Picture The Double Helixzywang/hst423dnapaper.pdf · double helical, and was used by Watson and Crick without referencing it. The discrimination against Rosalind Franklin was brought

'"-------

HST 423 - Modem Science in World History

Prof. Zuoyue Wang

12 March 2008

Beyond Photograph 51

The discovery of the structure of DNA raises the concern about women in male

dominated fields, such as science and engineering, due to the discrimination that Rosalind

"Rosy" Franklin faced at King's College while working on DNA X-ray crystallography. Not

only was Franklin mistreated at King's College, but she also wasn't given the credit she deserved

for her DNA knowledge and data that led to the discovery of the structure of DNA. The most

imminent data that Franklin produced was Picture 51, which clearly showed that DNA was

double helical, and was used by Watson and Crick without referencing it. The discrimination

against Rosalind Franklin was brought to public attention when The Double Helix was published

in 1968, by the sexist way author James D. Watson portrayed Franklin. The Double Helix

caused many people underemphasize Franklin's scientific abilities and contribution to the

discovery of the structure of DNA. For example, James Watson wrote that " ... she was

incompetent in interpreting X-ray pictures. If only she would learn some theory,,,l hence labeling

her work as mere data gathering, and unable to synthesize scientific theories about DNA.

Rosalind Franklin was not only a skillful crystallographer and data supplier, but beyond

Photograph 51 she was a brilliant scientist, discovering important facts regarding the forms,

components, and configuration of DNA that have helped us better understand this controversial

molecule.

I Watson, James D., The Double Helix (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 166.

1

Rosalind Franklin, the "incompetent" scientist at the eyes of her colleagues, was

successful at making accurate conclusions about DNA's configuration, which Watson and Crick

referenced for their model. Franklin was one the first to suggest that the phosphates go on the

outside, and that the bases go in between the DNA strands. When Watson and Crick constructed

their first DNA model, Franklin corrected the model's mistaken configuration that had the

phosphates in the center of the helix, and the bases on the outside2. In order for DNA's role in

genetics to be understood, the bases had to be in the inside of the molecule, which pair up in an

exclusive way, and allow DNA to pass genetic information from generation to generation

through the copying of the base pattern. Without Rosalind Franklin's insight on the position of

the bases, Watson and Crick's would not have discovered the DNA copying mechanism at the

time. In addition, embarrassing for Watson during his first model review was the fact that his

model was ten times short of required water molecules. Rosalind Franklin presented the DNA

water content at the seminar in 1951 that Watson attended. Watson admits that he couldn't

concentrate on the lecture, and he began wondering "how she would look if she took of her

glasses and did something novel with her hair,,,3 during the seminar. Perhaps if Franklin had

been a typical male scientist, Watson would have paid more attention to the lecture, and maybe

even taken notes. Furthermore, Rosalind Franklin, and his assistant Gosling published an MRC

report, which contained Rosalind's estimations of the 34 Angstrom repeat in the B form of

DNA, which was essential for checking the model for the correct pitch of the helix.4 The

information in the MRC report was viewed without the consent of Franklin, adding weight to the

immorality of Watson's actions. Even when Franklin contributed this valuable information,

2 Rapoport, Sarah, "Rosalind Franklin: Unsung Hero of the DNA Revolution," The History Teacher 39, no. 1(November 2002): 120.3 Watson, James D., The Double Helix (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 69.4 Manwell, Clyde, "Commentary: The Double Helix: Science and Myth in the Art of Creation," BioScience 29, no.12 (December 1979): 744.

2

Watson, Crick, and Wilkins did not share the credit for the discovery of DNA's structure with

her. Instead, James Watson described in The Double Helix as an obstacle to the discovery since

"the point had been reached where Rosy would not even tell Maurice her latest results."s Author

Sarah Rapoport affirms, that if Watson, Crick, and Wilkins had properly acknowledged

Franklin's contribution, she would have shared the enormous public recognition that they

received for discovering the structure of the DNA molecule. 6

"Look, there's a helix, and that damned woman just won't see it,"? were the words of

Maurice Wilkins, referencing Photograph 51, which he took without her permission. James

Watson also repeatedly attacked Rosalind Franklin's position against the helical structure of

DNA in The Double Helix, when in fact Franklin did acknowledge the helix as the most probable

structure for DNA. James Watson relates, " ... since to her mind [Rosalind Franklin's] there was

not a shred of evidence that DNA was helical."s James Watson was ignoring Franklin's

unpublished notes from 1951 and 1952 that showed that Franklin was certain about the helical

nature of wet DNA, but since dry DNA presented a different structure in the X-ray diffraction

pictures, she searched for a structure which would explain that patterns produced in both forms.9

