Talk politics.

Plagiarised... sort of. Franklin should have been the lead name in that Nobel, instead she was left off the list. Her crystallography pictures were the telling evidence in deciphering the double helix structure of DNA, but Watson and Crick had theorised about a helix and variants before the pics of a double helix arrived. It is definitely one of the great injustices, obviously, but let's not get into the plagiarised/copyrighted wankery when talking about academic discoveries that have taken many different folk lifetimes of effort and thought and huge amounts of collaboration.

Obviously, compared to Crick and Watson, Franklin was simply the lady photographer to the folk of that period who nominated men for the Nobel prize almost uniformly. But I still think it's wrong to say they plagiarised her work. You know, as well as the rest of us do, how academic papers often get published with the supervisor's name heading the list of authors; but normally folk acknowledge the other folk who actually did the work too. It is iniquitous, but so is almost all academic publication and supervision, never mind the pay-to-access academic papers because certain publishing houses saw a way of making a bigger margin on academic stuff. It's all behind a paywall near you, after all; if you can get your department to fund access that is.