A Second Look at The Double Helix
12/11/2011
In his early-age memoir The Double Helix [1] James Watson depicts Francis
Crick and himself as the gold medalists in the race to discover the structure of DNA,
glorifying the victory over Linus Pauling, downplaying the contributions of other
including Erwin Chargaff, Jerry Donohue, and especially Rosalind Franklin. Whose
DNA X-Ray diffraction photograph 51 [7] was used to connect the dots. Should Watson
make amends?
My own DNA research began during a high-school teachers’ strike which would
have been a blessing had my school not been the only institution in the city to enroll my
age group. With one exception all my friends attended schools which were not on strike,
leaving me to wonder the streets alone. The exception (whose name is saved with the
editor) lived across the street, working studiously to maximize his potential. As such, he
thought little of the pastime adaptations that one had to make as the times demanded,
such as Stanga – a cross between tennis, the game of nobles, and soccer, the game of
their subjects. The game was played with a tennis ball, but the court was a section of a
road, the goals opposite sections of the curb, with two fist-sized rocks to mark the goal
post. The optimal number of players was two – each playing goalie and forward. Just like
tennis, each player could touch the ball once, albeit with one’s foot – needless to say we
had no tennis rackets; but we played with the same sense of fair play as the gentlemen’s
game demanded.
To my dying day I will not forget the rejection to my proposal to play that day: “I
am going to the laboratory to view chromosomes; you are welcome to join me.” As it
turned out the Hebrew University had a biology lab up the road.
“You’re going where to do what?”
“I am going to see how cells duplicate their genetic material; it’s the basic process
of reproduction.”
This was light years ahead of my perception of reproduction at the time. Word on
the street was that it might not be necessary to have intercourse in order to induce
pregnancy, and those who supported carnal relationships could not provide any
substantiating evidence as to the connection between the two phenomenons.
“Why go now?”
“You can only see chromosomes during meiosis.”
-1-
A Second Look at The Double Helix
12/11/2011
I never heard of that holiday, but tagged along, having nothing better to do.
All I can remember is peering into a microscope and seeing X-shaped bird
droppings laying in a circular porthole, obscuring the green light which shown from
below. I maintained the composure of one who was the silent type from the recessive side
of the gene pool, pretending to understand everything that was said in the room, and did
not further question what I had seen under the microscope. A few months later James
Watson’s book The Double Helix [1] was first published, apparently he was way ahead of
me.
In his book – written as a personal memoir - Watson depicts Francis Crick and
himself as the gold medalists in the race to discover the structure of DNA, glorifying the
victory over Linus Pauling, downplaying the contributions of others including Erwin
Chargaff, Jerry Donohue, and especially Rosalind Franklin. The most controversial issue
is the use of a DNA X-Ray diffraction picture called photograph 51 [7] taken by Rosalind
Franklin in her lab and shown without her permission by Maurice Wilkins to James
Watson. Watson admitted that the photo was an essential piece in the puzzle1, yet he
failed to mention Rosalind Franklin when he received the Nobel Prize for his contribution
to the discovery of the structure of DNA. The fact that he did not make amends in his
book, sparked a backlash by Anne Sayre [2], followed by further writing by Maddox [8].
Wilkins waited a very long time before writing his personal memoir [3]. One only needs
to read readers’ comments on the web sites of Amazon and Barnes & Nobel to appreciate
the sides of the argument. Clearly something went wrong between January 1951 and
March 1953 - the two years the Franklin spent at Kings College of London, where she did
her crystallography work, which yielded among others photograph 512.
Franklin had arrived in London from Paris after confiding in a letter to a friend
that “To change the banks of the Seine for a cellar on the strand seems to me quite
insane”. Filling in for the sorely missing member of the human resources department
which Kings College did not have at the time, I took it upon myself to investigate the two
work-environments. I started with a stroll along the Seine with the aid of Google Earth,
1
The minute I saw the picture my mouth fell open… The pattern was unbelievably simpler than those
obtained previously. Moreover, the black cross… could arise only form a helical structure. [1 pages 167169]
2
For a brief overview see the web site linked to [7] and
-2-
A Second Look at The Double Helix
12/11/2011
tracing Rosalind’s footsteps on a casual mid-day break. I headed north from the lap on
Quai Henry IV along the North bank. I passed under the bridge at Pont de Sully, and
continued along the river bend enjoying the shade of the trees, as boats with tourists
passed between the bank and Ile Saint-Louis. I crossed over to the island at Pont Marie
and sat down for lunch at a café facing the Notre Dame across the canal. Sitting at my
computer, zooming in with the scroll wheel I ordered a home cooked meal of steak avec
des pommes vapeur which I translated using Google’s translator and munched happily
enjoying the early afternoon sun. Fairly content with the settings in Paris I moved on to
London.
