilt of the Earth. It stands 60 centimetres high and weighs approximately 11 kilograms. The names of the previous winners are engraved on the base of the trophy, with space for a total of twenty inscriptions. The ICC keeps the original trophy. A replica differing only in the inscriptions is permanently awarded to the winning team.[53]

text: Media coverage[edit]

text: The tournament is the world's third largest[54] with only the FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympics exceeding it. The 2011 Cricket World Cup final was televised in over 200 countries to over 2.2 billion television viewers.[55][56][57] Television rights, mainly for the 2011 and 2015 World Cup, were sold for over US$1.1 billion,[58] and sponsorship rights were sold for a further US$500 million.[59] The 2003 Cricket World Cup matches were attended by 626,845 people,[60] while the 2007 Cricket World Cup sold more than 672,000 tickets.[61][62]

text: Successive World Cup tournaments have generated increasing media attention as One-Day International cricket has become more established. The 2003 World Cup in South Africa was the first to sport a mascot, Dazzler the zebra.[63] An orange mongoose known as Mello was the mascot for the 2007 Cricket World Cup.[64] Stumpy, a blue elephant was the mascot for the 2011 World Cup.[65]

text: On 13 February, the opening of the 2015 tournament was celebrated with a Google Doodle.[66]

text: Selection of hosts[edit]

text: The International Cricket Council's executive committee votes for the hosts of the tournament after examining the bids made by the nations keen to hold a Cricket World Cup.[67]

text: England hosted the first three competitions. The ICC decided that England should host the first tournament because it was ready to devote the resources required to organising the inaugural event.[10] India volunteered to host the third Cricket World Cup, but most ICC members preferred England as the longer period of daylight in England in June meant that a match could be completed in one day.[68] The 1987 Cricket World Cup was held in India and Pakistan, the first hosted outside England.[69]

text: Many of the tournaments have been jointly hosted by nations from the same geographical region, such as South Asia in 1987, 1996 and 2011, Australasia in 1992 and 2015, Southern Africa in 2003 and West Indies in 2007.

text: Tournament history[edit]

text:
Year
Official Host(s)
Final venue
Result

Winner
Margin
Runner-up

1975
Details
 England
London
 West Indies
291/8 (60 overs)
West Indies won by 17 runs
Scorecard
 Australia
274 all out (58.4 overs)

1979
Details
 England
London
 West Indies
286/9 (60 overs)
West Indies won by 92 runs
Scorecard
 England
194 all out (51 overs)

1983
Details
 England [a]
London
 India
183 all out (54.4 overs)
India won by 43 runs
Scorecard
 West Indies
140 all out (52 overs)

1987
Details
 India
 Pakistan
Kolkata
 Australia
253/5 (50 overs)
Australia won by 7 runs
Scorecard
 England
246/8 (50 overs)

1992
Details
 Australia
 New Zealand
Melbourne
 Pakistan
249/6 (50 overs)
Pakistan won by 22 runs
Scorecard
 England
227 all out (49.2 overs)

1996
Details
 Pakistan
 India
 Sri Lanka
Lahore
 Sri Lanka
245/3 (46.2 overs)
Sri Lanka won by 7 wickets
Scorecard
 Australia
241/7 (50 overs)

1999
Details
 England
 Wales [b]
London
 Australia
133/2 (20.1 overs)
Australia won by 8 wickets
Scorecard
 Pakistan
132 all out (39 overs)

2003
Details
 South Africa [c]
Johannesburg
 Australia
359/2 (50 overs)
Australia won by 125 runs
Scorecard
 India
234 all out (39.2 overs)

2007
Details
 West Indies [d]
Bridgetown
 Australia
281/4 (38 overs)
Australia won by 53 runs (D/L)
Scorecard
 Sri Lanka
215/8 (36 overs)

2011
Details
 India
 Sri Lanka
 Bangladesh
Mumbai
 India
277/4 (48.2 overs)
India won by 6 wickets
Scorecard
 Sri Lanka
274/6 (50 overs)

2015
Details
 Australia
 New Zealand
Melbourne
 Australia
186/3 (33.1 overs)
Australia won by 7 wickets
Scorecard
 New Zealand
183 all out (45 overs)

2019
Details
 England
 Wales
London

2023
Details
 India
Mumbai

text:
Jump up ^ England was the sole designated host, but matches were also played in Wales.
Jump up ^ The England and Wales Cricket Board was the sole designated host, but matches were also played in Ireland, the Netherlands, and Scotland.
Jump up ^ Cricket South Africa was the sole designated host, but matches were also played in Kenya and Zimbabwe.
Jump up ^ Eight member countries of the West Indies Cricket Board hosted matches – Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago.

text: Results[edit]

text: Twenty nations have qualified for the Cricket World Cup at least once. Seven teams have competed in every tournament, five of which have won the title.[9] The West Indies won the first two tournaments, Australia has won five, India has won two, while Pakistan and Sri Lanka have each won once. The West Indies (1975 and 1979) and Australia (1999, 2003 and 2007) are the only teams to have won consecutive titles.[9] Australia has played in seven of the eleven finals (1975, 1987, 1996, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2015). England has yet to win the World Cup, but has been runners-up three times (1979, 1987, 1992). The best result by a non-Test playing nation is the semi-final appearance by Kenya in the 2003 tournament; while the best result by a non-Test playing team on their debut is the Super 8 (second round) by Ireland in 2007.[9]

text: Sri Lanka as a co-host of the 1996 Cricket World Cup was the first host to win the tournament though the final was held in Pakistan.[9] India won in 2011 as host and was the first team to win in a final played in their own country.[70] Australia repeated the feat in 2015.[39] England is the only other host to have made the final, in 1979. Other countries which have achieved or equalled their best World Cup results while co-hosting the tournament are New Zealand as finalists in 2015; Zimbabwe who reached the Super Six in 2003; and Kenya as semi-finalists in 2003.[9] In 1987, co-hosts India and Pakistan both reached the semi-finals, but were eliminated by Australia and England respectively.[9] Australia in 1992, England in 1999, South Africa in 2003, and Bangladesh in 2011 have been the host teams that were eliminated in the first round.

text: Teams' performances[edit]

text: An overview of the teams' performances in every World Cup:

text:
Team \ Host
1975
(8)
1979
(8)
1983
(8)
1987
(8)
1992
(9)
1996
(12)
1999
(12)
2003
(14)
2007
(16)
2011
(14)
2015
(14)
2019
(10)
2023
(10)

 Afghanistan

GP
Q

 Australia
2nd
GP
GP
1st
GP
2nd
1st
1st
1st
QF
1st
Q

 Bangladesh

GP
GP
S8
GP
QF
Q

 Bermuda

GP

 Canada

GP

GP
GP
GP

East Africa†
GP

 England
SF
2nd
SF
2nd
2nd
QF
GP
GP
S8
QF
GP
Q

 India
GP
GP
1st
SF
GP
SF
S6
2nd
GP
1st
SF
Q
Q

 Ireland

S8
GP
GP

 Kenya

GP
GP
SF
GP
GP

 Namibia

GP

 Netherlands

GP

GP
GP
GP

 New Zealand
SF
SF
GP
GP
SF
QF
SF
S6
SF
SF
2nd
Q

 Pakistan
GP
SF
SF
SF
1st
QF
2nd
GP
GP
SF
QF
Q

 Scotland

GP

GP

GP

 South Africa

SF
QF
SF
GP
SF
QF
SF
Q

 Sri Lanka
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
1st
GP
SF
2nd
2nd
QF
Q

 United Arab Emirates

GP

GP

 West Indies
1st
1st
2nd
GP
GP
SF
GP
GP
S8
QF
QF
Q

 Zimbabwe

GP
GP
GP
GP
S6
S6
GP
GP
GP

text: †No longer exists.

text: Before the 1992 World Cup, South Africa was banned due to apartheid.

text: The number of wins followed by Run-rate is the criteria for determining the rankings till the 1987 World Cup.

text: The number of points followed by, head to head performance and then net run-rate is the criteria for determining the rankings for the World Cups from 1992 onwards.

