[Historians have long debated the role that Dr. Franklin played in
identifying the double helix. A new opinion essay argues that she was
an “equal contributor.” ]
[[link removed]]

DNA AT 70: UNTANGLING ROSALIND FRANKLIN’S ROLE  
[[link removed]]


 

Emily Anthes
April 25, 2023
New York Times
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Historians have long debated the role that Dr. Franklin played in
identifying the double helix. A new opinion essay argues that she was
an “equal contributor.” _

Rosalind Franklin, by MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology (CC BY-SA
4.0)

 

On April 25, 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick published a
landmark paper [[link removed]] in Nature,
proposing the double helix as the long elusive structure of DNA, a
discovery that a decade later earned the men the Nobel Prize in
Physiology or Medicine.

In the final paragraph of the paper, they acknowledged that they had
been “stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the
unpublished experimental results and ideas” of two scientists at
King’s College London, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin.

In the 70 years since, a less flattering story has emerged, thanks in
large part to Dr. Watson’s own best-selling book, “The Double
Helix.” In the book, he not only wrote disparagingly of Dr.
Franklin, whom he called Rosy, but also said that he and Dr. Crick had
used her data without her knowledge.

“Rosy, of course, did not directly give us her data,” Dr. Watson
wrote. “For that matter, no one at King’s realized they were in
our hands.”

This account became a parable of poor scientific behavior, leading to
a backlash against Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick and turning Dr. Franklin
into a feminist icon. It also set off a long-running debate among
historians: Precisely what role did Dr. Franklin play in the discovery
of the double helix, and to what extent was she wronged?

In a new opinion essay
[[link removed]], published in
Nature on Tuesday, two scholars argue that what transpired “was less
malicious than is widely assumed.” The scholars, Matthew Cobb, a
zoologist and historian at the University of Manchester who is writing
a biography of Dr. Crick, and Nathaniel Comfort, a historian of
medicine at Johns Hopkins University who is writing a biography of Dr.
Watson, draw upon two previously overlooked documents in Dr.
Franklin’s archive.

These documents, they say, suggest that Dr. Franklin knew that Dr.
Watson and Dr. Crick had access to her data and that she and Dr.
Wilkins collaborated with them. “We should be thinking of Rosalind
Franklin, not as the victim of DNA, but as an equal contributor and
collaborator to the structure,” Dr. Comfort said.

Other experts said that the new documents were interesting but did not
radically change the narrative; it has long been clear that Dr.
Franklin played a key role in the discovery. “What this does is add
a little new evidence to a trail, which leads directly to Franklin’s
being a major participant,” said David Oshinsky, a historian of
medicine at New York University.

And regardless of what Dr. Franklin knew about who had access to her
data, the new documents do not change the fact that she did not
receive adequate recognition for her work, some historians said.

“What is unequal and has always been unequal and is still unequal
about Rosalind Franklin is the credit that she didn’t get in the
aftermath of the discovery,” said Dr. Jacalyn Duffin, a hematologist
and historian of medicine at Queen’s University, in Canada.

Seeing double

 

[A fuzzy, black-and-white image showing an X-ray diffraction pattern,
which is x-shaped in a grayish circle.]

A crystallographic X-ray image from Dr. Franklin’s lab that helped
identify the structure of DNA. Science History Images, via Alamy

In the early 1950s, Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick were working together at
the University of Cambridge, in Britain, trying to piece together the
structure of DNA, largely by building models of the molecule.

At nearby Kings College London, Dr. Franklin and Dr. Wilkins were
trying to solve the same puzzle experimentally, using X-rays to create
images of DNA. (They had a famously fractious relationship, and
largely worked separately.)

In “The Double Helix,” Dr. Watson suggested that his breakthrough
came after Dr. Wilkins showed him one of Dr. Franklin’s images,
known as Photograph 51. “The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell
open and my pulse began to race,” Dr. Watson wrote.

That book was published in 1968, a decade after Dr. Franklin died of
ovarian cancer at age 37, and it became the prevailing narrative of
the discovery. But the real story was more complex.

In December 1952, Dr. Crick’s supervisor, the molecular biologist
Max Perutz, received a report on Dr. Franklin’s unpublished results
during an official visit to King’s College. Dr. Perutz later gave
this report to Dr. Crick and Dr. Watson.

This data proved more useful to the pair than Photograph 51, said Dr.
Cobb and Dr. Comfort, who found a letter that implies Dr. Franklin
knew her results had made their way to Cambridge.

