Rating: 
Summary: The Forgotten Heroine of the Double Helix
Review: +++++
I read Dr. James Watson's "The Double Helix"(1968) years ago. In it, he badly caricatured Dr. Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958) by systematically stereotyping her. (However, in his book's epilogue he does admit that his initial impressions of her were often wrong.)
I forgot about this until I read the late Dr. Linus Pauling's "How to Live Longer and Feel Better" (1986). In the 'About the Author' section I read the following: "Watson and [Dr. Francis] Crick [both of whom worked in the Cavendish lab at Cambridge University, England] proposed the double-helix structure, which turned out to be correct. Watson and Crick had the advantage of X-ray [diffraction] photographs of DNA taken by Rosalind Franklin [who worked in a lab at King's College, a division of the University of London], an advantage denied Pauling [who worked overseas in a U.S. lab]."
Years later I read "Linus Pauling: Scientist and Peacemaker" (2001). One science article in this book called "The Triple Helix" said Pauling saw Franklin as "a talented young crystallographer [a scientist who is expert in structure and properties of crystals]" and that he had great admiration for her abilities. It also states that "[Dr. Maurice] Wilkins [the scientist who 'worked with' Franklin at King's College] was not...well trained in [the] interpretation of X-ray photos [like Franklin was]."
Thus, my interest was aroused!! I wanted to learn more about Franklin. I thus chose Anne Sayre's book for two reasons:
(1) It was originally published in 1975, just over 15 years after Franklin's death meaning the memories of events were still relatively fresh in people's minds and key people were still alive. (Contrast this to a book written in 2002, ALMOST 45 YEARS after Franklin's death. Are people's memories still reliable and are all key people still alive?)
(2) Since Sayre was Franklin's friend, she would be privy to information that only friends could share.
Sayre's book has many good features:
(1) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SECTION. In it she stated that she interviewed many scientists and/or their wives as well as significant others that were still alive. She also had access to her scientist husband (who was also a crystallographer) as well as Franklin's mother and friends.
I was surprised that Wilkins and Watson both consented "to lengthy and frank interviews." Crick also consented.
Knowing all this quelled my trepidation that this book would somehow be biased and inaccurate.
(2) THE BOOK'S INTRODUCTION (chapter 1). Here she tells us why she wrote this book. It was in response to Watson's caricature of Franklin in his 1968 book. Sayre states, "[She] was not recognizable as Rosalind Franklin. She was recognizable as something else not related to the facts."
Sayre also states that her book is more than just a biography since "biography is too cruel a word to use in connection with a life which was over long before it was finished."
(3) THE BOOK'S CONTENT (chapters 2 to 11). These chapters give a good, detailed description of Franklin. These chapters can be divided into three parts. In these parts the author describes the science Franklin was involved in. Sayre does a good job in making the science understandable. These parts also touch on other things such as science ethics and communication, the nature of science, psychology, and sexism in science. As well, included are copies of Franklin's critical lab notes and transcriptions of interviews with key people.
Also, I could not detect any evidence of Sayre having a personal vendetta against Watson.
Part I includes chapters 2 and 3. This part give insight into Franklin's character, her education, significant people she met, and much more. It covers the years from 1920 to 1950.
Part II includes chapters 4 to 9. It covers the years from 1951 to early 1953. These were the years she worked in DNA research.
The major event that transpired during these years was that Wilkins (and others) passed Franklin's data and her X-ray photos of DNA (especially the X-ray photo of the alternative or 'B' form of DNA) to Watson and Crick without her permission, and this critical information enabled them to determine the structure of DNA. (Pauling's structural model was inadequate because, as mentioned, he did not have access to these photos.)
In 1962, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins won a shared Nobel Prize in physiology "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material."
Part III encompasses chapters 10 and 11. It covers the years from mid-1953 to Franklin's death from cancer in 1958. During this time, she worked at a different lab on tobacco virus research and later, on polio virus research.
(4) THE BOOK'S AFTERWORD SECTION. This section discusses various issues vigorously. Some examples of what's discussed include the importance of Franklin's discoveries, what might have been if she had not died so young, how poorly Watson's book portrayed her, and more.
(5) NOTES. There are over ten pages of footnotes at the end of the book. These contain REVEALING information that never made it into the main narrative.
