The Structure of DNA, 1953 – The Beginning of a New Era
In this article
25 April 1953. Nature featured three separate papers on the structure of DNA, one after another, in that week's issue. One was a brief, two-page paper that changed the course of biology. This article explores what happened that day, who did what—including the most disputed aspects—and how, seventy years later, it found expression in cancer treatment.
| 25 April 1953, Nature volume 171 | Authors | Pages |
|---|---|---|
| "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" | J. D. Watson, F. H. C. Crick | 737–738 |
| "Molecular structure of deoxypentose nucleic acids" | M. H. F. Wilkins, A. R. Stokes, H. R. Wilson | 738–740 |
| "Molecular configuration in sodium thymonucleate" | R. E. Franklin, R. G. Gosling | 740–741 |
This table alone makes an important point: the discovery was not a single paper. Watson and Crick's proposed model made sense alongside the experimental data in the other two papers published in the same issue. Yet history has largely remembered only the first.
Watson and Crick's paper contains one of the most famous closing sentences in the history of science: "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." — "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." The value of this sentence is that it does more than describe a structure: it explains what that structure does. How heredity was transmitted had been a puzzle until then; once the structure was solved, the answer emerged on its own.
What Did the Structure Explain?
Saying that DNA is a double helix actually makes two separate points. The first concerns its shape: two strands wind around each other, forming a twisted ladder. The second—and truly revolutionary—point is the pairing rule: the ladder's rungs are not random. Adenine always pairs with thymine, and guanine always with cytosine.
This rule explains copying in itself. If each letter on one strand necessarily determines the letter on the opposite strand, separating the strands leaves two templates carrying the same information. Each template can recreate its missing half. This is the molecular explanation of heredity—and the physical counterpart of Mendel's 1865 discoveries with peas and his abstract rules of inheritance.
Figure 1 · The pairing rule and its consequence
The numbers of bonds and the opposite orientation of the strands come from molecular biology sources. The lower section illustrates the inference indicated in the final sentence of Watson and Crick's paper.
A few numbers for scale. The double helix is about 2 nanometers in diameter. It completes a full turn every 3.4 nanometers, with approximately 10–10.5 base pairs per turn; the distance between two adjacent base pairs is 0.34 nanometers. The single-set (haploid) human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs. The number of protein-coding genes in this vast alphabet is surprisingly small: in the current GENCODE release, it is 19442. In other words, most of the genome is not a “protein recipe”—and we still do not fully understand what that portion does.
The limits of the metaphor. DNA is often described as a “blueprint” or “building plan.” This analogy helps explain the pairing rule, but it has a misleading aspect: a building's plan is static; DNA is not. The same genome is read differently in different cells; a heart cell and a liver cell carry the same “plan.” Nor is the plan unchanging: DNA sustains thousands of lesions every day and is constantly repaired. To understand where cancer comes from, it is more accurate to think of DNA as a text constantly copied, constantly damaged, and constantly repaired rather than a plan.
Who Passed Data to Whom? Science History's Most Controversial Case
Watson and Crick were building models in Cambridge. The experimental data were in London—at King's College, in the X-ray diffraction work of Rosalind Franklin and her doctoral student, Raymond Gosling. Getting the model right depended on those data reaching Cambridge. How they did so has been debated for seventy years.
Figure 2 · 1952–1953: the path taken by the data
The dates and routes of transfer in the diagram are documented. The question of how these transfers should be interpreted is outside its scope; that debate is addressed in the text below.
So Was It “Stolen”?
Care is needed here, because both the “hero-victim” narrative and its wholesale rejection are oversimplifications.
What is undisputed is this: Maurice Wilkins showed Photograph 51 to Watson on 30 January 1953 without Franklin's knowledge or permission. This is accepted by almost every source, including researchers who have reassessed the matter. Read today, however, the acknowledgment in Watson and Crick's paper is uncomfortable: they wrote that they had been inspired by the “general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of their King's College colleagues”. “General nature” greatly understates what they had in hand.
In 2023, the picture changed—but not as expected. On the discovery's 70th anniversary, historians Matthew Cobb and Nathaniel Comfort wrote in Nature an assessment based on two newly found documents. One was a news draft by journalist Joan Bruce for Time, written in consultation with Franklin but never published. It described the two teams as “working on a shared problem, sometimes confirming each other's work,” and called Franklin “a full peer of Wilkins, Crick and Watson.” The second was a letter from Pauline Cowan at King's to Crick in January 1953, inviting him to Franklin's talk.