In the letter, which was written in January 1953, Pauline Cowan, a
scientist at King’s College, invited Dr. Crick to an upcoming talk
by Dr. Franklin and her student. But, Dr. Cowan wrote, Dr. Franklin
and her student said that Dr. Perutz “already knows more about it
than they are likely to get across so you may not think it worthwhile
coming.”

That letter “strongly suggests” that Dr. Franklin knew the
Cambridge researchers had access to her data and that she “doesn’t
seem to have minded,” Dr. Cobb said.

Dr. Cobb and Dr. Comfort also found a draft of a never-published Time
magazine article about the discovery of the double helix. The draft
characterized the research not as a race but as the product of two
teams that were working in parallel and occasionally conferring with
each other.

“It portrays the work on the double helix, the solving of the double
helix, as the work of four equal contributors,” Dr. Comfort said.

A question of credit

[A black-and-white image of Dr. Franklin, who sits outdoors on a block
of stone in a scenic area at the foot of a cliff. ]

Historians say there is no evidence of ill will from Dr. Franklin, who
became friendly with Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick in the final years of
her brief life. Science History Images, via Alamy

Elspeth Garman, a molecular biophysicist at the University of Oxford,
said that she agreed with Dr. Comfort and Dr. Cobb’s conclusion,
saying, “They got right that she was a full participant.”

But Dr. Perutz’s sharing of Dr. Franklin’s unpublished data is
“slightly iffy,” she said. (In 1969, Dr. Perutz wrote that the
report was not confidential but that he should have asked for
permission
[[link removed]] to share
it “as a matter of courtesy.”)

Still, other scientists and historians said they were puzzled by the
arguments made in the Nature essay. Helen Berman, a structural
biologist at Rutgers University, called them “sort of strange.” Of
Dr. Franklin, she said, “If she was an equal member, then I don’t
know that she was treated very well.”

Dr. Franklin and Dr. Wilkins each published
[[link removed]] their own results
[[link removed]] in the same issue of
Nature that included Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick’s report, as part of a
package of papers. But Dr. Berman wondered why the scientists did not
collaborate on a single paper with shared authorship. And several
scholars said that they thought the new essay minimized the wrongdoing
by the Cambridge team.

Dr. Comfort said that he and Dr. Cobb were not “trying to
exonerate” Dr. Watson and Dr. Crick, whom he said were “slow to
fully acknowledge” Dr. Franklin’s contribution. Dr. Cobb said that
the Cambridge scientists should have told Dr. Franklin that they were
using her data. “They were ungallant,” he said. “They were not
as open as they should have been.” But, he added, it wasn’t
“theft.”

There is no evidence that Dr. Franklin felt aggrieved by what
happened, historians said, and she became friendly
[[link removed]] with the Cambridge duo
in the final years of her brief life. “As far as I can tell, there
was no bad feeling,” Dr. Oshinsky said.

That might have changed had Dr. Franklin lived long enough to read
“The Double Helix,” several scholars noted. “‘The Double
Helix’ is just appalling,” Dr. Garman said. “It gives a very,
very slanted view, and doesn’t give her the credit for the bits that
they even used from her.”

Dr. Franklin’s early death also meant she missed out on the Nobel
Prize, but the Nobel Assembly could have found other ways to
acknowledge her contribution, said Nils Hansson, a historian of
medicine at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, in Germany. Neither
Dr. Watson nor Dr. Crick mentioned her when they accepted their
awards, Dr. Hansson noted, although Dr. Wilkins, who also received the
prize, did.

“She truly did get a raw deal,” said Dr. Howard Markel, a
physician and historian of medicine at the University of Michigan and
the author of “The Secret of Life,” a book about the discovery of
the double helix. “Everyone likes to receive proper credit for their
work. Everyone should care enough about their colleagues to ensure the
process of fair play.”

_Emily Anthes
[[link removed]] is
a reporter for The Times, where she focuses on science and health and
covers topics like the coronavirus pandemic, vaccinations, virus
testing and Covid in children. More about Emily Anthes
[[link removed]]_

_A version of this article appears in print on May 2, 2023, New York
Times with the headline: Essay Extends Debate Over DNA
Discovery. Subscribe
[[link removed]]_

* Rosalind Franklin
[[link removed]]
* Science
[[link removed]]
* DNA
[[link removed]]
* Women in Science
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]