text: Legend

text:
1st – Winner
2nd – Runner up
SF – Semi-finals
S6 – Super Six (1999–2003)
S8 – Super Eight (2007)
QF – Quarter-finals (1996, 2011–2015)
GP – Group – First round

text: Debutant teams[edit]

text:
Year
Teams

1975
 Australia, East Africa†,  England,  India,  New Zealand,  Pakistan,  Sri Lanka,  West Indies

1979
 Canada

1983
 Zimbabwe

1987
none

1992
 South Africa

1996
 Kenya,  Netherlands,  United Arab Emirates

1999
 Bangladesh,  Scotland

2003
 Namibia

2007
 Bermuda,  Ireland

2011
none

2015
 Afghanistan

2019
none

2023
TBD

text: †No longer exists.

text: Overview[edit]

text: The table below provides an overview of the performances of teams over past World Cups, as of the end of group stage of the 2015 tournament. Teams are sorted by best performance, then by appearances, total number of wins, total number of games, and alphabetical order respectively.

text:
Appearances

Statistics

Team
Total
First
Latest
Best result
Mat.
Won
Lost
Tie
NR
Win%*

 Australia
11
1975
2015
1.1 !Champions (1987, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2015)
84
62
20
1
1
75.30

 India
11
1975
2015
1.3 !Champions (1983, 2011)
75
46
27
1
1
62.83

 West Indies
11
1975
2015
1.3 !Champions (1975, 1979)
71
41
29
0
1
58.57

 Pakistan
11
1975
2015
1.5 !Champions (1992)
71
40
29
0
2
57.97

 Sri Lanka
11
1975
2015
1.5 !Champions (1996)
73
35
35
1
2
50.00

 England
11
1975
2015
2.3 !Runners-up (1979, 1987, 1992)
72
41
29
1
1
58.45

 New Zealand
11
1975
2015
2.5 !Runners-up (2015)
79
48
30
0
1
61.53

 South Africa
7
1992
2015
3.2 !Semi-finals (1992, 1999, 2007, 2015)
55
35
18
2
0
65.45

 Kenya
5
1996
2011
3.5 !Semi-finals (2003)
29
6
22
0
1
21.42

 Zimbabwe
9
1983
2015
5.4 !Super 6 (1999, 2003)
57
11
42
1
3
21.29

 Bangladesh
5
1999
2015
7.4 !Quarter-finals (2015), Super 8 (2007)
32
11
20
0
1
35.48

 Ireland
3
2007
2015
7.5 !Super 8 (2007)
21
7
13
1
0
35.71

 Canada
4
1979
2011
9.2 !Group Stage (1979, 2003, 2007, 2011)
18
2
16
0
0
11.11

 Netherlands
4
1996
2011
9.2 !Group Stage (1996, 2003, 2007, 2011)
20
2
18
0
0
10.00

 Scotland
3
1999
2015
9.3 !Group Stage (1999, 2007, 2015)
14
0
14
0
0
0.00

 United Arab Emirates
2
1996
2015
9.4 !Group Stage (1996, 2015)
11
1
10
0
0
9.09

 Afghanistan
1
2015
2015
9.5 !Group Stage (2015)
6
1
5
0
0
16.66

 Bermuda
1
2007
2007
9.5 !Group Stage (2007)
3
0
3
0
0
0.00

East Africa†
1
1975
1975
9.5 !Group Stage (1975)
3
0
3
0
0
0.00

 Namibia
1
2003
2003
9.5 !Group Stage (2003)
6
0
6
0
0
0.00

Last Updated: 29 March 2015
Source: Cricinfo[71]

text: The Win percentage excludes no results and counts ties as half a win.

text: †No longer exists.

text: Awards[edit]

text: Man of the tournament[edit]

text: Since 1992, one player has been declared as "Man of the Tournament" at the end of the World Cup finals:[72]

text:
Year
Player
Performance details

1992
 Martin Crowe
456 runs

1996
 Sanath Jayasuriya
221 runs and 7 wickets

1999
 Lance Klusener
281 runs and 17 wickets

2003
 Sachin Tendulkar
673 runs and 2 wickets

2007
 Glenn McGrath
26 wickets

2011
 Yuvraj Singh
362 runs and 15 wickets

2015
 Mitchell Starc
22 wickets

text: Man of the Match in the Final[edit]

text: There were no Man of the Tournament awards before 1992 but Man of the Match awards have always been given for individual matches. Winning the Man of the Match in the final is logically noteworthy, as this indicates the player deemed to have played the biggest part in the World Cup final. To date the award has always gone to a member of the winning side. The Man of the Match award in the final of the competition has been awarded to:[72]

text:
Year
Player
Performance details

1975
 Clive Lloyd
102

1979
 Viv Richards
138*

1983
 Mohinder Amarnath
3/12 and 26

1987
 David Boon
75

1992
 Wasim Akram
33 and 3/49

1996
 Aravinda de Silva
107* and 3/42

1999
 Shane Warne
4/33

2003
 Ricky Ponting
140*

2007
 Adam Gilchrist
149

2011
 Mahendra Singh Dhoni
91*

2015
 James Faulkner
3/36

text: Tournament records[edit]

text:
World Cup records[73]

Batting

Most runs
 Sachin Tendulkar
2,278 (1992–2011)

Highest average (min. 20 inns.) [74]
 AB de Villiers
63.52 (2007–2015)

Highest score
 Martin Guptill v  West Indies
237* (2015)

Highest partnership
 Chris Gayle & Marlon Samuels
(2nd wicket) v  Zimbabwe
372 (2015)

Most runs in a tournament
 Sachin Tendulkar
673 (2003)

Most hundreds
 Sachin Tendulkar
6 (1992–2011)

Bowling

Most wickets
 Glenn McGrath
71 (1996–2007)

Lowest average (min. 1000 balls bowled)
 Glenn McGrath
18.19 (1996–2007)

Best strike rate (min. 1000 balls bowled)
 Lasith Malinga
23.8 (2007–2015)

Best economy rate (min. 1000 balls bowled)
 Andy Roberts
3.24 (1975–1983)

Best bowling figures
 Glenn McGrath v  Namibia
7/15 (2003)

Most wickets in a tournament
 Glenn McGrath
26 (2007)

Fielding

Most dismissals (wicket-keeper)
 Kumar Sangakkara
54 (2003–2015)

Most catches (fielder)
 Ricky Ponting
28 (1996–2011)

Team

Highest score
 Australia v  Afghanistan
417/6 (2015)

Lowest score
 Canada v  Sri Lanka
36 (2003)

Highest win % [75]
 Australia
74% (Played 84, Won 62)

Most consecutive wins [76]
 Australia
27 (20 Jun 1999–19 Mar 2011, one N/R excluded)

Most consecutive tournament wins
 Australia
3 (1999–2007)


document_title: Rosalind Franklin

question_text: who won the nobel peace prize for dna structure

question_tokens: who won the nobel peace prize for dna structure

root

text: Rosalind Franklin

text: Education and early life[edit]

text: Franklin was born on 25 July 1920 in 50 Chepstow Villas,[9] Notting Hill, London, into an affluent and influential British Jewish family.[10][11] Her father was Ellis Arthur Franklin (1894–1964), a politically liberal London merchant banker who taught at the city's Working Men's College, and her mother was Muriel Frances Waley (1894–1976). Rosalind was the elder daughter and the second child in the family of five children. David (born 1919) was the eldest brother; Colin (born 1923), Roland (born 1926), and Jenifer (born 1929) were her younger siblings.[12] Her father's uncle was Herbert Samuel (later Viscount Samuel), who was the Home Secretary in 1916 and the first practising Jew to serve in the British Cabinet.[13] Her aunt, Helen Caroline Franklin, known in the family as Mamie, was married to Norman de Mattos Bentwich, who was the Attorney General in the British Mandate of Palestine.[14] Helen Caroline Franklin was active in trade union organisation and the women's suffrage movement, and was later a member of the London County Council.[15][16] Her uncle, Hugh Franklin, was another prominent figure in the suffrage movement, although his actions therein embarrassed the Franklin family. Rosalind's middle name, "Elsie", was in memory of Hugh's first wife, who died in the 1918 flu pandemic.[12] Her family was actively involved with the Working Men's College, where her father taught the subjects of electricity, magnetism, and the history of the Great War in the evenings, later becoming the vice-principal.[17][18]

tag: p

text: Franklin's parents helped settle Jewish refugees from Europe who had escaped the Nazis, particularly those from the Kindertransport.[19] They took in two Jewish children to their home, and one of them, a nine-year-old Austrian, Evi Eisenstädter, shared Jenifer's room.[20] (Evi's father Hans Mathias Eisenstädter had been imprisoned in Buchenwald, and after liberation, the family adopted the surname "Ellis".)[21][22]

text: From early childhood, Franklin showed exceptional scholastic abilities. At age six, she joined her brother Roland at Norland Place School, a private day school in West London. At that time, her aunt Mamie (Helen Bentwich), described her to her husband: "Rosalind is alarmingly clever – she spends all her time doing arithmetic for pleasure, and invariably gets her sums right."[23] She also developed an early interest in cricket and hockey. At age nine, she entered a boarding school, Lindores School for Young Ladies in Sussex.[24] The school was near the seaside, and the family wanted a good environment for her delicate health. She was eleven when she went to St Paul's Girls' School, West London, one of the few girls' schools in London that taught physics and chemistry.[24][25][26] At St Paul's she excelled in science, Latin,[27] and sports.[28] She also learned German, and became fluent in French, a language she would later find useful. She topped her classes, and won annual awards. Her only educational weakness was in music, for which the school music director, the composer Gustav Holst, once called upon her mother to inquire whether she might have suffered from hearing problem or tonsillitis.[29] With six distinctions, she passed her matriculation in 1938, winning a scholarship for university, the School Leaving Exhibition of £30 a year for three years, and £5 from her grandfather.[30] Her father asked her to give the scholarship to a deserving refugee student.[24]

text: Cambridge and World War II[edit]

text: Franklin went to Newnham College, Cambridge in 1938 and studied chemistry within the Natural Sciences Tripos. There she met the spectroscopist Bill Price, who worked with her as a laboratory demonstrator and who later became one of her senior colleagues at King's College London.[31] In 1941, she was awarded second-class honours from her final exams. The distinction was accepted as a bachelor's degree in qualifications for employment. Cambridge began awarding titular B.A. and M.A. degrees to women from 1947, and the previous women graduates retroactively received these.[32] In her last year at Cambridge, she met a French refugee Adrienne Weill, a former student of Marie Curie, who had a huge influence on her life and career and helped her to improve her spoken French.[33]

text: Franklin was awarded a research fellowship at Newnham College, with which she joined the physical chemistry laboratory of the University of Cambridge to work under Ronald Norrish, who later won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In her one year of work there, she did not have much success.[34] As described by his biographer, Norrish was "obstinate and almost perverse in argument, overbearing and sensitive to criticism".[35] He could not decide for her what to work upon, and at that time was succumbing to heavy drinking. Franklin wrote that he made her despise him completely.[36] Resigning from Norrish's Lab, she fulfilled the requirements of the National Service Acts by working as an assistant research officer at the British Coal Utilisation Research Association (BCURA) in 1942.[8] The BCURA was located on the Coombe Springs Estate near Kingston upon Thames near the southwestern boundary of London. Norrish acted as advisor to the military at BCURA. John G. Bennett was the director. Marcello Pirani and Victor Goldschmidt, both refugees from the Nazis, were consultants and lectured at BCURA while Franklin worked there.[2] During her BCURA research, she stayed at Adrienne Weill's boarding house in Cambridge until her cousin Irene Franklin asked to join her in a vacated house of her uncle in Putney. With Irene, she volunteered as an Air Raid Warden and regularly made patrols to see the welfare of people during air raids.[37]

text: She studied the porosity of coal using helium to determine its density.[38] Through this, she discovered the relationship between the fine constrictions in the pores of coals and the permeability of the porous space. By concluding that substances were expelled in order of molecular size as temperature increased, she helped classify coals and accurately predict their performance for fuel purposes and for production of wartime devices such as gas masks.[39] This work was the basis of her Ph.D. thesis The physical chemistry of solid organic colloids with special reference to coal for which the University of Cambridge University awarded her a Ph.D. in 1945.[4] It was also the basis of several papers.[2]

text: Career and research[edit]

text: Franklin spent her career working in London and Paris.

text: Paris[edit]

text: With World War II ending in 1945, Franklin asked Adrienne Weill for help and to let her know of job openings for "a physical chemist who knows very little physical chemistry, but quite a lot about the holes in coal". At a conference in the autumn of 1946, Weill introduced her to Marcel Mathieu, a director of the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), the network of institutes that comprise the major part of the scientific research laboratories supported by the French government. This led to her appointment with Jacques Mering at the Laboratoire Central des Services Chimiques de l'État in Paris. She joined the labo (as referred to by the staff) of Mering on 14 February 1947 as one of the fifteen chercheurs (researchers).[40][41]

text: Mering was an X-ray crystallographer who applied X-ray diffraction to the study of rayon and other amorphous substances, in contrast to the thousands of regular crystals that had been studied by this method for many years.[2] He taught her the practical aspects of applying X-ray crystallography to amorphous substances. This presented new challenges in the conduct of experiments and the interpretation of results. Franklin applied them to further problems related to coal, in particular the changes to the arrangement of atoms when it is converted to graphite.[2] She published several further papers on this work which has become part of the mainstream of the physics and chemistry of coal. This work was covered in a 1993 monograph,[42] and in the regularly-published textbook Chemistry and Physics of Carbon.[43] Mering continued the study of carbon in various forms, using X-ray diffraction and other methods.[44]

text: King's College London[edit]

text:
Double helix[hide]

William Astbury
Oswald Avery
Lawrence Bragg
Francis Crick
Erwin Chargaff
Michael Creeth
Jerry Donohue
Rosalind Franklin
Raymond Gosling
Frederick Griffith
John Masson Gulland
Denis Jordan
Phoebus Levene
Friedrich Miescher
Fred Neufeld
Sir John Randall
Alex Stokes
James Watson
Maurice Wilkins
Herbert Wilson
Photo 51

v
t
e

tag: table

text: In 1950, Franklin was granted a three-year Turner & Newall Fellowship to work at King's College London. In January 1951, she started working as a research associate in the Medical Research Council's (MRC) Biophysics Unit, directed by John Randall.[45] She was originally appointed to work on X-ray diffraction of proteins and lipids in solution, but Randall redirected her work to DNA fibres because of new developments in the field, and she was to be the only experienced experimental diffraction researcher at King's at the time.[46][47] Randall made this reassignment, even before she started working at King's, because of the following pioneering work by Maurice Wilkins and Raymond Gosling – a Ph.D. student assigned to help her.[48]

text: Even using crude equipment, Wilkins and Gosling had obtained an outstanding diffraction picture of DNA which sparked further interest in this molecule. They had been carrying out X-ray diffraction analysis of DNA in the unit since May 1950, but Randall had not informed them that he had asked Franklin to take over both the DNA diffraction work and guidance of Gosling's thesis.[49] Randall's lack of communication about this reassignment significantly contributed to the well documented friction that developed between Wilkins and Franklin.[50]

text: Franklin, working with Gosling,[51] started to apply her expertise in X-ray diffraction techniques to the structure of DNA. She used a new fine-focus X-ray tube and microcamera ordered by Wilkins, but which she refined, adjusted and focused carefully. Drawing upon her physical chemistry background, she also skillfully manipulated the critical hydration of her specimens.[52] When Wilkins inquired about this improved technique, she replied in terms which offended Wilkins as Franklin had "an air of cool superiority".[53]

text: Franklin's habit of intensely looking people in the eye while being concise, impatient and direct unnerved many of her colleagues. In stark contrast, Wilkins was very shy, and slowly calculating in speech while he avoided looking anyone directly in the eye.[54] In spite of the intense atmosphere, Franklin and Gosling discovered that there were two forms of DNA: at high humidity (when wet), the DNA fibre became long and thin; when it was dried it became short and fat.[55][56]

text: Franklin named these two forms "B" and "A" respectively. (The biological functions of A-DNA were only discovered 60 years later.[57]) Because of the intense personality conflict developing between Franklin and Wilkins, Randall[58] divided the work on DNA. Franklin chose the data rich "A" form while Wilkins selected the "B" form[58][59] because his preliminary pictures had hinted it might be helical. He showed tremendous insight in this assessment of preliminary data. The X-ray diffraction pictures, including the landmark Photo 51, taken by Franklin at this time have been called by John Desmond Bernal as "amongst the most beautiful X-ray photographs of any substance ever taken".[55]

text: By the end of 1951 it was generally accepted at King's that the B form of DNA was a helix, but after she had recorded an asymmetrical image in May 1952, Franklin became unconvinced that the A form of DNA was a helix.[60] In July 1952, as a practical joke on Wilkins (who frequently expressed his view that both forms of DNA were helical), Franklin and Gosling produced a funeral notice regretting the 'death' of helical crystalline DNA (A-DNA).[61] During 1952, they worked at applying the Patterson function to the X-ray pictures of DNA they had produced.[62] This was a long and labour-intensive approach but would yield significant insight into the structure of the molecule.[63][64]

text: By January 1953, Franklin had reconciled her conflicting data, concluding that both DNA forms had two helices, and had started to write a series of three draft manuscripts, two of which included a double helical DNA backbone (see below). Her two A-DNA manuscripts reached Acta Crystallographica in Copenhagen on 6 March 1953, one day before Crick and Watson had completed their model on B-DNA. She must have mailed them while the Cambridge team was building their model, and certainly had written them before she knew of their work.[65] On 8 July 1953 she modified one of these "in proof" Acta articles, "in light of recent work" by the King's and Cambridge research teams.[66]

text: The third draft paper was on the B form of DNA, dated 17 March 1953, which was discovered years later amongst her papers,[67] by Franklin's Birkbeck colleague, Aaron Klug. He then published an evaluation of the draft's close correlation with the third of the original trio of 25 April 1953 Nature DNA articles.[68] Klug designed this paper to complement the first article he had written defending Franklin's significant contribution to DNA structure.[69] He had written this first article in response to the incomplete picture of Franklin's work depicted in Watson's 1968 memoir, The Double Helix.