Evidently, Rosalind Franklin's motivation for her research on DNA was not rushing to guess the

structure of DNA so that she could win a Nobel Prize, but understanding the scientific reasons

behind the discrepancies of the two forms of DNA. Moreover, going back to Franklin's seminar

in 1951, Anne Sayre, author of Rosalind Franklin and DNA, assures that "Her notes for the talk,

typed, underlined and corrected in her hand, say, 'Conclusion: Big helix in several chains,

5 Watson, James D., The Double Helix (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 56.6 Rapoport, Sarah, "Rosalind Franklin: Unsung Hero of the D A Revolution," The History Teacher 39, no. 1(November 2002): 117.7 Manwell, Clyde, "Commentary: The Double Helix: Science and Myth in the Art of Creation," BioScience 29, no.12 (December 1979): 743.8 Watson, James D., The Double Helix (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 165.9 Shapley, Deborah, "Rosalind Franklin and DNA," New York Times, September 21, 1975, 27.

3

phosphates on the outside, phosphate-phosphate interhelical bonds disrupted by waste links

available to proteins,."IO Later on, in 1953, when Rosalind Franklin review the Watson and

Crick's final model of DNA, Watson commented that "I feared that her sharp, stubborn mind,

caught in her self-made antihelical trap, might dig up irrelevant results that would foster

uncertainty about the correctness of the double helix.,,11 Clearly, the stubborn mind belonged to

Watson, who once again mistakenly assured that Franklin did not agree with the helix nature of

DNA, perhaps thinking that her female intellect was not capable of seeing such plain fact after

years of studying DNA.

Moreover, Rosalind Franklin was more than capable of solving the problem of the

structure of DNA, and its role in genetics, without the underhanded actions by Watson and

Wilkins. In an interview by Anne Sayre, Francis Crick was asked how long would it have taken

for Rosalind Franklin to fully solve the structure of DNA, and he answered, "Perhaps three

weeks [after Watson and Crick's publication]. Three months is likelier.,,12 Also, author Brenda

Maddox describes Aaron Klug's (Franklin's colleague at Brikbeck College) conclusion that

" ... after reviewing her notebooks and reports, which had been given to him [Klug] after her

death, both he and Francis Crick became convinced that she was poignantly close.,,13 Franklin

and Gosling published their X-ray diffraction research results in the same journal that James

Watson and Francis Crick's published their paper on the structure of DNA, but it was too late.

Franklin and Gosling's paper was taken just as confirmation for Watson and Crick's discovery.

10 Shapley, Deborah, "Rosalind Franklin and DNA," NewYork Times, September 21, 1975,30.II Watson, James D., The Double Helix (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 210.12 Manwell, Clyde, "Commentary: The Double Helix: Science and Myth in the Art of Creation," BioScience 29,no.12 (December 1979): 743.13 Cohen, Carolyn, "Review: Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady ofDNA by Brenda Maddox," The Women's ReviewofBooks 20, no. 2 (November 2002): 9.

4

James Watson's portrayal of Rosy in The Double Helix is partially historically inaccurate,

with of sexist comments about Franklin personality, and work. Rosalind Franklin was

exceptional at both obtaining data, and synthesizing data, due to her unacknowledged discoveries

on DNA. The discovery of DNA's double helix structure could not have been possible at the

time without Franklin's work, and without her courage to withstand the environment she worked

on for all those years at King's College. Moreover, Watson's and Wilkins ideas that Franklin

was against the helical structure of DNA were a product of their ignorance towards her approach

to science. In contrast to Watson and Crick's trial and error approach to the DNA's structure

problem, and their use of science as a medium for recognition, fame and the Nobel Prize,

Rosalind Franklin did her work for scientific understanding, and the improvement ofhumanity.

5

Bibliography

Cohen, Carolyn. "Review: Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady ofDNA by Brenda Maddox." The

Women's Review ofBooks 20, no. 2 (November 2002): 9.

Manwell, Clyde. "Commentary: The Double Helix: Science and Myth in the Art of Creation."

BioScience 29, no.12 (December 1979): 743-744.

Rapoport, Sarah. "Rosalind Franklin: Unsung Hero of the DNA Revolution." The History

Teacher 39, no. 1 (November 2002): 117, 120.

Shapley, Deborah. "Rosalind Franklin and DNA." New York Times, September 21, 1975,27,30.

Watson, James D., The Double Helix. New York: Touchstone, 2001, 56, 69, 165-166,210.

6