Cobb and Comfort's argument is this: Franklin had not “missed” the structure of DNA; she was an equal partner in solving it and knew her data were circulating. In their view, Franklin deserves to be remembered “not as the victim of the double helix, but as an equal contributor to its solution.”
This reassessment does not resolve the question of credit—and that distinction is our emphasis. Cobb and Comfort elevate Franklin's scientific standing; they do not excuse Wilkins for showing the photograph without permission. Indeed, in the same discussion, structural biologist Elspeth Garman still calls that transfer “a bit dodgy.” Science historian Gregory Morgan perhaps puts it best: “Asking whether Franklin was a wronged hero or a willing collaborator is a false dichotomy; the truth is not black and white, but more layered.” Historian Angela Creager explains why Watson's account has been so persistent: “We really love simple stories.”
Rosalind Franklin: Ovarian Cancer at 37
After 1953, Franklin left King's College and worked on virus structure at Birkbeck College. On 16 April 1958, at 37, she died. The cause was ovarian cancer.
Here we must present two common claims alongside the extent to which they can be verified.
1. “X-ray exposure caused her cancer.” This is often repeated and is a plausible hypothesis: Franklin worked with X-ray diffraction equipment for years. However, our sources describe it as a possibility, not as proven causation. Epidemiologically, it is not possible to establish the cause of cancer retrospectively in a single individual. We therefore leave it as a possibility in this article.
2. “She carried a BRCA mutation.” To substantiate this claim, no source has been found. The inference in circulation rests on two indirect observations: other members of her family also died of cancer, and gynecological cancers are relatively common among Ashkenazi Jews. These provide context, not a diagnosis. Franklin was not genetically tested, and cannot be. It would be wrong to present this claim as certain.
Nevertheless, this early loss naturally leads to the oncology side of the article. Today, for a woman diagnosed with ovarian cancer at 37, investigation of hereditary susceptibility is standard practice —because young age is one of the strongest indicators of an inherited BRCA1/BRCA2 alteration. No such test existed in 1958; the gene was not found until the 1990s. Today, the same diagnosis changes both the patient's treatment and her family's monitoring plan. Our article on ovarian cancer covers the disease's general framework, while our article on preventive surgery in BRCA carriers explains how that decision is made.
The Nobel Question: The Common Explanation Is Wrong
The 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was shared by Francis Crick, James Watson, and Maurice Wilkins. Its official citation was: “for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material.”
The standard answer for why Franklin was excluded—“the Nobel is not awarded posthumously”—is technically incorrect. The provision in the Nobel Foundation's statutes barring posthumous awards dates from 1974, coming into force twelve years after the prize. No such prohibition existed in 1962, and posthumous awards had previously been made twice. The actual reasoning of the 1962 committee is not documented in the sources available to us. The accurate statement is: Franklin had died in 1958, and the prize was divided among three living people. Today's rule against posthumous awards cannot be used as the explanation for that decision.
Four Names, Four Different Endings
| Name | Lifespan | Later life |
|---|---|---|
| Rosalind Franklin | 25 July 1920 – 16 April 1958 | Died of ovarian cancer at 37. She did not live to see the Nobel award. |
| Francis Crick | 8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004 | Devoted his later years to consciousness and neuroscience research; died in San Diego. |
| Maurice Wilkins | 15 December 1916 – 5 October 2004 | Born in the same year as Crick, and died in the same year. |
| James Watson | 6 April 1928 – 6 November 2025 | Died at 97. His later years were overshadowed by his remarks on race and intelligence. |
Watson's later period does not reflect well on the history of science and should not be omitted. On 11 January 2019, the institution he had headed for many years, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, issued an official statement after he repeated his remarks in a documentary. It described Watson's views on ethnicity and genetics as “unsubstantiated and reckless” and his statements as “reprehensible and unsupported by science”. It condemned “the misuse of science to justify prejudice” and withdrew Watson's Chancellor Emeritus, Oliver R. Grace Professor Emeritus and Honorary Trustee titles. A discovery's value does not depend on its discoverer's later views. But a scientist extending their authority beyond their expertise and presenting prejudice as science is a concrete example of how that authority can be abused.
What Did 1953 Not Explain?
The most often overlooked aspect of the double helix is what it did not explain. The model explained how information is copied. But it did not explain how that information is used: how was a text written in a four-letter alphabet translated into proteins composed of twenty different amino acids?
This second question took longer to answer than the first. The answer emerged in the early 1960s, when Marshall Nirenberg and colleagues began to work out which three-letter sequence specifies which amino acid. Breaking the genetic code caused an even greater public stir than the double helix itself. The New York Times wrote in December 1961 that biology had “reached a new frontier” and that this was “a revolution of far greater potential significance than the atomic or hydrogen bomb”.
This quotation is often misplaced—a mistake that needs correcting. These sentences were not a response to the 1953 double-helix paper; rather, eight years later, they were written about the deciphering of the genetic code. The discoveries are connected but distinct: one explains how the text is replicated, the other how it is read. Attributing the quotation to 1953 makes eight years of scientific work invisible.
Both are necessary in cancer. Knowing the copying mechanism explains where mutations come from. Knowing the code explains what a mutation disrupts in the protein. When a report today says “EGFR exon 19 deletion” or “KRAS G12C,” we draw on both kinds of knowledge: we know which letter changed and how that change alters the protein. We explored why a mutation's location in the genome matters in a separate article.
One further caution: For convenience, “gene” has been used in a single sense throughout this article, but the concept has expanded repeatedly since 1953. Mendel's “unit of inheritance,” Watson–Crick's “DNA sequence,” and today's “protein-coding region plus regulatory sequences plus alternative splicing products” are three forms of the same word. When reading “gene mutation” in a patient report, remember how technical and narrowly defined that expression is.
From 1953 to Cancer Treatment: A Seventy-Year Chain
The connection between the double helix and cancer is not immediately obvious. It runs as follows: structure explained copying → copying can make mistakes → errors accumulate → the cell escapes control. Cancer could only be conceived of as a “gene disease” once DNA itself was understood. The chronology below traces the links in that chain.
The intervals are the most instructive part of this chronology. The Philadelphia chromosome was described in 1960, and the drug targeting it was approved in 2001 —an interval of 41 years. The double helix was solved in 1953; the human genome was read in 2003 and its truly gap-free form was completed in 2022 —an interval of 69 years. The distance between basic science and its bedside application is measured in decades. Understanding this should help us see why today's basic research must be protected, rather than simply make us impatient.
In the Clinic Today: Three Uses of the Same Knowledge
What was solved in 1953 was a molecular shape. Today, knowledge of that shape directly changes decisions at three separate points in a cancer patient's journey.
Figure 3 · What does reading tumor DNA offer today?
The proportion below comes from an analysis of 198 oncology drugs approved by the FDA between 1998–2022.
Imatinib is the most mature example of this triad. By targeting the protein produced by the Philadelphia chromosome, it transformed chronic myeloid leukemia in most patients into a manageable chronic condition: at ten-year follow-up in the IRIS study, estimated 10-year overall survival was 83.3%, and 82.8% of patients achieved a complete cytogenetic response. For the same principle in lung cancer, see our article on KRAS G12C-targeted treatments; for genomic risk scores in breast cancer, see our article on genomic recurrence scores; and for ctDNA monitoring, see our article on the GALAXY study.
But the incomplete side of this picture must also be acknowledged. Having genomic profiling and benefiting from it are not the same thing. According to a widely debated analysis published in 2018, only about 9% of patients with metastatic cancer are eligible for a genome-targeted drug; of these, about 5% benefit from treatment, with the proportion increasing by only half a point per year. These figures are disputed: ASCO's Richard Schilsky notes that this rate applies particularly to untargeted profiling in patients with very advanced disease. However, expecting genetic testing to automatically produce a treatment option for every patient is currently unrealistic. When a test is ordered and what question it asks determine how useful its result will be.
The change in costs is also striking. The estimated worldwide cost of producing the first draft human genome sequence was about 300 million dollars. By mid-2015, the cost of a high-quality draft human genome had fallen to just over 4000 dollars, and by the end of that year to less than 1500 dollars. This collapse in cost, more than a scientific breakthrough, explains its routine clinical use today.
DROZDOGAN Academy Commentary
In 1953, something rare in medical history happened: a shape and its function were explained at the same time. Usually a structure is discovered first and its function understood years later. Here, the moment the structure was solved, the question of how heredity is transmitted was answered too. Watson and Crick's cautious closing phrase—“it has not escaped our notice”—is one of the most elegant examples of humility in scientific writing.