As Google Earth descended over the locations of King’s College, I could only
assume that it was London’s condition after the war that caused Franklin’s reluctance.
What better place to be than in the strand, with its theaters and museums, Trafalgar
square, St. James Park, the river banks, Waterloo Bridge – it must have been the cellar,
not the location of the building that Franklin was bemoaning. Raymond Gosling walks
the viewer to that (or similar) cellar [7]. Wilkins makes it a point to mention that when
Franklin arrived at King’s her lab was temporarily located in the basement3, however he
fails to clarify whether Franklin ever moved out of her dungeon. One cannot but conclude
that the lab setting certainly did not contribute to the overall atmosphere.
As if to answer my next question, Wilkins writes that he “found Franklin pleasant
to talk to…”, and their families being of very similar background “Apart from religion,
the Franklins where Jewish while the Wilkinses were non-conformist Christians4.” What
does getting off on the right foot have anything to do with religion? Why bring it up?
Franklin clearly was not a practicing Jew. Maddox quotes Franklin as saying “… all that
is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall succeed in our aims - the
improvement of mankind.” This is further corroborated by Wilkin telling how he and
Franklin had lunch together in the lab on Saturdays which a practicing Jew would not do.
How kind of you Maurice to point out your social behavior, albeit without mentioning
that regulations prevented Franklin from dining with you during any other day of the
week, when you ate with your male colleagues in the main dining room. Strike two for
3
4
[3 page 129]
[3 page 133]
-3-
A Second Look at The Double Helix
12/11/2011
Wilkins’ credibility; however I see no point in delving into the discrimination issue given
that such policies are clearly unacceptable today.
Sayre makes no mention of Wilkins’s initial civilities. On the contrary, she
emphasizes a hate-at-first-sight relationship “Only too evidently the antipathy was instant
and mutual5.” Elkin [6] explains the rift as a clash of personalities, enthusiastically
depicting Franklin as warm hearted yet tough “triple-A Brooklyn personality”,
contrasting with the shy and reserved Wilkins, so much so that “he would not look you in
the eye when he spoke”. Well, I had a grandmother from Brooklyn with that type of
personality who took no prisoners when she spoke her mind, but she also taught me that
it took two to make a fight. I do not accept the argument that Rosalind Franklin, being a
strong, brilliant and independent woman, reserved a right to ignore basic codes of
conduct – as trying as the circumstances might have been. I can see how annoying it
might have been to have someone walk in with a question when you are in the middle of
a computation of the position of an atom in that monster molecule - as far as I am
concerned long division is sufficiently volatile, let alone Patterson Calculations or Fourier
Transforms. Personally - nevertheless I would apologize in case I exploded.
To say that a workplace requires adaptations is to state the obvious, and what
better example than the adaptations Darwin made having to share a cabin with the
cantankerous Vice-Admiral Robert FitzRoy, commander of the Beagle? Imagine more
demanding circumstances; sleeping in cramped quarters with such an irritable persona for
five years, washing every few weeks… Being a man of faith Darwin wondered about the
origin of such a species and made peace with his situation.
All this is not to say that Rosalind Franklin did not try to make peace with her
peers. I must say, Ms. Franklin, that your note announcing the Untimely Death of the
Helix was a charming, witty call for discussion, unfortunately the other party did not have
a sense of humor to match. Wilkins clearly testifies “I have no memory of Stokes or me
considering the possibility… that it was all a silly joke of the kind in which scientists are
said to indulge … though I never met that myself…6” As far as I am concerned this is
strike three for Maurice. Honestly Mr. Wilkins, you never heard a scientist tell a joke?
How about referring to Rosalind Franklin as Rosy behind her back?
5
6
[2 page 95]
[3 page 183]
-4-
A Second Look at The Double Helix
12/11/2011
Mr. Wilkins, why does your book read like an expense report – detailing how
busy you were between 1951 and 1953 without pointing to a single solid scientific
achievement? Do you think the world cares where you got the herring sperm, or was it
squid’s for the experiments which then Rosalind conducted? Yes, there were some
mitigating factors. You has transitioned from physics – disillusioned with the splitting of
the atom, to biology in search of the secrets of life, only to find that your position has
been effectively transferred by your superior. If you have issues take them up with him –
not with her. Does your falling behind in the race justify revealing photograph 51 to
Watson from the competing lab at the Cavendish institute? To put it in terms which you
understand - your DNA backbone has the sugar-phosphates backbone on the inside of the
molecule – lacking structural integrity. Integrity should never be compromised.
Maurice Wilkins was not the only culprit. Seeing photograph 51 did not provide
Watson and Crick with all the information they needed – it was the unpublished MRC
report which Max Perutz handed to Watson and Crick that provided the required data 7.
The famous triple publication in Volume 171 of Nature Magazine dated April 26 19538
was the compromise which avoided a major embarrassment from both institutions,
exposing the fact that the lab which crossed the finish line first, used the competing lab’s
experimental data to connect the dots.
On the question9 whether Rosalind Franklin would or should have received the
Nobel Prize had she not died of Ovarian Cancer four years prior? The Nobel Prize is not
awarded posthumously, hence the matter is irrelevant. On the question whether she
received adequate recognition the answer is ‘yes but belatedly’. I say this because in the
end not one of the participants of the discovery has denied Rosalind Franklins
contribution. Watson added an “epilogue” in which he admits that he had been wrong to
make some of the less than flattering remarks about Franklin. Maddox does not let him
off the hook, describing it as “too little too late”, and I say that Watson is living
testimony to his character flaws – why take that away from him? Maurice Wilkins makes
it very clear in his memoir that he indeed did acknowledge Franklin’s contributions –
7
Max Perutz received a copy of the report as a member of the MRC committee. The MRC had funded parts
of the research done at King’s College, but Perutz was also the supervisor of Watson and Crick from the
competing Cavendish lab. Details can be found in 4 pages 402-405.
8
Watson-Crick, Wilkins-Stokes, Franklin-Gosling
9
Elkin [6][7]
-5-
A Second Look at The Double Helix
12/11/2011
very much in line with what can be expected of his defensive writing style. One only
needs to consider how Aaron Klug, who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1982
for his development of crystallographic electron microscopy, did find it important to
mention Rosalind Franklin’s contribution to the field, twenty five years after he had
worked with her at Birkbeck College (1953-1958), where she worked after she left
King’s College.
Was it just poor working relationships and a race for fame which took precedence
over professional and personal integrity? Does Watson come clean having worked for a
competing organization?
The way Watson convinced Wilkins to show him photograph 51 reminds me of a
Jewish folklore joke which tells of two Jews who bought a herring in the village market.
As they sat down to eat it by the side of the road. one of them offered to cut the fish, but
under the circumstances he failed to do so evenly, and he took the bigger piece for
himself.
“This is very impolite,” his friend said.
“What would you have done if you were me?”
“I would have given you the larger portion, and taken the smaller for myself!”
“Well, you’ve got the small one, so what do you want?”
Watson was a poor judge of fair play, or worse, did not care to abide by such
rules. Still I am willing to mount a weak defense on the basis that he was only twenty
three years old at the time, having entered college at the age of fifteen, having had no
opportunity to roam the streets looking for a friend to play and hone social skills. He was
imitating the behaviors he saw around him, so Watson alone cannot carry the blame. He
was in the race of his life, and concluded wrongly that the result justified the means,
rationalizing that Franklin either didn’t understand her data, or would eventually share it
anyway. We must also apply a principle of proportionality – only Watson’s childish
perception viewed cracking the structure of DNA as a monumental individual
achievement – both intellectually as well as its contribution to science. Crick was much
more cautious when he later attributed the achievement to “partly a matter of luck, and
partly good judgment, inspiration and persistent implementation”. The fact is that Watson
-6-
A Second Look at The Double Helix
12/11/2011
and Crick pushed a few Angstroms ahead in the hundred yard dash was because they
allowed themselves to guess what the most likely structure of DNA had to be, having
hovered by the side of the track pitching for a helix with no supporting evidence of their
own10. What makes their story exhilarating is the fact that it would have been a matter of
week before Franklin11 came up with the same answer based on hard evidence. As for
sharing data, it was not that Franklin did not want to share her findings; she did not want
to share her data before she had the complete experimental proof that the double helix
hypothesis was correct. Her true character shined when she acknowledged Watson’s and
Crick’s model – while Watson – true to his character was surprised that she did.
