'"-------
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,
Watson, James D., The Double Helix (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 56.
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.
5
6
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.
Shapley, Deborah, "Rosalind Franklin and DNA," New York Times, September 21, 1975,30.
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 Review
ofBooks 20, no. 2 (November 2002): 9.
10
II
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 of humanity.
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