⚡ Why it matters
Because this is where the idea of cancer as a gene disease originated. Without knowing the copying mechanism, we could not understand a copying error. Oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, driver mutations, targeted therapy, liquid biopsy—all the concepts we use today were built on that single inference in 1953. If we can now tell a patient, “Your tumor has HER2; we can use this drug,” its origins lie on 25 April 1953.
✅ The strength
As strong as the discovery itself was its testability. The model was a proposal and could be falsified: if the pairing rule was correct, copying had to occur in a particular way, which could be tested experimentally. Moreover, publishing three papers together in the same issue of Nature gave readers the model's experimental foundation at the same time. Seventy years later, not a single detail of the structure has changed.
⚠️ The weakness
How credit was distributed. Franklin's data reached Cambridge by two separate routes, one without permission, and the paper's acknowledgment glossed over that contribution by referring to the “general nature of the unpublished results.” The 2023 reassessment moves Franklin from “victim” to “equal partner”—a more accurate and respectful framework—but does not excuse Wilkins for showing the photograph without permission. Scientific data-sharing rules took their present form after this event, another positive part of its legacy. This is our assessment.
🩺 Practical meaning for patients
This article tells a historical story, but its implications face the present. A patient diagnosed with cancer can ask three concrete questions: (1) “Does my tumor have a genetic characteristic that could change treatment?”—such as HER2, EGFR, ALK, BRCA, or MSI. (2) “Will the test result actually change my treatment plan?”—because not every test produces an option, and knowing this beforehand prevents disappointment. (3) “Does this result concern my family?”—if an inherited alteration is found, the answer is yes, and family members' monitoring changes.
❓ The open question
The entire genome was finally read without gaps in 2022. But reading and understanding are not the same. There are 19442 protein-coding genes; what the rest of the genome does remains largely uncertain. Most cancer driver mutations are sought in these coding regions—because that is where we know how to look. The role of alterations in noncoding regions in cancer will be a question for the coming decades. The ladder of 1953 has been read; most of the text still awaits translation.
Conclusion: The double helix is the single most productive discovery in medical history—but its fruits were harvested forty to seventy years later. The same story shows both that science requires patience and that fair attribution is not a “matter of courtesy,” but a matter of writing history accurately. Even if Rosalind Franklin's name is absent from this article's title, it must be present in its text.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Who Discovered the Structure of DNA?
- The model was developed by James Watson and Francis Crick and published on 25 April 1953. However, the X-ray diffraction data underlying it were produced at King's College by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling; Maurice Wilkins, Stokes, and Wilson also published their own data in the same issue. The discovery was neither a single paper nor a single person.
- Who Took Photograph 51?
- The photograph was taken by Raymond Gosling on 2 May 1952. Gosling was Rosalind Franklin's doctoral student, working under her supervision. Calling it “Franklin's photograph” is an acceptable shorthand; saying “Franklin took it” is technically incorrect.
- Did Watson and Crick Steal Franklin's Data?
- This question cannot be answered in one word. What is documented: Wilkins showed Photograph 51 to Watson on 30 January 1953 without Franklin's permission or knowledge. Her MRC report calculations also reached Crick through Max Perutz in February 1953. What is disputed: A reassessment published in 2023 argues that Franklin knew her data were circulating and saw herself as an equal partner in the solution rather than a victim. Some science historians call this a “false dichotomy”: the truth lies at neither extreme.
- Why Did Rosalind Franklin Not Receive a Nobel Prize?
- She died in 1958, four years before the award. However, the common explanation that “the Nobel is not awarded posthumously” is anachronistic: this rule entered the Nobel Foundation's statutes in 1974, twelve years after 1962. The actual reasoning of the 1962 committee is not documented.
- Was Franklin's Cancer Caused by X-rays?
- It is unknown. Her years working with X-ray equipment make this a plausible hypothesis, and sources mention exposure as a possible factor. But the cause of cancer in a single individual cannot be established retrospectively. It would be wrong to make a definitive statement.
- Is James Watson Alive?
- No. On 6 November 2025, at 97, he died. His later years were controversial because of his remarks on race and intelligence; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory had withdrawn his honorary titles on 11 January 2019.