Watson wrote his book fifteen years later, after he had the time to learn that real
life happened in the street not in the lab, yet he chose to refer to Rosalind Franklin as
Rosy throughout the text. It is for this choice that he must be held accountable. On the
face of it – it is just a name – to me it is a caricature.
What would you say Mr. Watson if I compared your means of data collection to
the way Tom Sawyer painted his fence? I assume you could live with that – after all Tom
is to this day a loveable character in American culture, which loves him for being
rewarded handsomely for work he did not do – because there are no losers in the story.
One side gains material fortune and the other gains righteousness, a small twist to the
hearing logic – you cannot have both. Well Mr. Watson, what would you say if I called
you Lazy Mazy12? I expect would cry foul – after all you did your share of the work. How
could I belittle your achievement with a derogatory caricature from a children’s’ story?
Would you like to try a crooked man who walked a crooked? Why then comment on the
looks of Rosalind Franklin instead of the contents of her work?
To be honest I am no longer concerned with you personally Mr. Watson – but
with where the liberties you have extended yourself may lead us. What would happen if
the Jews-and-the-herring story is told by a non-conformist Christian? What happens after
the story replaces the Jew’s friend with a Christian, or a Christian child? When does it
stop being a joke and become inflammatory slur in bars and town squares? When does it
10
Chargaff referred to Watson and Crick a ‘two pitchers in search of a helix’ in a comment on the
methodology of their research. See [4] for details
11
See 10 for a brief description, and 4 for a more elaborate discussion
12
Horton Hatches the Egg, Dr. Seuss
-7-
A Second Look at The Double Helix
12/11/2011
move from the private to the public sector? What happens when it becomes the basis for a
political agenda? Can anyone, at any point say where the deciding turn for the worse took
place?
This is the dehumanizing genome at work; it starts with caricatures, then morphs
to social agendas, to burning books and then the people who wrote them. Do you find this
hard to believe Dr. Watson? Paris was such a wonderful city to live in compared to
London because the latter was rebuilding after crushing a regime whose political agenda
was to rid the world of the Jews in the jokes and other inferior human species.
In the summer of 1962, as the Nobel committee was making its decision to
nominate Crick, Watson and Wilkins, a boat sailed from the shores of Israel to an
uncharted point in the Mediterranean outside the territorial waters of any country. There a
survivor threw the ashes of Nazi Germany’s chief executive for solving the Jewish
problem to the wind. On April 4th 2009 in an interview with Neal Bascomb about his new
book Hunting Eichmann the author explains “I wanted to understand the source of such
evil.” The answer is elementary my dear Watson, such evil is the outcome of loosing
sight of the one lesson DNA teaches all of us – that the only way to divide a herring is
strictly down the middle. This is why your book is still relevant; you need not change a
single word.
-8-
A Second Look at The Double Helix
12/11/2011
[1] The Double Helix, James D. Watson, Touchstone, 1968, renewed 1996
[2] Rosalind Franklin and DNA, Anne Sayre, W.W. Norton, 1975
[3] The Third Man of the Double Helix, Maurice Wilkins, Oxford, 2003
[4] The Path to the Double Helix the Discovery of DNA, Robert Olby, Dover, 1974
[5] A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson, Broadway Books, 2003
[6] Lynne Osman Elkin, Rosaline Franklin – Pending Justice, Video 2007
[7] DNA: Secret of Photo 51, interview with Brenda Maddox, Maurice Wilkins, Aaron
Klug and Raymond Gosling, Nova production DVD, 2003 Web Site
[8] Rosalind Franklin, The Dark Lady of DNA, Brenda Maddox, Harper Perennial, 2003
[9] Letters from the Earth, Mark Twain, Edited by Bernard DeVoto, Harper Perennial
[10] The Discovery of DNA a Photo Finish
-9-