(6) PAULING'S BOOK ENDORSEMENT. This two-time Nobel Prize winner states his endorsement on the book's back cover. I think this speaks volumes for the book's quality!
It's good to know that Rosalind Franklin is now being honored posthumously and her reputation is being restored as part of a government crusade against sexism in science. Also, as of 2002, the "Franklin Medal" is awarded in her honor to exceptional women scientists.
Finally, besides the books mentioned above, I recommend reading "The Third Man of the Double Helix" (2003) by Maurice Wilkins to get his side of this story.
In conclusion, if you want to learn about a gifted female scientist and know the true story of the discovery of DNA's structure, then read this fascinating and honest book!!!
+++++
Rating:
Summary: The Forgotten Heroine of the Double Helix
Review: =====>I read Dr. James Watson's "The Double Helix"(1968) years ago. In it, he badly caricatured Dr. Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958) by systematically stereotyping her. (However, in his book's epilogue he does admit that his initial impressions of her were often wrong.) I forgot about this until I read the late Dr. Linus Pauling's "How to Live Longer and Feel Better" (1986). In the 'About the Author' section I read the following: "Watson and [Dr. Francis] Crick [both of whom worked in the Cavendish lab at Cambridge University, England] proposed the double-helix structure, which turned out to be correct. Watson and Crick had the advantage of X-ray [diffraction] photographs of DNA taken by Rosalind Franklin [who worked in a lab at King's College, a division of the University of London], an advantage denied Pauling [who worked overseas in a U.S. lab]." Years later I read "Linus Pauling: Scientist and Peacemaker" (2001). One science article in this book called "The Triple Helix" said Pauling saw Franklin as "a talented young crystallographer [a scientist who is expert in structure and properties of crystals]" and that he had great admiration for her abilities. It also states that "[Dr. Maurice] Wilkins [the scientist who 'worked with' Franklin at King's College] was not...well trained in [the] interpretation of X-ray photos [like Franklin was]." Thus, my interest was aroused!! I wanted to learn more about Franklin. I thus chose Anne Sayre's book for two reasons: (1) It was originally published in 1975, just over 15 years after Franklin's death meaning the memories of events were still relatively fresh in people's minds and key people were still alive. (Contrast this to a book written in 2002, ALMOST 45 YEARS after Franklin's death. Are people's memories still reliable and are all key people still alive?) (2) Since Sayre was Franklin's friend, she would be privy to information that only friends could share. Sayre's book has many good features: (1) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SECTION. In it she stated that she interviewed many scientists and/or their wives as well as significant others that were still alive. She also had access to her scientist husband (who was also a crystallographer) as well as Franklin's mother and friends. I was surprised that Wilkins and Watson both consented "to lengthy and frank interviews." Crick also consented. Knowing all this quelled my trepidation that this book would somehow be biased and inaccurate. (2) THE BOOK'S INTRODUCTION (chapter 1). Here she tells us why she wrote this book. It was in response to Watson's caricature of Franklin in his 1968 book. Sayre states, "[She] was not recognizable as Rosalind Franklin. She was recognizable as something else not related to the facts." Sayre also states that her book is more than just a biography since "biography is too cruel a word to use in connection with a life which was over long before it was finished." (3) THE BOOK'S CONTENT (chapters 2 to 11). These chapters give a good, detailed description of Franklin. These chapters can be divided into three parts. In these parts the author describes the science Franklin was involved in. Sayre does a good job in making the science understandable. These parts also touch on other things such as science ethics and communication, the nature of science, psychology, and sexism in science. As well, included are copies of Franklin's critical lab notes and transcriptions of interviews with key people. Also, I could not detect any evidence of Sayre having a personal vendetta against Watson. Part I includes chapters 2 and 3. This part give insight into Franklin's character, her education, significant people she met, and much more. It covers the years from 1920 to 1950. Part II includes chapters 4 to 9. It covers the years from 1951 to early 1953. These were the years she worked in DNA research. The major event that transpired during these years was that Wilkins (and others) passed Franklin's data and her X-ray photos of DNA (especially the X-ray photo of the alternative or 'B' form of DNA) to Watson and Crick without her permission, and this critical information enabled them to determine the structure of DNA. (Pauling's structural model was inadequate because, as mentioned, he did not have access to these photos.) In 1962, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins won a shared Nobel Prize for determining DNA's double helical structure. Franklin, who died in 1958, was not given any recognition for her contributions. (Note that Nobel Prizes cannot be given posthumously BUT recognition can!) Part III encompasses chapters 10 and 11. It covers the years from mid-1953 to Franklin's death from cancer in 1958. During this time, she worked at a different lab on tobacco virus research and later, on polio virus research. (4) THE BOOK'S AFTERWORD SECTION. This section discusses various issues vigorously. Some examples of what's discussed include the importance of Franklin's discoveries, what might have been if she had not died so young, how poorly Watson's book portrayed her, and more. (5) NOTES. There are over ten pages of footnotes at the end of the book. These contain REVEALING information that never made it into the main narrative. (6) PAULING'S BOOK ENDORSEMENT. This two-time Nobel Prize winner states his endorsement on the book's back cover. I think this speaks volumes for the book's quality! It's good to know that Rosalind Franklin is now being honored posthumously and her reputation is being restored as part of a government crusade against sexism in science. Also, as of 2002, the "Franklin Medal" is awarded in her honor to exceptional women scientists. Finally, besides the books mentioned above, I recommend reading "The Third Man of the Triple Helix" (November 2003) by Maurice Wilkins to get his side of this story. In conclusion, if you want to learn about a gifted female scientist and know the true story of the discovery of DNA's structure, then read this fascinating and honest book!!! ***<=====>***
Rating:
Summary: Reader from Sugar Land, Texas
Review: As several reviewers have noted, this book provides an antidote to James Watson's portrayal of Franklin in The Double Helix. Unfortunately, in this case the antidote is worse than the poison. Watson's book is beautifully written--it is the modern-day equivalent of Paul deKruif's Microbe Hunters. Sayre's book is almost unreadable. It is sentimental, clumsy, and worse of all vacuous. She spends a huge number of words saying "Bad boy, Jim!", but provides little in the way of evidence or substantive arguments--or any real insight into Franklin's science or character. Further, she has a shallow understanding of Watson. Having read it several years ago, I decided to assign both it and the Double Helix in a course on women in science and biography. As soon as I began rereading it, I regretted choosing it. It was far worse than I remembered. Franklin is certainly an interesting character who has been treated unfairly. If you're interested in her, though, wait till next year, when a new biography of Franklin will appear from Brenda Maddox.
Rating: 
Summary: Is Sayre unbiased or even accurate?
Review: For those who want an exhaustive, touching and unbiased biography of Rosalind Franklin read "Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA" by Brenda Maddox. It is far superior to Sayre's analysis. Unfortunately Sayre in trying to defend her friend gets too caught up in supposition on what Franklin was likely to do and not to do, rather than providing factual evidence. Much of Sayre's biography stems from her obvious hatred of J D Watson's personal recollection of events and this leads her into inaccuracies. In the first chapter of the book her attempt to discredit Watson has Sayre stating that the eyeglasses Watson mentions Franklin wearing are pure fiction. Maddox is not so easily swayed by personal vendetta and the photograph in Maddox's book of Franklin at a scientific meeting in 1949 wearing eyeglasses clearly says more about Sayre's motives than the proverbial thousand words. The question which none of the books on the description of thestructure of DNA can ever answer is whether Franklin would have won a Nobel had she lived. However bear in mind the following. Only three can receive the prize and Crick and Watson would always fill two of those slots. Wilkins in the obvious choice for the third spot because he stuck with DNA and provided additional experimental evidence in support of the Watson and Crick model. Franklin, although she provided help to her student Gosling after she left King's College (Against Randell's specific request that she not work on DNA) she was obviously moving on to other things. So what did Frankin provide that was important for the structure? The only really important detail was the excellent x-ray image of the B form. (Her discovery of the A and B forms was important but not for the Watson and Crick model.) The information contained in this image essentially constitutes the "stolen" data - data that was actually freely communicated amongst a number of scientists, and made available to Watson and Crick. Franklin was obviously aware that such information was used to make the model. Did she complain? Did she request coauthorship with the two "thieves"? No, she did not and it is clear from both Sayre and Maddox that if Franklin had thought she had been "robbed" she would have made her feelings known only too well! It is very possible that she knew the data had been widely disseminated. IMPORTANT EDIT: I, like many others, believed