Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA

Rating:
Summary: Nobel Prizes Are Not Given Posthumously
Review: "Rosalind Franklin The Dark Lady Of DNA", is a biography, and is not so laden with science that the lay-person cannot read and enjoy the work. But I did read, and will comment, as a lay-reader who is fascinated by the people and the methods they used to uncover one of the great discoveries in the History of Science.

I found this book recommended in The Scientific American magazine. Despite its reputation for being for the trained scientist, or very well studied amateur, the magazine routinely suggests very approachable books for the inquisitive reader. The biography is very readable, and when science becomes integral to the story, the explanations offered together with the diagrams, make the science accessible to the lay-reader. The discussion of DNA is limited to the parts that were to play such a controversial role in who was given credit, received Nobel Prizes, or in this book, the woman, Rosalind Franklin, who was pushed aside. The reasons she was kept from the honors and recognition she deserved are many, and the book covers them in great detail, but as strong a reason as any was the fact she was a pioneer as a female in what was then, virtually an entirely all men's discipline. She also became terminally ill just as the papers and announcements regarding the discoveries of the famed double-helix were being published, and this made her marginalization all that much easier.

The names Watson and Crick are synonymous with the discovery of the double helix of DNA. What is less well known is that their discovery happened when it did, not only because of their work, but the absolutely critical and essential work done by Rosalind Franklin. A photograph she took, entitled simply number 51, was shown without her knowledge together with other information that made the announcements of Watson and Crick possible long before they otherwise would have been possible to proclaim.

Rosalind Franklin was to die at age 37, and 4 short years later Nobel Prizes were given out to those that benefited directly and substantially from her work. The better part of half a century has passed, and despite the naming of buildings, science research facilities, and attempts to revise the historical record to give this amazing woman her due, it will never be enough.

Brenda Maddox has written an important work for everyone as she is helping to document a historical record that was deeply flawed, and now slowly is being corrected. This book is important to so many for the same reason the name Watson and Crick are so important. Rosalind Franklin was one of the keys to the discovery of DNA, her work made Watson and Crick's announcements possible, and History should be taught correctly. Students today should know the most accurate version of what took place, not simply what has become generally accepted wisdom

Equally important is why her work was shared unethically, without her knowledge, and why such behavior was tolerated. This book goes a long way toward exposing these valid questions and why it is so important the record be accurate.

There is no way to know whether Rosalind Franklin would have been given The Nobel Prize along with Watson and Crick had she lived. The number of women honored by that society is absurdly small, and again the author demonstrates not only how many amazing women have been excluded, but how many men you would expect to see rewarded were passed over for names that will surprise you. The examples given cover literature, and the honorees and those ignored will amaze you.

One fact is certain, The Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously, and unless that were ever to change any persons who may have been deserving will never be recognized. Maybe it is enough that the historical record is being corrected, for even if it is not, certain manners of honoring historic contributions to science will always be closed to Rosalind Franklin and that is simply unjust.

Rating:
Summary: Science for the love of it, not the glory.
Review: A story of an unmarried Jewish woman in a man's world of science. The biography of Rosalind Franklin opens the book on a well-to-do Jewish family in the UK, revealing some of the deep-seated pressures and motivations driving this remarkable experimentalist. As a Biochemist, I now appreciate the fact that there is more to the discovery of the double helix than you will read about in The Double Helix. Indeed, the discovery of the double helix may be a 50 year-old example paralleling today's insider trading. The discovery of the double helix is the story of how someone is presented with the unpublished data of Rosalind Franklin (the acknowledged key to the structure of DNA)and "sells" the product to the world without her permission or knowledge. Warning: this book may change your perspective. I could not put this book down.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but could be better
Review: As the previous review said, this book does justify Franklin's position in the discovery of DNA. And it does present the story from more than one side. It was well organized, quite engaging and interesting. I could not help admiring Franklin for her high ability and high standard in experiments.

For those considering choosing science as their career, they can get a glimpse of how it feels doing scientific research. However, they should not use this book as a reference. Although this book depicted the hard side of hard science much more than "The Double Helix", it does not give you the whole picture. The book misses two important ingredients: First, experiments are planned very carefully and meticulously, meticulously and carefully. One can never overestimate the importance of this part. For me this is hard, but still interesting. Second, the most time consuming, boring, tedious and mistake-prone part is preparation (including setting up instruments, preparing sample, setting up essays, etc), which was attempted to describe in this book, but far from adequate. (For that, I give Franklin my full admiration). If one is to do science, he/she has to have so much passion for science to overcome, or more accurately say, completely ignore or even enjoy this pitfall.

There are two things that I don't like about this book:
1. Although this book tries to present the complete story, it is narrated in a defensive tone for Franklin. It could have defended Franklin better if it is in a more objective tone. Just give one example: on why Franklin was denied the credit she should have got, the book admits that Franklin was in bad temper at least at Kings college. The book explains it in a way Watson tries to excuse himself in "The Double Helix". It is understandable that why she could have this bad temper. However, everyone who wants to succeed anywhere should know how important it is to maintain good relationship with colleagues. One can never imagine ordering his/her boss to do or not to do something for any given reason just like what Franklin did. When conflict happens, rarely is only one side to blame.

2. When the book describes the Franklin's pre-doctoral years, the narrate of her intellectual development is alternated with that of world war two background, which I think hinder the flow of that part of the book.

Rating:
Summary: Franklin's real biography
Review: Brenda Maddox does a masterful job of laying out the life story of Rosalind Franklin, the supposed "forgotten lady of DNA". This biography is far superior to the personal vendetta waged against J D Watson on Franklin's behalf by Anne Sayre (see my comments on "Rosalind Franklin and DNA" by Anne Sayre).

Rosalind Franklin is the King's College scientist who obtained the x-ray photograph of the B form of DNA which was an important piece of information in the eventual description of a model of the structure of DNA that was described by J D Watson and FHC Crick in 1953, and for which they, along with Maurice Wilkins, won the Nobel Prize. Much has been written about whether Franklin was robbed of credit for her DNA contribution, whether she would have determined the structure by herself, and whether she would have shared in the Nobel. Whether these things are true or may have come to pass is difficult to say. Franklin died in 1958 and without her answers to some of these questions we are only left to speculate.

However Maddox leaves little speculation about who Rosalind Franklin was. This is a model biography of a true pioneer and an excellent role model for those seeking a career in the sciences. My own career was greatly influenced by Watson's personal account of the description of the model DNA structure he and Crick proposed. At that time (1971) I was more taken with the intuitive thinking displayed by the protagonists and their after hours antics than by the portrayal of "Rosy". In following years I have read Sayre and also Crick and others and have been somewhat bemused by the situation that surrounds Franklin and DNA, perhaps because it is almost all personal opinion and speculation. Maddox's picture is none of this. Her book is the description of a talented, strong-willed, opinioned female scientist and yes, a feminist. There is little doubt that Franklin made significant scientific contributions. There is also little doubt that she was emotionally immature and fragile. There is even less doubt that she died far, far, far too young but with great dignity and spirit. The first chapters on the pre-Rosalind history of the Franklin's is slow going but the reader is more than compensated by the final chapters that touchingly describe Franklin's last months. In her last few years we see a woman making her place in a man's world, and doing it very successfully. Her emotional life may even have been close to being fulfilled. But abdominal pains herald the beginning of repeated cancer treatments which culminate in her death before her work on viral structure was to be displayed in exhibition. Watson's book is fun, an easy read about how science is done (by some) but Rosalind's story is filled with overwhelming emotion about how a life was lived and cut short. She was robbed of the only real prize - life.

Rating:
Summary: Fragile Excellence
Review: Brenda Maddox writes a book that amalgamates her subject's technical performance with her human frailties. She presents Rosalind Franklin as technically gifted and thorough to a degree most mortals would not comprehend, with a personality that is simultaneously beautiful & hostile, fragile & robust, all in the one human being.

What is refreshing is Maddox' honesty in dealing with her subject, and the intense warmth she brings to her. The counterpoint of Rosalind's scientific brilliance on the one hand and her vulnerability on the other makes her an absorbing character. She inspires as being prosaic at one level, artless at another and exceptionally diligent and intelligent.