text: As vividly described in The Double Helix, on 30 January 1953, Watson travelled to King's carrying a preprint of Linus Pauling's incorrect proposal for DNA structure. Since Wilkins was not in his office, Watson went to Franklin's lab with his urgent message that they should all collaborate before Pauling discovered his error. The unimpressed Franklin became angry when Watson suggested she did not know how to interpret her own data. Watson hastily retreated, backing into Wilkins who had been attracted by the commotion. Wilkins commiserated with his harried friend and then imprudently showed Watson Franklin's DNA X-ray image.[70] Watson, in turn, showed Wilkins a prepublication manuscript by Pauling and Corey, which contained a DNA structure remarkably like their first incorrect model.[71]

text: DNA structure[edit]

text: In February 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson of the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge University had started to build a molecular model of the B form of DNA using data similar to that available to both teams at King's. Much of their data was derived directly from research done at King's by Wilkins and Franklin. Franklin's research was completed by February 1953, ahead of her move to Birkbeck, and her data was critical.[72] Model building had been applied successfully in the elucidation of the structure of the alpha helix by Linus Pauling in 1951,[59][73] but Franklin was opposed to prematurely building theoretical models, until sufficient data were obtained to properly guide the model building. She took the view that building a model was to be undertaken only after enough of the structure was known.[60][74]

text: Ever cautious, she wanted to eliminate misleading possibilities. Photographs of her Birkbeck work table show that she routinely used small molecular models, although certainly not ones on the grand scale successfully used at Cambridge for DNA. In the middle of February 1953, Crick's thesis advisor, Max Perutz, gave Crick a copy of a report written for a Medical Research Council biophysics committee visit to King's in December 1952, containing many of Franklin's crystallographic calculations.[75]

text: Since Franklin had decided to transfer to Birkbeck College and Randall had insisted that all DNA work must stay at King's, Wilkins was given copies of Franklin's diffraction photographs by Gosling. By 28 February 1953, Watson and Crick felt they had solved the problem enough for Crick to proclaim (in the local pub) that they had "found the secret of life".[76] However, they knew they must complete their model before they could be certain.[77]

text: Watson and Crick finished building their model on 7 March 1953, one day before they received a letter from Wilkins stating that Franklin was finally leaving and they could put "all hands to the pump".[78] This was also one day after Franklin's two A-DNA papers had reached Acta Crystallographica. Wilkins came to see the model the following week, according to Franklin's biographer Brenda Maddox on 12 March, and allegedly informed Gosling on his return to King's.[79]

text: It is uncertain how long it took for Gosling to inform Franklin at Birkbeck, but her original 17 March B-DNA manuscript does not reflect any knowledge of the Cambridge model. Franklin did modify this draft later before publishing it as the third in the trio of 25 April 1953 Nature articles. On 18 March,[80] in response to receiving a copy of their preliminary manuscript, Wilkins penned the following: "I think you're a couple of old rogues, but you may well have something".[81]

text: Crick and Watson then published their model in Nature on 25 April 1953 in an article describing the double-helical structure of DNA with only a footnote acknowledging "having been stimulated by a general knowledge of" Franklin and Wilkins' "unpublished" contribution.[82] Actually, although it was the bare minimum, they had just enough specific knowledge of Franklin and Gosling's data upon which to base their model. As a result of a deal struck by the two laboratory directors, articles by Wilkins and Franklin, which included their X-ray diffraction data, were modified and then published second and third in the same issue of Nature, seemingly only in support of the Crick and Watson theoretical paper which proposed a model for the B form of DNA.[83][84]

text: Weeks later, on 10 April, Franklin wrote to Crick for permission to see their model.[85] Franklin retained her scepticism for premature model building even after seeing the Watson-Crick model, and remained unimpressed. She is reported to have commented, "It's very pretty, but how are they going to prove it?" As an experimental scientist, Franklin seems to have been interested in producing far greater evidence before publishing-as-proven a proposed model. As such, her response to the Watson-Crick model was in keeping with her cautious approach to science.[86] Most of the scientific community hesitated several years before accepting the double helix proposal. At first mainly geneticists embraced the model because of its obvious genetic implications.[87][88][89]

text: Birkbeck College[edit]

text: Franklin left King's College London in mid-March 1953 for Birkbeck College, in a move that had been planned for some time and that she described (in a letter to Adrienne Weill in Paris) as "moving from a palace to the slums ... but pleasanter all the same."[90] She was recruited by physics department chair John Desmond Bernal,[91] a brilliant crystallographer who happened to be an Irish communist, known for promoting women crystallographers. Her new laboratories were housed in 21 Torrington Square, one of a pair of dilapidated and cramped Georgian houses containing several different departments; Franklin frequently took Bernal to task over the careless attitudes of some of the other laboratory staff, notably after workers in the pharmacy department flooded her first-floor laboratory with water on one occasion.[92]

text: Despite the parting words of Bernal to stop her interest in nucleic acids, she helped Gosling to finish his thesis, although she was no longer his official supervisor. Together they published the first evidence of double helix in the A form of DNA in the 25 July issue of Nature.[93] At the end of 1954, Bernal secured funding for Franklin from the Agricultural Research Council (ARC), which enabled her to work as a senior scientist supervising her own research group.[94][95] John Finch, a physics student from King's College London, subsequently joined Franklin's group, followed by Kenneth Holmes, a Cambridge graduate, in July 1955. Despite the ARC funding, Franklin wrote to Bernal that the existing facilities remained highly unsuited for conducting research "...my desk and lab are on the fourth floor, my X-ray tube in the basement, and I am responsible for the work of four people distributed over the basement, first and second floors on two different staircases."[96]

text: Franklin continued to explore another major nucleic acid, RNA, a molecule equally central to life as DNA. She again used X-ray crystallography to study the structure of the tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), an RNA virus. Her meeting with Aaron Klug in early 1954 led to a longstanding and successful collaboration. Klug had just then earned his PhD from Trinity College, Cambridge, and joined Birkbeck in late 1953. In 1955 Franklin published her first major works on TMV in Nature, in which she described that all TMV virus particles were of the same length.[97] This was in direct contradiction to the ideas of the eminent virologist Norman Pirie, though her observation ultimately proved correct.[98]

text: Franklin assigned the study of the complete structure of TMV to her PhD student Holmes. They soon discovered (published in 1956) that the covering of TMV was protein molecules arranged in helices.[99] Her colleague Klug worked on spherical viruses with his student John Finch, with Franklin coordinating and overseeing the work.[100] As a team, from 1956 they started publishing seminal works on TMV,[101] cucumber virus 4 and turnip yellow mosaic virus.[102]

text: Franklin also had a research assistant, James Watt, subsidised by the National Coal Board and was now the leader of the ARC group at Birkbeck.[103] The Birkbeck team members continued working on RNA viruses affecting several plants, including potato, turnip, tomato and pea.[104] In 1955 the team was joined by an American post-doctoral student Donald Caspar. He worked on the precise location of RNA molecules in TMV. In 1956 he and Franklin published individual but complementary papers in the 10 March issue of Nature, in which they showed that the RNA in TMV is wound along the inner surface of the hollow virus.[105][106] Caspar was not an enthusiastic writer, and Franklin had to write the entire manuscript for him.[107]