- How Did Understanding DNA Structure Change Cancer Treatment?
- The chain ran as follows: structure explained copying → copying errors meant mutations → certain mutations were found to drive cancer (the Philadelphia chromosome in 1960, the two-hit hypothesis in 1971, the first human oncogene in 1982) → drugs targeting these mutations were developed (trastuzumab in 1998, imatinib in 2001). Today, of the oncology drugs approved between 1998–2022, about 43% are precision oncology treatments.
- Will Genetic Testing of My Tumor Definitely Produce a Treatment?
- No. According to an analysis published in 2018, about 9% of patients with metastatic cancer are eligible for a genome-targeted drug, and about 5% of these benefit. These rates are disputed, but expecting a test to produce an option for every patient is unrealistic. The right question is not “Should I be tested?” but “Will the result of this test change the plan in my situation?”
Glossary
- Double helix
- The twisted-ladder-like structure formed by DNA's two intertwined strands. Its diameter is approximately 2 nanometers.
- Base pair
- One rung of the ladder: an adenine–thymine or guanine–cytosine pairing. The haploid human genome contains about 3 billion.
- Hydrogen bond
- A weak bond holding opposing bases together. There are two between A–T and three between G–C.
- Antiparallel
- Two strands running in opposite directions: the 5' end of one aligns with the 3' end of the other.
- X-ray diffraction
- A method for determining molecular structure by directing X-rays at a crystal and examining the scattering pattern. Photograph 51 was obtained this way.
- Space group (C2)
- A crystallographic classification describing a crystal's symmetry. The C2 space group identified by Franklin showed that the two strands ran in opposite directions.
- Oncogene
- A gene that drives a cell toward cancer when overactive or malfunctioning. The first human oncogene was isolated from a bladder carcinoma cell line in 1982.
- Tumor suppressor gene
- A gene that normally restrains cell division. Loss of its function increases cancer risk; Knudson's two-hit hypothesis predicted such genes.
- Driver mutation
- A genetic alteration that actively drives tumor growth. This is what targeted treatments target.
- Precision (targeted) oncology
- Choosing treatment according to the tumor's molecular characteristics. About 43% of oncology approvals between 1998–2022 fall into this group.
- ctDNA
- Free tumor DNA in the bloodstream. It allows the tumor's genetic characteristics to be read and treatment response monitored without a tissue biopsy.
- Human Genome Project
- An international project conducted between 1990–2003 with the aim of reading the entire human genome.
- T2T (telomere-to-telomere)
- The first gap-free human genome sequence, completed in 2022. It filled the 8% the Human Genome Project could not read.
Transparency note.
Verified items: In the 25 April 1953 issue of Nature, volume 171, three papers were published together; the Watson–Crick paper's title, page range (737–738), final sentence, and acknowledgment (from the full text). Photograph 51 was taken by Raymond Gosling on 2 May 1952; Wilkins showed it to Watson on 30 January 1953 without Franklin's permission (multiple sources, including the United States National Library of Medicine's Profiles in Science). The MRC report was dated December 1952 and reached Crick through Max Perutz in mid-February 1953; the C2 space group showed that the strands were antiparallel. Cobb and Comfort's assessment of 25 April 2023 in Nature, its two supporting documents (Joan Bruce's unpublished Time draft and Pauline Cowan's January 1953 letter), and its central argument; the counterviews of Gregory Morgan, Angela Creager, and Elspeth Garman. The recipients, category, and official citation of the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (nobelprize.org). Franklin's death from ovarian cancer on 16 April 1958 at 37. The four individuals' birth and death dates; James Watson's death on 6 November 2025 at 97; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory's statement of 11 January 2019 and the three titles it withdrew (from the institution's own page, with direct quotations). DNA geometry (A–T two hydrogen bonds, G–C three; antiparallel orientation; 2 nm diameter; a turn every 3.4 nm; ~10–10.5 base pairs per turn; 0.34 nm between bases)—NCBI Bookshelf. The haploid genome's ~3 billion base pairs (NHGRI) and, in GENCODE release 50, 19442 protein-coding genes. The Human Genome Project ran from 1990–2003; its June 2000 draft covered 90%, its April 2003 release 92%, with fewer than 400 gaps. The study of 31 March 2022, T2T, filled the remaining 8%, adding over 2 million new variants and improving information on 622 medically important genes (NHGRI/NIH). The Philadelphia chromosome in 1960 (NCI); Knudson's two-hit hypothesis in 1971, mapping in 1976 to 13q14, and RB1 as the first cloned tumor suppressor gene (AACR). In 1982, three laboratories isolated the first human oncogene from a bladder carcinoma cell line, and Nature declared 1982 the “year of the oncogene” (AACR). FDA approval dates for trastuzumab, 25 September 1998, and imatinib, 10 May 2001 (Drugs@FDA). Approvals of Guardant360 CDx (7 August 2020, 55 genes) and FoundationOne Liquid CDx (26 August 2020, 311 genes) (FDA PMA records). The IRIS study's 10-year results (83.3% overall survival, 82.8% complete cytogenetic response). About 43% of 198 oncology approvals between 1998–2022 were precision oncology treatments (AACR). Eligibility and benefit rates for genome-targeted therapy (~9% and ~5%) and objections to those figures. The draft genome's ~300 million-dollar cost and the fall to under 1500 dollars by the end of 2015 (NHGRI).