But in the end Brenda Maddox leaves another message - that Rosalind Franklin despite her strengths and weaknesses, was beautifully human. And this is the refreshing part.

Rating:
Summary: Fragile Excellence
Review: Brenda Maddox writes a book that amalgamates her subject's technical performance with her human frailties. She presents Rosalind Franklin as technically gifted and thorough to a degree most mortals would not comprehend, with a personality that is simultaneously beautiful & hostile, fragile & robust, all in the one human being.

What is refreshing is Maddox' honesty in dealing with her subject, and the intense warmth she brings to her. The counterpoint of Rosalind's scientific brilliance on the one hand and her vulnerability on the other makes her an absorbing character. She inspires as being prosaic at one level, artless at another and exceptionally diligent and intelligent.

But in the end Brenda Maddox leaves another message - that Rosalind Franklin despite her strengths and weaknesses, was beautifully human. And this is the refreshing part.

Rating:
Summary: Who Discoverd the Structure of DNA?
Review: Brenda Maddox' ROSALIND FRANKLIN: THE DARK LADY OF DNA and ROSALIND FRANKLIN AND DNA by Anne Sayre both imply that Rosalind Franklin was the true discoverer of DNA and that James Watson & Francis Crick, with the help of Maurice Wilkins, stole her discovery.

Rosalind Franklin was no doubt an excellent scientist, a molecular biologist, who, along with Linus Paulding in the US, sought to solve the puzzle of DNA. She was a painstaking researcher, who compiled much of the fundamental data on the subject (in the form of x-ray photos of DNA). Her work provided the crucial information that enabled Watson & Crick to make their breakthrough discovery of the structure of DNA.

But the fact remains that, while she had the information, she did not make the discovery. Watson & Crick did. Could she have arrived at their conclusion give more time and more research? Perhaps. But the question is irrelevant. She didn't. They did. Watson & Crick did not "steal" her discovery. They made it on their own - no doubt with the invaluable help of her data.

But that is the way scientific discoveries are made. The great breakthroughs are always based on previous inconclusive research and data compiled by other scientists. Such information is the common property of the scientific community, not the private property of individual researchers. Progress is made through the sharing of data, studies and findings. Science progresses not in secret, but through an open system of shared information.

The credit for any scientific discovery goes to those who reach the solution first, not to those who work toward the solution or provide the data on which the solution is ultimately based.

The fact is that such discoveries are often the result of a combination of painstaking research and illuminating insight. Rosalind Franklin was a painstaking researcher. But it was Watson & Crick who had the brilliant insight.

I believe that this episode is an example of Thomas Kuhn's theory of the function of paradigms - the framework of existing concepts that dominate any field of human endeavor. The effect of paradigms is to "blind" those who work within the existing conceptual framework to possibilities that become visible to those who work "outside the box," - i.e. outside the paradigm. To work within an existing paradigm is to expect a certain solution and, inevitably, to look for that solution.

I believe that this is probably what happened with the discovery of DNA. While Rosalind Franklin was working within the framework of the existing molecular biological paradigm, Watson & Crick stepped outside the box and were able to view the data in a new and different way. This was because neither Watson (a zoologist & bacteriologist) nor Crick (a physicist turned chemist) were molecular biologists and were therefore not trapped in the existing paradigm of molecular biology. This enabled them to see what Franklin and Paulding didn't see. Therefore, it was Watson & Crick who became the discoverers of the structure of DNA and received the credit, and the Nobel Prize they fully deserved.

To give Rosalind Franklin credit for the research she did and the data she so painstakingly assembled (data which enabled Watson & Crick to make their breakthrough discovery) is a generous thing. But for these authors to imply that they "stole" her discovery is inaccurate. It has far less to do with the pursuit of scientific or historic truth than it does with the pursuit of a feminist agenda.