text: In 1957 her research grant from ARC expired, and was given a one-year extension ending in March 1958. She applied for a new grant from the United States Public Health Service of the National Institutes of Health, which approved £10,000 for three years, the largest fund ever received at Birkbeck.[108][109] In her grant application, Franklin mentioned her new interest in animal virus research. The previous year, Franklin had visited the University of California, Berkeley, where colleagues had suggested her group research the polio virus.[110] She obtained Bernal's consent in July 1957, though serious concerns were raised after she disclosed her intentions to research live, instead of killed, polio virus at Birkbeck. Eventually, Bernal arranged for the virus to be safely stored at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine during the group's research. With her group, Franklin then commenced deciphering the structure of the polio virus while it was in a crystalline state. She attempted to mount the virus crystals in capillary tubes for X-ray studies, but was forced to end her work due to her rapidly failing health.[111]

text: Expo 58, the first major international fair after World War II, was to be held in Brussels in 1958.[112][113] Franklin was invited to make a five-foot high model of TMV, which she started in 1957. Her materials included table tennis balls and plastic bicycle handlebar grips.[114] The Brussels world's fair, with an exhibit of her virus model at the International Science Pavilion, opened on 17 April, one day after she died.[115]

text: After Franklin's death, Klug succeeded her as group leader, and he, Finch and Holmes continued researching the structure of the polio virus. They eventually succeeded in obtaining extremely detailed X-ray images of the virus. In June 1959, Klug and Finch published the group's findings, revealing the polio virus to have icosahedral symmetry, and in the same paper suggested the possibility for all spherical viruses to possess the same symmetry, as it permitted the greatest possible number (60) of identical structural units.[116] The team moved to the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge in 1962,[117] and the old Torrington Square laboratories were demolished four years later, in May 1966.[118]

text: Personal life[edit]

text: Franklin was best described as an agnostic.[119] Her lack of religious faith apparently did not stem from anyone's influence, rather from her own inquisitive mind. She developed her scepticism as a young child. Her mother recalled that she refused to believe in the existence of god, and remarked, "Well, anyhow, how do you know He isn't She?"[120] She later made her position clear, now based on her scientific experience, and wrote to her father in 1940:

text: [S]cience and everyday life cannot and should not be separated. Science, for me, gives a partial explanation of life ... I do not accept your definition of faith i.e. belief in life after death ... Your faith rests on the future of yourself and others as individuals, mine in the future and fate of our successors. It seems to me that yours is the more selfish ...[121] [as to] the question of a creator. A creator of what? ... I see no reason to believe that a creator of protoplasm or primeval matter, if such there be, has any reason to be interested in our insignificant race in a tiny corner of the universe.[122]

text: She however did not abandon Jewish traditions. As the only Jewish student at Lindores School, she had Hebrew lessons on her own while her friends went to church.[123] She joined the Jewish Society while in her first term at Newnham College, Cambridge, out of respect of her grandfather's request.[124] She confided to her sister that she was "always consciously a Jew".[122]

text: Franklin loved travelling abroad, particularly trekking. She first "qualified" at Christmas 1929 for a vacation at Menton, France, where her grandfather went to escape English winter.[125] Her family frequently spent vacations in Wales or Cornwall. A trip to France in 1938 gave her a lasting love for France and its language. She considered the French lifestyle as "vastly superior to that of English".[126] In contrast, she described English people as having "vacant stupid faces and childlike complacency".[127] Her family was almost stuck in Norway in 1939, as World War II was declared on their way home.[128] In another instance, she trekked the French Alps with Jean Kerslake in 1946, which almost cost her her life. She slipped off on a slope, and was barely rescued.[129] But she wrote to her mother, "I am quite sure I could wander happily in France forever. I love the people, the country and the food."[130]

text: She made several professional trips to US, and was particularly jovial among her American friends and constantly displayed her sense of humour. William Ginoza of the University of California, Los Angeles later recalled that she was the opposite of Watson's description of her, and as Maddox comments, Americans enjoyed her "sunny side".[131]

text: Watson's The Double Helix almost entirely refers to her as "Rosy", the name people at King's College used behind her back.[132] She did not want to be called by that name because she had a great-aunt Rosy. In the family, she was called "Ros".[133] To others, she was simply "Rosalind". She made it clear to an American visiting friend Dorothea Raacke, while sitting with her at Crick's table in The Eagle pub in Cambridge: Raacke asked her how she was to be called and she replied "I'm afraid it will have to be Rosalind", adding "Most definitely not Rosy."[134]

text: She often expressed her political views. She initially blamed Winston Churchill for inciting the war, but later admired him for his speeches. She actively supported Professor John Ryle as an independent candidate for parliament in 1940, but he was unsuccessful.[135]

text: She did not seem to have an intimate relationship with anyone, and always kept her deepest personal feelings to herself. After her younger days, she avoided close friendship with the opposite sex. Once her cousins visited them, she paid Roland to accompany them.[126] In her later years, Evi Ellis, who had shared her bedroom when a child refugee and who was then married to Ernst Wohlgemuth[22] and had moved to Notting Hill from Chicago, tried matchmaking her with Ralph Miliband but failed. Franklin once told Evi that her flatmate asked her for a drink, but she did not get the intention.[136] She was quite infatuated by her French mentor Mering, who had a wife and a mistress.[130] Mering also admitted that he was captivated by her "intelligence and beauty".[137] According to Sayre, she did confess her feeling for Mering when she was undergoing surgery, but her family denied this. But Mering wept when he visited her later,[135] and destroyed all her letters.[138]

text: Her closest personal affair was probably with her once post-doctoral student Donald Caspar. In 1956, she visited him at his home in Colorado after her tour to University of California, Berkeley, and she was known to remark later that Caspar was one "she might have loved, might have married". In her letter to Sayre, she described him as "an ideal match".[139]

text: Illness and death[edit]

text: In mid-1956, while on a work-related trip to the United States, Franklin first began to suspect a health problem. While in New York she found difficulty in zipping her skirt; her stomach had bulged. Back in London she consulted Mair Livingstone, who asked her, "You're not pregnant?" to which she retorted, "I wish I were." But her diagnosis report stated that it was not pregnancy, and her case was marked "URGENT".[140] An operation on 4 September of the same year revealed two tumours in her abdomen.[141] After this period and other periods of hospitalization, Franklin spent time convalescing with various friends and family members. These included Anne Sayre, Francis Crick, his wife Odile, with whom Franklin had formed a strong friendship,[134] and finally with the Roland and Nina Franklin family where Rosalind's nieces and nephews bolstered her spirits.

text: Franklin chose not to stay with her parents because her mother's uncontrollable grief and crying upset her too much. Even while undergoing cancer treatment, Franklin continued to work, and her group continued to produce results – seven papers in 1956 and six more in 1957.[142] At the end of 1957, Franklin again fell ill and she was admitted to the Royal Marsden Hospital. On 2 December, she made her will. She named her three brothers as executors and made her colleague Aaron Klug the principal beneficiary, who would receive £3,000 and her Austin car. Her other friends Mair Livingstone would get £2,000, Anne Piper £1,000, and her nurse Miss Griffith £250. The remainder of the estate was to be used for charities.[143]

text: She returned to work in January 1958, and she was given a promotion to Research Associate in Biophysics on 25 February.[144] She fell ill again on 30 March, and she died on 16 April 1958, in Chelsea, London,[145][146] of bronchopneumonia, secondary carcinomatosis, and ovarian cancer. Exposure to X-ray radiation is sometimes considered to be a possible factor in her illness.[147]

text: Other members of her family have died of cancer, and the incidence of gynaecological cancer is known to be disproportionately high among Ashkenazi Jews.[148] Her death certificate read: A Research Scientist, Spinster, Daughter of Ellis Arthur Franklin, a Banker.[149] She was interred on 17 April 1958 in the family plot at Willesden United Synagogue Cemetery at Beaconsfield Road in London Borough of Brent. The inscription on her tombstone reads:[150][151]

text:
IN MEMORY OF
ROSALIND ELSIE FRANKLIN
מ' רחל בת ר' יהודה
DEARLY LOVED ELDER DAUGHTER OF
ELLIS AND MURIEL FRANKLIN
25TH JULY 1920 – 16TH APRIL 1958
SCIENTIST
HER RESEARCH AND DISCOVERIES ON
VIRUSES REMAIN OF LASTING BENEFIT
TO MANKIND
ת נ צ ב ה [Hebrew initials for "her soul shall be bound in the bundle of life"]

text: Controversies after death[edit]

text: Various controversies surrounding Rosalind Franklin came to light following her death.