Unverified items: The Matt Ridley quotation in the source text for this article was omitted because it could not be found in any source. The same text's December 1961 New York Times passage was verified but does not concern the double helix: according to the United States National Library of Medicine's account, the remark concerns Marshall Nirenberg's deciphering of the genetic code and has therefore been placed in its correct context here. The original NYT report's title and exact date could not be verified. The titles and pages of the Wilkins–Stokes–Wilson and Franklin–Gosling papers could be verified only through a secondary source. The precise day on which Perutz gave Crick the report could not be verified (“mid-February 1953”). The claim that Franklin's cancer was caused by X-ray exposure was not verified; sources mention it as a possible factor. For the claim that Franklin carried a BRCA mutation, no source was found. The 1962 Nobel Committee's actual reasoning concerning Franklin is undocumented. Sources differ slightly on Watson's death date (between 6 November 2025 and 7 November 2025); this article uses the earlier date. The number of base pairs added by T2T and NHGRI's current “cost per genome” data point were not used because they could not be verified.
Attribution of criticism: The assessments that the posthumous-Nobel explanation is anachronistic, that the popular account reduces two separate data transfers to one story of “theft,” that the 2023 reassessment elevates Franklin without excusing the unauthorized transfer, that DNA's “blueprint” metaphor has limits, and that genetic testing does not produce a treatment option for every patient are our own. Morgan's “false dichotomy,” Creager's “simple stories,” and Garman's “a bit dodgy” remarks are their own. All dates, proportions, and technical data belong to their cited sources.
The diagrams are derived from the verified statements in the text and contain no new data.
Sources
- Watson JD, Crick FHC. "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid." Nature. 1953;171(4356):737–738.
- Wilkins MHF, Stokes AR, Wilson HR. "Molecular structure of deoxypentose nucleic acids." Nature. 1953;171:738–740. · Franklin RE, Gosling RG. "Molecular configuration in sodium thymonucleate." Nature. 1953;171:740–741.
- Cobb M, Comfort N. "What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery of DNA's structure." Nature. 2023;616(7958):657–660 (25 April 2023).
- U.S. National Library of Medicine, Profiles in Science — Rosalind Franklin and Francis Crick collections.
- The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1962. NobelPrize.org.
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. "Statement addressing remarks by Dr. James D. Watson", 11 January 2019.
- National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI): A Brief Guide to Genomics; Human Genome Project Completion FAQ; Telomere-to-Telomere; Sequencing Human Genome Cost.
- NCBI Bookshelf: Lodish et al., Molecular Cell Biology; Human Molecular Genetics. GENCODE human statistics (release 50).
- National Cancer Institute. "Milestones in Cancer Research and Discovery."
- American Association for Cancer Research: Alfred G. Knudson collection; "KRAS: A History"; "Nearly Half of Oncology Drugs Approved Since 1998 Are Precision Therapies."
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Drugs@FDA (trastuzumab BLA 103792; imatinib NDA 021335); PMA records P200010 and P190032.
- The ASCO Post: IRIS study 10-year results; "Has the Promise of Precision Medicine Been Oversold?"
Sources
Was this article helpful?
Your feedback helps us improve our content.
Reader comments
Share your comment
Your name and comment are published only after administrator approval. Your email address is never shown to visitors.
Be the first to comment.