Rating:
Summary: A Woman Brought Into Focus
Review: For years Rosalind Franklin has been mistaken as the Joan of Arc of the science world. While Watson and Crick were hailed for discovering the complex double helix of the DNA's shape, Rosalind was left in the background. While the truth of the matter is that Roalind Franklin took the picture and formed the theory of the double helix before Watson and Crick had even begun to formulate thier theories on DNA. Most people look at Rosalind as yet just another example of men steeling the credit form women. For a long time this was what I had been taught to believe.
The book Rosalind Frinklin: The Dark Lady of DNA by Brenda Maddox is a no-nonsence, straight facts, kind of book about Rosalind's life. When brought into focus this "alarmingly clever" woman was one of the most interesting women I have ever read about in my life. Growing up in a well-to-do family Rosalind basicly had no adversity to overcome except that of her gender, and yet that was a heavy yolk to bear. Most scientists during the time were male and they disliked the idea of a woman comming into a man's matters. Women were not thought of as especially intellegent back then and were meant to stay in thier place. Rosalind struggled though it all to make a starteling discovery that would later be credited to two male scientists. But the theme of the book does not neccesarily focus on how Rosalind was shunned from the high-school chemisry books and nearly fogotten in the scheme of things. It more focuses on Roaslind as a person. An introverted, shy woman, calm and cool but with a temper that would come out in flashes, Maddox paints the picture of Rosalind Franklin with such detail that one cannot help but marvel at Rosalind's strength and passion for all that she did.
This book is a wonderful interpretation of one of the most shadowy, misinterpretted and almost forgoten people in history. A clear veiw of the dark lady.

Rating:
Summary: Great scientist, good woman cheated of recognition...
Review: Gee, it's amazing how little has changed over the past 50-odd years. They just released a report (National Science Foundation) showing how few women and minorities have places of importance in research and clinical science throughout the U.S. and her universities and corporations. It's a major struggle still to try to be a scientist, whether you are a woman, whether you are slightly older then the normal student, whether you are a racial minority, or an 'ability' minority. I should know: I was three of the above, and many of my professors in med school for Neuroscience (research) made my life miserable to the point of having to leave the program.

Rosalind Franklin accomplished a lot in her short life. She was a magnificent crystallographer: A science which is not used much anymore, but without whom we could not elucidated much in chemistry and biology. Unfortunately, she had many detractors, one of whom is James Watson. Those of us involved and embroiled in bioethics and disability do not have a very high opinion of this man anyway, because of statements made in the last few years involving genetics about 'getting rid of all the ugly women' and 'the lower IQ 10% in society" (there will always be a lower 10% no matter how many people you 'rid' society of until you get to just James Watson!). This book just confirmed that what I thought was the rantings of an old man, were actually the confirmed prejudices of a chauvinistic scientist.

If it had not been for Franklin, Watson and Crick would not have quickly reached their 'eureka' moment in determining the structure of DNA. The work of Franklin which was in for publishing was more or less handed to Watson and Crick, and her photography was seen by Watson without her permission. She walked into her office to find Watson going through her work...it's amazing that this information has not been recognized by now. Ethically, WAtson and Crick made use of her work, without giving her recognition. And since the Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously, she was not included in the recognition. Makes you wonder if she had lived, given the obvious prejudice against women still in science, if she would have been recognized. Few women are. In fact, in the last few years, I cannot remember a single woman in science being recognized by the Nobel Committee.

It's time to rectify this injustice. I would hope and suggest that some other group such as Microsoft would provide a grant such as Nobel's that recognizes both minorities and women in science and technology whose work has provided much needed diversity in thought and in science (whether living or dead). The Prize could set up chairs or fund work in the name of Rosalind Franklin and provide the real history behind the discovery of DNA, as well as give her family the retroactive place of pride that they should have in her. Such a prize would also encourage young women and minorities, whether racial or ability or cultural, with the mentors they need to encourage them to go into science. Without diversity, the prejudices of a few become major social programs, especially in genetics. A return to eugenics would be less likely to happen if science is diverse.

Karen L. SAdler,
Science Education,
University of Pittsburgh

Rating:
Summary: From one not really conversant with the nuances of science..
Review: I don't have the scientific background to adequately appreciate everything in this mesmerizing book. I recently had the privilege of meeting a scientist who once worked with Dr. Franklin, and this meeting sparked my interest in learning more about her. It isn't often that one has the opportunity to realize the complexity of personality, and interpersonal relationships, behind scientific discovery. I believe that if more students were encouraged to "get acqainted" with working scientists in a similar fashion, who knows what the next, great discovery might be?