The history of the model for DNA, proposed in 1953 by Watson and Crick, has deserved by the historians an attention in what concerns to the experimental work of Rosalind Franklin with x- ray diffraction of DNA. Since that this work has provided the fundamental empirical evidences to the building of the model, is questioned why Watson and Crick weren't very excited with Rosalind's participation. To Watson, she wouldn't have any theoretical keen to the DNA helical representation; while to Crick, Rosalind was not a very imaginative scientist, and her methodological choices blocked her from trying to discover something about the DNA's. However, some biology historians didn't accept this treatment and questioned Crick and Watson's considerations from three distinctive argumentative lines. The three arguments are emphatic about Rosalind's contributions to the DNA's structure. However, this was not the only problem concerning to the DNA, given that the DNA deserved more than just a treatment about its structure, but also about its genetic function. Thus, I have as a purpose to argue that on the opposite of what happened to the problem to the DNA's structure, there was not a such dispute regarding to the problem about the DNA's function, since Rosalind didn't share with to Watson and Crick, any interest on the implication of DNA to genetics.xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />