As I understand it, that was the real issue with their work from a scientific integrity perspective. Some people speculate that she would have been the third person on the Nobel prize if she were still alive to receive it (Nobels are given only to living contributors).

That's not true. Wilkins had as much right to share that data as Franklin, and everyone seems to forget Raymond Gosling who actually generated the data.

its almost like all modern scinece is team efforts that only the sufficiently tenured get credit for.

This is the really important part. The debates about Franklin, Wilkins, Watson and Crick is like a debate about which A-list movie stars deserve the higher paycheck. Yeah, sure, the hagiography of particular individuals will motivate some people below them to dream big, but it's also demotivating to others who know they'll never be recognized as elite.

Sure, but I guess there should have been unanimous consent.

This particular issue is quite complicated. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_51