text: Allegations of sexism[edit]

text: Anne Sayre, Franklin's friend and one of her biographers, stated in her book Rosalind Franklin and DNA, "In 1951 ... King's College as an institution, was not distinguished for the welcome that it offered to women ... Rosalind ... was unused to purdah [a religious and social institution of female seclusion] ... there was one other woman scientist on the laboratory staff".[152] Andrzej Stasiak states "Sayre's book became widely cited in feminist circles for exposing rampant sexism in science."[153] Farooq Hussain states "there were seven women in the biophysics department ... Jean Hanson became an FRS, Dame Honor B. Fell, Director of Strangeways Laboratory, supervised the biologists".[154] Maddox states, "Randall ... did have many women on his staff ... they found him ... sympathetic and helpful."[155]

text: Sayre states "that while the male staff at King's lunched in a large, comfortable, rather clubby dining room" the female staff of all ranks "lunched in the student's hall or away from the premises".[156][157] Elkin states that most of the MRC group typically ate lunch together (including Franklin) in the mixed dining room discussed below.[54] And Maddox states, of Randall, "He liked to see his flock, men and women, come together for morning coffee, and at lunch in the joint dining room, where he ate with them nearly every day."[155] Francis Crick also commented that "her colleagues treated men and women scientists alike."[158]

text: Sayre also discusses at length Franklin's struggle in pursuing science, particularly her father's concern about women in academic professions.[159] This account had been taken to accuse Ellis Franklin of sexism against his daughter. A good deal of information explicitly claims that he strongly opposed her entering Newnham College.[160][161][162][163] Franklin's Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) biography goes further by stating that he refused to pay her fees, and that an aunt stepped in for her.[164] Her sister Jenifer Glynn explains that these stories are myths, and that her parents fully supported Franklin's entire career.[165]

text: Sexism is said to pervade the memoir of one peer, James Watson, in his book The Double Helix published 10 years after Franklin's death and after Watson had returned from Cambridge to Harvard.[166] His Cambridge colleague, Peter Pauling, wrote in a letter, "Morris [sic] Wilkins is supposed to be doing this work; Miss Franklin is evidently a fool."[167] Crick acknowledges later, "I'm afraid we always used to adopt – let's say, a patronizing attitude towards her."[168]

text: Glynn accuses Sayre of making her sister a feminist heroine,[169] and Watson's The Double Helix as the root of what she calls "Rosalind Industry". She conjectures that these alleged sexism stories would "have embarrassed her [Rosalind Franklin] almost as much as Watson's account would have upset her",[165] and declared that "she was never a feminist."[170] Klug and Crick also concurred that she was definitely not a feminist.[171]

text: Franklin's letter to her parents in January 1939 is often taken as reflecting her own prejudiced attitude and that she was "not immune to the sexism rampant in these circles." In it she remarked one lecturer as "very good, though female."[172] But as Maddox explains, it was more of circumstantial comment rather than a gender bias. It was more of an admiration because at the time woman teachers of science were a rarity. She in fact laughed at men who were embarrassed by the appointment of the first female professor Dorothy Garrod.[173]

text: Contribution to the model of DNA[edit]

text: Rosalind Franklin's first important contributions to the model popularised by Crick and Watson was her lecture at the seminar in November 1951, where she presented to those present, among them Watson, the two forms of the molecule, type A and type B, her position being that the phosphate units are located in the external part of the molecule. She also specified the amount of water to be found in the molecule in accordance with other parts of it, data that have considerable importance in terms of the stability of the molecule. Franklin was the first to discover and formulate these facts, which in fact constituted the basis for all later attempts to build a model of the molecule. However, Watson, at the time ignorant of the chemistry, failed to comprehend the crucial information, and this led to construction of a wrong model.[174]

text: The other contribution included an X-ray photograph of B-DNA (called Photo 51),[175] that was briefly shown to Watson by Wilkins in January 1953,[176][177] and a report written for an MRC biophysics committee visit to King's in December 1952 which was shown by Perutz at the Cavendish Laboratory to both Crick and Watson. This MRC report contained data from the King's group, including some of Franklin's and Gosling's work, and was given to Crick – who was working on his thesis on haemoglobin structure – by his thesis supervisor Perutz, a member of the visiting committee.[178][179]

text: Sayre's biography of Franklin contains a story[180] alleging that the photograph 51 in question was shown to Watson by Wilkins without Franklin's permission,[153][181][182] and that this constituted a case of bad science ethics.[183] Others dispute this story, asserting that Wilkins had been given photograph 51 by Franklin's Ph.D. student Gosling because she was leaving King's to work at Birkbeck, and there was allegedly nothing untoward in this transfer of data to Wilkins[184][185] because Director Randall had insisted that all DNA work belonged exclusively to King's and had instructed Franklin in a letter to even stop working on it and submit her data.[186] Also, it was implied by Horace Freeland Judson, that Maurice Wilkins had taken the photograph out of Franklin's drawer, but this is also said to be incorrect.[187]

text: Likewise, Perutz saw "no harm" in showing an MRC report containing the conclusions of Franklin and Gosling's X-ray data analysis to Crick, since it had not been marked as confidential, although "The report was not expected to reach outside eyes".[188] Indeed, after the publication of Watson's The Double Helix exposed Perutz's act, he received so many letters questioning his judgment that he felt the need to both answer them all[189] and to post a general statement in Science excusing himself on the basis of being "inexperienced and casual in administrative matters".[190]

text: Perutz also claimed that the MRC information was already made available to the Cambridge team when Watson had attended Franklin's seminar in November 1951. A preliminary version of much of the important material contained in the 1952 December MRC report had been presented by Franklin in a talk she had given in November 1951, which Watson had attended but not understood.[65][191]

text: The Perutz letter was as said one of three letters, published with letters by Wilkins and Watson, which discussed their various contributions. Watson clarified the importance of the data obtained from the MRC report as he had not recorded these data while attending Franklin's lecture in 1951. The upshot of all this was that when Crick and Watson started to build their model in February 1953 they were working with critical parameters that had been determined by Franklin in 1951, and which she and Gosling had significantly refined in 1952, as well as with published data and other very similar data to those available at King's. It was generally believed that Franklin was never aware that her work had been used during construction of the model,[192] but Gosling asserted in his 2013 interview that, "Yes. Oh, she did know about that."[193]

text: Recognition of her contribution to the model of DNA[edit]

text: Upon the completion of their model, Crick and Watson had invited Wilkins to be a co-author of their paper describing the structure.[194] Wilkins turned down this offer, as he had taken no part in building the model.[195] He later expressed regret that greater discussion of co-authorship had not taken place as this might have helped to clarify the contribution the work at King's had made to the discovery.[196] There is no doubt that Franklin's experimental data were used by Crick and Watson to build their model of DNA in 1953. Some, including Maddox, have explained this citation omission by suggesting that it may be a question of circumstance, because it would have been very difficult to cite the unpublished work from the MRC report they had seen.[79]

text: Indeed, a clear timely acknowledgment would have been awkward, given the unorthodox manner in which data were transferred from King's to Cambridge. However, methods were available. Watson and Crick could have cited the MRC report as a personal communication or else cited the Acta articles in press, or most easily, the third Nature paper that they knew was in press. One of the most important accomplishments of Maddox's widely acclaimed biography is that Maddox made a well-received case for inadequate acknowledgement. "Such acknowledgement as they gave her was very muted and always coupled with the name of Wilkins".[197]

text: Fifteen years after the fact, the first clear recitation of Franklin's contribution appeared as it permeated Watson's account, The Double Helix, although it was buried under descriptions of Watson's (often quite negative) regard towards Franklin during the period of their work on DNA. This attitude is epitomized in the confrontation between Watson and Franklin over a preprint of Pauling's mistaken DNA manuscript.[198] Watson's words impelled Sayre to write her rebuttal, in which the entire chapter nine, "Winner Take All" has the structure of a legal brief dissecting and analyzing the topic of acknowledgement.[199]

text: Sayre's early analysis was often ignored because of perceived feminist overtones in her book. Watson and Crick did not cite the X-ray diffraction work of Wilkins and Franklin in their original paper, though they admit having "been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King's College, London".[82] In fact, Watson and Crick cited no experimental data at all in support of their model. Franklin and Gosling's publication of the DNA X-ray image, in the same issue of Nature, served as the principal evidence:

text: Thus our general ideas are not inconsistent with the model proposed by Watson and Crick in the preceding communication.[200]

text: Nobel Prize[edit]

text: Franklin was never nominated for a Nobel Prize.[201][202] Her work was a crucial part in the discovery of DNA's structure, which along with subsequent related work led to Francis Crick, James Watson, and Maurice Wilkins being awarded a Nobel Prize in 1962.[203] She had died in 1958, and during her lifetime the DNA structure was not considered as fully proven. It took Wilkins and his colleagues about seven years to collect enough data to prove and refine the proposed DNA structure. Moreover, its biological significance, as proposed by Watson and Crick, was not established. General acceptance for the DNA double helix and its function did not start until late in the 1950s, leading to Nobel nominations in 1960, 1961, and 1962 for Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, and in 1962 for Nobel Prize in Chemistry.[204] The first breakthrough was from Matthew Meselson and Franklin Stahl in 1958, who experimentally showed the DNA replication of a bacterium Escherichia coli.[205] Now known as Meselson–Stahl experiment, DNA was found to replicate into two double-stranded helices, with each helix having one of the original DNA strands. This DNA replication was firmly established by 1961 after further demonstration in other species,[206] and of the stepwise chemical reaction.[207][208] According to the 1961 Crick–Monod letter, this experimental proof, along with Wilkins having initiated the DNA diffraction work, were the reasons why Crick felt that Wilkins should be included in the DNA Nobel Prize.[209]

text: In 1962 the Nobel Prize was subsequently awarded to Crick, Watson, and Wilkins.[8][210][211] Nobel rules prohibit posthumous nominations or splitting of Prizes more than three ways.[212][213] The award was for their body of work on nucleic acids and not exclusively for the discovery of the structure of DNA.[214] By the time of the award Wilkins had been working on the structure of DNA for more than 10 years, and had done much to confirm the Watson–Crick model.[215] Crick had been working on the genetic code at Cambridge and Watson had worked on RNA for some years.[216] Watson has suggested that ideally Wilkins and Franklin would have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.[6]

text: Aaron Klug, Franklin's colleague and principal beneficiary in her will, was the sole winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1982, "for his development of crystallographic electron microscopy and his structural elucidation of biologically important nucleic acid-protein complexes."[217] This work was exactly what Franklin had started and which she introduced to Klug, and it is highly plausible that, were she alive, she would have shared the Nobel Prize.[218]

text: Awards and honours[edit]

text: Posthumous recognition[edit]

text: 1982, Iota Sigma Pi designated Franklin a National Honorary Member.[219]

tag: ul

text:
1992, English Heritage placed a blue plaque commemorating Franklin on the building in Drayton Gardens, London, where she lived until her death.[220][221]
1993, King's College London renamed the Orchard Residence at their Hampstead Campus as Rosalind Franklin Hall.[222]
1993, King's College London placed a blue plaque on its outside wall bearing the inscription: "R. E. Franklin, R. G. Gosling, A. R. Stokes, M. H. F. Wilkins, H. R. Wilson – King's College London – DNA – X-ray diffraction studies – 1953."[223]
1995, Newnham College, Cambridge opened a graduate residence named Rosalind Franklin Building[224] and put a bust of her in its garden.[225][226]
1997, Birkbeck, University of London School of Crystallography opened the Rosalind Franklin Laboratory.[227]
1997, the asteroid discovered in 1997 was named 9241 Rosfranklin.
1998, National Portrait Gallery in London added Rosalind Franklin's portrait next to those of Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins.[228]
1999, the Institute of Physics at Portland Place, London, renamed its theatre as Franklin Lecture Theatre.[229]
2000, King's College London opened the Franklin–Wilkins Building in honour of Franklin's and Wilkins's work at the college.[230]
2001, the American National Cancer Institute established the Rosalind E. Franklin Award for women in cancer research.[231]
2002, the University of Groningen, supported by the European Union, launched the Rosalind Franklin Fellowship to encourage women researchers to become full university professors.[232][233]
2003, the Royal Society established the Rosalind Franklin Award (officially the Royal Society Rosalind Franklin Award and Lecture) for an outstanding contribution to any area of natural science, engineering or technology.[234] The award consists of a silver-coated medal and a grant of £30,000.[235]
2003, the Royal Society of Chemistry declared King's College London as "National Historic Chemical Landmark" and placed a plaque on the wall near the entrance of the building, with the inscription: "Near this site Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, Raymond Gosling, Alexander Stokes and Herbert Wilson performed experiments that led to the discovery of the structure of DNA. This work revolutionised our understanding of the chemistry behind life itself."[236]

text:
2004, Finch University of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School, located in North Chicago, Illinois, USA changed its name to the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science.[237] It also adopted a new motto "Life in Discovery", and Photo 51 as its logo.[238]
2004, the Gruber Foundation started the Rosalind Franklin Young Investigator Award for two female geneticists from all over the world. It carries an annual fund of $25,000, each award is for three years, and selection is made by a joint committee appointed by the Genetics Society of America and the American Society of Human Genetics.[239]
2005, the DNA sculpture (donated by James Watson) outside Clare College, Cambridge's Memorial Court incorporates the words "The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins."[240]
2006, the Rosalind Franklin Society was established in New York by Mary Ann Liebert.[241][242] The Society aims to recognise, foster, and advance the important contributions of women in the life sciences and affiliated disciplines.[243]
2008, Columbia University awarded an honorary Louisa Gross Horwitz Prize to Franklin, "for her seminal contributions to the discovery of the structure of DNA".[244]
St Paul's Girls School established the Rosalind Franklin Technology Centre.[24]
2012, the bioinformatics education software platform Rosalind is named in honour of Franklin.[245]
2012, The Rosalind Franklin Building is opened at Nottingham Trent University.[246]
2013, Google honoured Rosalind Franklin with a doodle, showing her gazing at a double helix structure of DNA with an X-ray of Photo 51 beyond it.[247][248]
2013, a plaque was placed on the wall of The Eagle pub in Cambridge commemorating Franklin's contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA, on the sixtieth anniversary of Crick and Watson's announcement in the pub.[249][250]
2014, the Rosalind Franklin Award for Leadership in Industrial Biotechnology was established by Biotechnology Industry Organization in collaboration with the Rosalind Franklin Society, for an outstanding woman in the field of industrial biotechnology and bioprocessing.[251]
2014, the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science unveiled a bronze statue of Franklin, created by Julie Rotblatt-Amrany, near its front entrance.[252]
2014, the Rosalind Franklin STEM Elementary was opened in Pasco, Washington, the first science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) elementary school in the district.[253][254]
2014, the University of Wolverhampton opened its new laboratory building named the Rosalind Franklin Science Building.[255][256]
2015, Newnham College Boat Club, Cambridge, launched a new racing VIII, naming it the Rosalind Franklin[257]
2015, the Rosalind Franklin Appathon was launched by University College London as a national app competition for women in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, maths and medicine).[258]
2015, a high performance computing and cloud facility in London was named Rosalind.[259]
2016, the British Humanist Association added the Rosalind Franklin Lecture to its annual lecture series, aimed to explore and celebrate the contribution of women towards the promotion and advancement of humanism.[260]
2016, the Rosalind Franklin Prize and Tech Day was held on 23 February in London, organised by University College London, i-sense, UCL Enterprise, the London Centre for Nanotechnology and the UCL Athena Swan Charter.[261]
2017, DSM opened the Rosalind Franklin Biotechnology Center in Delft, the Netherlands.[262]
2017, the Historic England listed the tomb of Frankin under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as a "special architectural or historic interest". Official description states that "the tomb commemorates the life and achievements of Rosalind Franklin, a scientist of exceptional distinction, whose pioneering work helped lay the foundations of molecular biology; Franklin’s X-ray observation of DNA contributed to the discovery of its helical structure."[263]

text: Cultural references[edit]

text: Franklin's part in the discovery of the nature of DNA was shown in the 1987 TV Movie Life Story, starring Tim Pigott-Smith as Crick, Alan Howard as Wilkins, Jeff Goldblum as Watson, and Juliet Stevenson as Franklin. This movie portrayed Franklin as somewhat stern, but also alleged that Watson and Crick did use a lot of her work to do theirs.[264][265]

text: A 56-minute documentary of the life and scientific contributions of Franklin, DNA – Secret of Photo 51, was broadcast in 2003 on PBS Nova.[266] Narrated by Barbara Flynn, the program features interviews with Wilkins, Gosling, Klug, Maddox,[267] including Franklin's friends Vittorio Luzzati, Caspar, Anne Piper, and Sue Richley.[268] The UK version produced by BBC is titled Rosalind Franklin: DNA's Dark Lady.[269]

text: The first episode of another PBS documentary serial, DNA, was aired on 4 January 2004.[270] The episode titled The Secret of Life centres much around the contributions of Franklin. Narrated by Jeff Goldblum, it features Watson, Wilkins, Gosling and Peter Pauling (son of Linus Pauling).[271]

text: A play titled Rosalind: A Question of Life was written by Deborah Gearing to mark the work of Franklin, and was first performed on 1 November 2005 at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre,[272] and published by Oberon Books in 2006.[273]

text: Another play, Photograph 51 by Anna Ziegler, published in 2011,[274] has been produced at several places in the US,[275] and in late 2015 was put on at the Noel Coward Theatre, London, with Nicole Kidman playing Franklin.[276] Ziegler's version of the 1951–53 'race' for the structure of DNA sometimes emphasizes the pivotal role of Franklin's research and her personality. Although sometimes altering history for dramatic effect, the play nevertheless illuminates many of the key issues of how science was and is conducted.[277]

text: False Assumptions by Lawrence Aronovitch is a play about the life of Marie Curie in which Franklin is portrayed as frustrated and angry at the lack of recognition for her scientific contributions.[278]

text: Publications[edit]

text:
Library resources about
Rosalind Franklin

Resources in your library
Resources in other libraries

By Rosalind Franklin

Resources in your library
Resources in other libraries

text: Rosalind Franklin's most notable publications are listed below. The last two were published posthumously.

text:
D.H. Bangham & Rosalind E.Franklin (1946), "Thermal expansion of coals and carbonised coals" (PDF), Transactions of the Faraday Society, 48: 289–295, doi:10.1039/TF946420B289, retrieved 14 January 2011  from The Rosalind Franklin Papers, in "Profiles in Science", at National Library of Medicine
R.E. Franklin (1949), "A study of the fine structure of carbonaceous solids by measurements of true and apparent densities: Part 1. Coals" (PDF), Transactions of the Faraday Society, 45 (3): 274–286, doi:10.1039/TF9494500274, retrieved 14 January 2011  Per National Library of Medicine above. Citation count 88
R.E. Franklin (1949), "A study of the fine structure of carbonaceous solids by measurements of true and apparent densities: Part 2. Carbonized coals" (PDF), Transactions of the Faraday Society, 45 (7): 668–682, doi:10.1039/TF9494500668, retrieved 14 January 2011  Per National Library of Medicine above. Citation count 49
R.E. Franklin (1949), "Note sur la structure colloïdale des houilles carboniseés", Bulletin de la société chimique de France, 16 (1–2): D53–D54  Citation count 0
R.E. Franklin (1950), "On the structure of carbon" (PDF), Journal de Chimie Physique et de Physico-Chimie Biologique, 47 (5–6): 573–575, doi:10.1051/jcp/1950470573, retrieved 14 January 2011  Per National Library of Medicine above. Citation count 16. Note: this journal ceased publication in 1999
R.E. Franklin (1950), "A rapid approximate method for correcting the low-angle scattering measurements for the influence of the finite height of the X-ray beam", Acta Crystallographica, 3 (2): 158–159, doi:10.1107/S0365110X50000343  Citation count 15
R.E. Franklin (1950), "The interpretation of diffuse X-ray diagrams of carbon", Acta Crystallographica, 3 (2): 107–121, doi:10.1107/S0365110X50000264   Citation count 245. (In this article, Franklin cites Moffitt)
R.E. Franklin (1950), "Influence of the bonding electrons on the scattering of X-rays by carbon", Nature, 165 (4185): 71–72, Bibcode:1950Natur.165...71F, doi:10.1038/165071a0, PMID 15403103  citation count 11
R.E. Franklin (1951), "Les carbones graphitisables et non-graphitisables", Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences, Presented by G. Rimbaud, session of 3rd January, 1951, 232 (3): 232–234  Citation count 7
R.E. Franklin (1951), "The structure of graphitic carbons", Acta Crystallographica, 4 (3): 253–261, doi:10.1107/S0365110X51000842  Citation count 398
G.E. Bacon & R.E. Franklin (1951), "The alpha dimension of graphite", Acta Crystallographica, 4 (6): 561–562, doi:10.1107/s0365110x51001793  Citation count 8
R.E. Franklin (1951), "Crystallite growth in graphitizing and non-graphitizing carbons", Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 209 (1097): 196–218, Bibcode:1951RSPSA.209..196F, doi:10.1098/rspa.1951.0197  Citation count 513. Downloadable free from doi site, or alternatively from The Rosalind Franklin Papers collection at National Library of Medicine
R.E. Franklin (1953), "Graphitizing and non-graphitizing carbons, their formation, structure and properties", Angewandte Chemie, 65 (13): 353–353, doi:10.1002/ange.19530651311  Citation count 0
R.E. Franklin (1953), "The role of water in the structure of graphitic acid", Journal de Chimie Physique et de Physico-Chimie Biologique, 50: C26
R.E. Franklin (1953), "Graphitizing and nongraphihastizing carbon compounds. Formation, structure and characteristics", Brenstoff-Chemie, 34: 359–361
R.E. Franklin & R.G. Gosling (25 April 1953), "Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate" (PDF), Nature, 171 (4356): 740–741, Bibcode:1953Natur.171..740F, doi:10.1038/171740a0, PMID 13054694, retrieved 15 January 2011  Reprint also available at Resonance Classics
Franklin, R. E.; Gosling, R. G. (1953). "The structure of sodium thymonucleate fibres. I. The influence of water content". Acta Crystallographica. 6 (8): 673–677. doi:10.1107/S0365110X53001939.
Franklin, R. E.; Gosling, R. G. (1953). "The structure of sodium thymonucleate fibres. II. The cylindrically symmetrical Patterson function". Acta Crystallographica. 6 (8): 678–685. doi:10.1107/S0365110X53001940.
R.E. Franklin & M. Mering (1954), "La structure de l'acide graphitique", Acta Crystallographica, 7 (10): 661–661, doi:10.1107/s0365110x54002137
Rosalind Franklin & K. C. Holmes. (1956), "The Helical Arrangement of the Protein Sub-Units in Tobacco Mosaic Virus" (PDF), Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 21: 405–406, doi:10.1016/0006-3002(56)90043-9, PMID 13363941, retrieved 14 January 2011  Article access per National Library of Medicine above
Rosalind E. Franklina & A. Klug (1956), "The nature of the helical groove on the tobacco mosaic virus particle X-ray diffraction studies", Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 19 (3): 403–416, doi:10.1016/0006-3002(56)90463-2, PMID 13315300
Klug, Aaron, J. T. Finch, and Rosalind Franklin (1957), "The Structure of Turnip Yellow Mosaic Virus: X-Ray Diffraction Studies" (PDF), Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 25 (2): 242–252, doi:10.1016/0006-3002(57)90465-1, PMID 13471561, retrieved 14 January 2011  Per National Library of Medicine above CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Franklin, Rosalind, Aaron Klug, J. T. Finch, and K. C. Holmes (1958), "On the Structure of Some Ribonucleoprotein Particles" (PDF), Discussions of the Faraday Society, 25: 197–198, doi:10.1039/DF9582500197, retrieved 14 January 2011  Per National Library of Medicine CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Klug, Aaron & Rosalind Franklin (1958), "Order-Disorder Transitions in Structures Containing Helical Molecules" (PDF), Discussions of the Faraday Society, 25: 104–110, doi:10.1039/DF9582500104, retrieved 14 January 2011  Per National Library of Medicine
Klug, Aaron, Rosalind Franklin, and S. P. F. Humphreys-Owen (1959), "The Crystal Structure of Tipula Iridescent Virus as Determined by Bragg Reflection of Visible Light" (PDF), Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 32 (1): 203–219, doi:10.1016/0006-3002(59)90570-0, PMID 13628733, retrieved 14 January 2011  Per National Library of Medicine CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Franklin, Rosalind, Donald L. D. Caspar, and Aaron Klug (1959), "Chapter XL: The Structure of Viruses as Determined by X-Ray Diffraction", Plant Pathology: Problems and Progress, 1908–1958 (PDF), University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 447–461, retrieved 14 January 2011  Per National Library of Medicine CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)