-==__t tt , \

HST 423 - Modern Science in World Historv

Prof. Zuoyue Wang

12March2008

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 5l,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,"r hence labeling

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

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

Photograph 5l 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.

' Watson, James D., The Doublellell.x (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 166.

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 outside'. 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.a 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,

' Rapoport, Sarah, "Rosalind Franklin: Unsung Hero of the DNA Revolution," The History Teacher 39, no. I(November 2002):120.

'Wutrot; James D., The Double Hetix (I\ew York: Touchstone, 2001), 69.o Manwell, Clyde, "Commentary: The Double Helix: Science and Myth in the Art of Creation," BioScience 29, no12 (December 1979): 7 44.

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."5 Author

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

Franklin's contribution, she would have shared the enorrnous 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,"7 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."8 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.e

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 Pize, 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 llelz-r (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 56.o Rapoport, Sarah, "Rosalind Franklin: Unsung Hero of the DNA Revolution," The History Teacher 39, no. I(November 2002\: ll7.7 Manwell, Clyde, "Commentary: The Double Helix: Science and Myth in the Art of Creation," BioScience 29 , no.

_12 (December 1979): 7 43.o Watson, James D., The Double F1ellx (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 165." Shapley, Deborah, "Rosalind Franklin and DNA," NewYork Times, September 21, 1975,27.

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

available to proteins'."10 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."ll 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 studyrng 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."l2 Also, author Brenda

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

"...aft.er 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."l3 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.

ro Shapley, Deborah, "Rosalind Franklin and DNA," NewYork Times, September 21, l9'/5,30." Watson, James D., The Double l1elrx (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 197 9): 7 43.'' Cohen, Carolyn, "Review: Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA by Brenda Maddox," The Ll/omen's Reviewof Books 20,no.2 (November 2002):9.

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

with of sexist comments about Franklin personality, md 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 pize,

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

Bibliography

Cohen, Carolyn. "Review: Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNAby Brenda Maddox.,, The

lV'omen's Review of Bootrs 20,no.2 (Novemb er 2002):9.

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

BioScience 29, no.l2 (December 1979): 743_744.

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

Teacher 39, no. I (Novemb er 2002): ll7, 120.

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

watson, James D., The Double Helix. New york: Touchstone ,200r, 56,69, 165-166,210.

Peer Group Review WorksheetsProf. Zuoyue Wang

Note: A good history paper should have a clear thesis statement, supported by a rich narrative built on avariety of sources, flow well from sentence to sentence and paragraph to paragraph, be free of grammaticalerrors, and follow consistently the Turabian style for footnotes and bibliography. The purpoJe of thisexercise is to offer critical but constructive fbedback to your classmates so they can improve their papers.

Paper Title: By:

Student Peer Reviewer No. I N vrn". ') r Iwhat 's the paper 's Main Argumenr?

r I l te: l / ) rJ l+" t ' \ ' t f ' l lc i t ( ' i -

*T-tVrt pc.-..{.}"v\'{,'..,.L [in

what Are the Major Primary and Secgndary Sources Used in the paper?' \>. , \c\0,1 Tt( b-^ ' rL t t . t tx / - - t r . ' t ( . . ,

L) . - , .149

What Do You Like about the Paper?

c... \ e'tr{' 6\{ :)'.arr.1.1

What Are Yor-rr Suggestions on Improving It?

\(., ,* I . .r\ i ' ! i ' r '*, I

Student Peer Reviewer No. 2 Name: {VtcttWhat's the Paper's Main Argument?

. - r - .'l<os"tln t l kianK,',l Wq5 WiErxft s<trte il \ h<r I<ltout sZrerr hsfs

what Are the Major Primary and Secondary Sources Used in the paper?

9ooK1 q Quof ,eWhat Do You Like about the Paper?

V*q ForLoea1 on one tfi. i { ood Sout ez>

Whal-Are Your Suggestions on Improving lr l

LarF> q clzct' -('opic, l-.tlrd ct {b,VaHt I tn gorne qveat

tved> c^ cfoo| do>e f<lti<vrf -

qnd

Response from Author:

How Have You Responded to Your Classmates' Comments ancl Suggestions in Revising your paper?

Have You Found the Peer Review process Helpful?

Nathan Galdamez

HST 423 - Modern Science in World History

Prof. Zuoyue Wang

9 March 2008

racoP. ( l \0(

/),s9J r\/< l

- t, t l€sl_i5' ()l5{tFslu' lsl

'gL

7+ Wl6€e- cfiecr %y 7 WfiQr'

aav\{d?0 [ \v '

BeYondPhotograPh5l

tWt\ I

The jist@e-4iscovery of the structure of DNA raises the concern about women in

I dt'z +-i l 5. 1- f I male dominated fields, puch, as,r:i.*,., 11,.*ginr,:Tlg, b*.Aar' the discrimination that

C .: I t i ' r [ I \ F ' ' ' 'q ' t ( r ' r l r ' : ' ' " " r" ' \ tI , \ |

S I Rosalind "Rosy'' Franklinr ryorking on DNA X-ray crystallography, faced at King's College,

J . \ - ,

. u t / whereshe,,wasn't allowed into the tea room, the lab she worked on was in the basement, and her

sqientific skills were not valued, Not only was Franklin mistreatqd at King's College, but she

^/ft"rtot|twasn't given the credit she deserved for knowledse and data that led to thet".{qb+6,t 7

discovery of the structure of DNA. The discrimination issue w ught t$ryffr,rfrrwl*f,),to

public attention when The Double Helix was published in 1968, by the sexist;ffauthor JamesvVrto Anct ttra dqtq

'.D. Watsonlportrayed Rosalind Franklin, uaese+a especially Photograph 51, proved DNA's

helical structure.ffiIany people erroneously underemphasize Franklin's scientific abilities and

contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA by saying, like.James Watson, "...she wasl , i r . i . .c,, : '^ l*. t"t , ' ."

. f . i '* i : ' I .71

incompetent in interpreting X-ray pictures. 1If only she would learn some theory,"l hence

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

DNA. lind Franklin was not only a skillful crystallographerynd data supplier, but beyond I

Photograph 511 she was a brilliant scientist, discovering important facts regarding the forms,

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

/ ' i t

e,1

' r, 4ir,

TettrtP'b'u f (uesrtT

u

oulo*

:)\uwRosalind Franklin, the irfcompdten-{dray crystallogruphEr.E the eyes of her colleagues,

was successful at making accurate conclusions about DNA's configuration, which Watson and, ' r ' ' t ' ' \

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

)' " ' O"\|J\A{the outstdel and the bases go on the inside of the DNA strands. When Watson and Crick\'> o.C Dn\ l'* :l-rc,^^.to - - Iconstructed their first model, Franklin corrected Watson and Crick's model of DNA "...because

of its backbone on the inside,"2 which refers to the mistaken model that had the phosphates

inside the helix, and the bases on the outside. ln order for DNA's role in senetics to be-rLe b ns e gl c'ci<n c.rr'{_ e l/o,^rcJ

understood, the bases had to be in the inside of the molecule. Watson and Crick discoy616{ la1s.\ \ , . \ +- J.r'lcove.1z

onl the bases pair up like steps in a latter in a defined pairing pattern, thus allowing genetic

information to be copied and passed on generation to generation. Without Rosalind Franklin's

insight on the position of the bases, Watson and Crick's discovery on genetics would have not

happened at the time. More embarrassing for Watson during his first model review was the fact, r . ,v ' . t tA

that his model was ten times short of the l6ontent of water molecules. Rosalind Franklin

presented the DNA water content at the seminar in 1951, while Watson auyar"urrlffd.uringjtslnwtd

dur.atio.n,causinghimtog#suchanimportantfeature.InTheDoubleHelix,Watson{bi \ i. rerrrzl4a-lc'svt n,

admits wondering how she would look if "she took of her glasses and did something novel with

her hair,"3 during the seminar. Watson was distracted by the fact that Rosalind was a woman,

and it is possible that if Franklin had been a typical male scientist, Watson would have paid more

attention, and maybe lagrptlrtr'Fe even taken notes. Furthermore, Rosalind Franklin, and his

assistant Gosling's MRC report, contained Rosalind's "estimations of the repeat 34 Angstrom in

the B form of DNA, which was essential for checking the model for the proper pitch of the

helix."a The information in the MRC report was viewed without the consent of Franklin. addins

weight to thei'lnorality of Watson's ac{ions. Even when Franklin contributed this valuabl]\' l

qOf orbcr$.

information, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins did not share the credit for the discovery of DNA's[ ' .

structure with her". in reward for her contribulion, James Watson described tn 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, "Had Watson, Crick, and Wilkins

1!4 properly acknowledged Franklin's contribution, Rosalind Franklin would have shared theN

)) .nor-ous public recognition that Watson and Crick received for discovering the helical structure"\\i\

, *\r - of the DNA molecule."6

*\S \

t "Look, there's a helix, and that damned woman just won't sss it,"7 were the words of

tJ r/) ;t-S .* Maurice Wilkins, referencing Photograph 51, which he toeklfrom-fier draweB without her\ * #"al<nt^qg,*s 0/(: permission. James Watson also repeatedly attacked Rosalind Franklin's position against the

i t )l-:

* helical structure of DNA in The Double Helix, when in fact Franklin did acknowledge the helixi \

,_,. .- +{ iS ,.\i as the most Eolsib-k structure for DNA. James Watson relates, "...since to-hor mind [Rosalind.P i"S ' Franklin's] there was not a shred of evidence that DNA was helical."8 James Watson was\* ,J-. \

\ ,V ignoring Franklin's unpublished notes from 195 | and 1952 that showed that Franklin was certain\

'.\ X-;q!' (q about the helical nature of wet DNA, but since dry DNA presented a different structure in the X-\--1.*)

ray diffraction pictures, she searched for a structure which would explain that patterns produced-t\

S \ in both forms.e Evi{ently, Rosalind Franklin's motivation for her research on DNA was not.$ 1r uY$|ute

^ t5- 'fi rushing to f;u4ss the structure of DNA so that she could win a Nobel Pnze, but understanding the

tJz. ,\Jx.terfifv

asons 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, phosphates on the outside, phosphate-phosphate interhelical bonds disrupted

by waste links available to protein'i.':'rto Even in 1953, when Watson and Crick finished their

qDdV+ otaq r4ct fuce in Fcsq ltrd s o,j n*

fF

-9.:

a--t-

C\+(\

1II

model of the structure of DNA, and had Rosalind Franklin review the model, Watson still

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 1f

the double

helix."ll Clearly, the stubborn mind belonged to Watson, who once again assuredithat Franklin

did not agree with the helix nature of DNA, perhaps thinking that lher female intellect was notp lcrf n

capable of seeing such eVj4pnt fac$after years of study-trg DNA.

ty)rc fnctflMoreover, Rosalind Franklin wasAcapable of solving the problem of the structure of

DNA,andi tsroleingenet ics,wi thouttne@(1,M:,o^: ! , ' "byWatsonand

Wilkins. In an interview by Arure 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."l2 Also, author Brenda

Maddox describes Aaron Klug's (Franklin's colleague at Brikbeck College) conclusion that -.1, -".,' ? f **vv',, Lb4J

"...after reviewing her notebooks and reports, which had been given to1lim after her death, both

heandFrancisCrickbecameconvincedthatshewaspoignantlyclose.,, l3nri lnt1in3"d@,w,

did publish their X-ray diffraction research results, and the results were published in the same

4\rt tjournal Aidgwatson and ffz@Crick's original paper was published4but it was too late.

Mf fro^W^*5 6"< Unj'&efi paper was taken just as confirmation for Watson and Crick's discovery. Rosalind

Franklin's approach was about understanding the data, ruling out other possibilities, and obtain

new insights about DNA, which differs from some the competitive approach that Wa$ofl,and

Crick adopted, which was about spylng on other p"opl'.', progress, finding out what they knew,

and publishing first to obtain all the credit, and ultimately the Nobel Pize. ':-: i. i l"Jariraffq -\' +Pqrlr4 U

James Watson's portrayal of Rosy in The Double Helix is i x#J+isoucarrv c-'foorhhc s *

inaccurate, Wbffiaded g(exist comments about Franklin personality/and*o.k. Rosalind = K

=46l ,r ; f*

Ssr$'^t r=$ G

FiTJ

s&

W,h

s\)--I '

qodd 6nrle!/vn,tinqFranklin was exceptiorraiut both obtaining data, anC sfi#ffi-Oatu,' {u"to her discoveries on

the DNA h"li** . The discovery of the

structure of DNA could not have been possible at the time without her 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 ignoraqce towards her approach to science, and their dqficiency to backdfttq, ilo iTa ltcic

up their models with concrete ddh In contrast to Watson and Crick's orql ty_?:::gproach

to the DNA's structure problem, and their use of science as a medium for recognition, fame and

the Nobel Pize,Rosalind Franklin dta ,her ryfficwork fo-r Wffi;standings and theBo qa[vrd 4

?h,ted thrSimprovement of humanityp iia5$ident later

""1ilh€r+#^4ren she worked on the helical

structure of the tobacco mosaic virus, until a few weeks before her death.