that a photograph of the B form was included with the material sent to out by Randell but rereading Horace Judson's excellent "The Eight Day of Creation" I find that no photo was included. Thus only Watson saw the B form photo, Crick did not. Any information Watson got regarding the photo must have come from Wilkins, as Judson notes. Ironically Franklin had all the information she needed to solve the main features of the structure (3.4A/base, 34A/turn and 20A width) months before Watson and Crick. Would Franklin have determined the structure herself? It is even more impossible to predict this than the award of the Nobel. But again bear in mind as the model was being published Franklin was leaving King's College and appears not to have done any more significant experimental work on DNA. Together with Gosling (who stayed at King's to complete his PhD) she may have been successful but she would have needed Watson's luck at having a chemist nearby who knew what chemical form of the bases was appropriate, and to make use of Chargaff's "rules". She would have needed to realize that the two sugar phosphate backbones run in opposite directions (apparently almost immediately obvious to Crick from the crystal data but not to Franklin) and she would have needed to build models - something she was not in favor of doing. Could she have done it in three weeks, maybe, three months, possibly. EXCEPT, she was leaving, moving on, leaving behind DNA which at that point was still only a model, albeit a biologically appealing model. The most important aspect of Franklin's story is that there is no evidence that she had Watson's unfailing belief that the structure would be the holy grail of biology. The most significant aspect of Watson's crusade was that he was never seriously sidetracked by others who wanted to restrict his interest. Rosalind Franklin was a strong-willed individual and an excellent scientist and if either Sayre or Maddox had provided me with evidence that she truly knew the potential significance of her work then I would more easily believe that she would have been determined to complete the structure, but the evidence is not there. When she voluntarily left King's College she left the prize behind.
Rating: 
Summary: A must read with Watson's story
Review: I agree completely with the reviewer from Bellevue, Wa: "A much-needed antidote to Watson's self-serving novel." Franklin was a pioneer and unfortunately died before she could share her well-deserved part of the Nobel Prize with Watson and Crick in 1962.
Rating:
Summary: Reader from Sugar Land, Texas
Review: I read James Watson's "The Double Helix" a number of years ago and assumed that it fairly described the events leading to the discovery of the structure of DNA. I especially remember the very negative impression I formed of Rosalind Franklin from Watson's description of her in that book.
Recently, while browsing in a local bookstore, I came across Sayre's book "Rosalind Franklin and DNA." It caught my attention because I enjoy reading about scientists, their lives, and their work. The book claimed to "set the record straight" concerning the story of Rosalind Franklin which also piqued my interest.
After reading this book, I must admit that I am quite baffled by the September 10, 2001 review from Baltimore below. I can assure anyone thinking about reading this book that it is exceptionally well written and very entertaining (not to mention extremely enlightening).
It is a well structured and convincing argument against Watson's very negative depiction of Franklin as a person and his condescending assessment of her abilities and accomplishments as a scientist. Although it is obvious that Sayre is arguing with the emotional zeal of one defending the reputation of a dear friend, she is very professional and methodical in her approach. She presents an overwhelming amount of testimony from the many people who know Rosalind Franklin intimately, (which Watson did not) and a very thorough and professional review of the pertinent scientific literature (which contradicts almost every opinion Watson gave of Franklin's work and abilities as a scientist). I gained a much better understanding and appreciation for who Rosalind Franklin was and what she really contributed to the pioneering work surrounding DNA. I regret that I so long maintained the distorted opinion gained from Watson's book.
I've always admired and respected James Watson as a scientist, but if Sayre's book paints a true picture then I am quite disappointed in him as a person. If you are a Watson-worshipper, you definitely will not like this book. But if you have an open mind and possess a sense of fairness you'll appreciate hearing Rosalind's side of the story as told through her friend Anne Sayre.
Rating:
Summary: who discovered dna?
Review: Sayre's book "Rosalind Franklin and DNA" discusses the contributions made by Franklin in the discovery of the double-helix of dna. It also discusses in detail Franklin's life. Despite the fact that Sayre was a friend of Franklin's, this book is excellently written and very informative.
Rating:
Summary: Gibberish to stupid people
Review: Sayre's book really was excellent, and, if read carefully enough, seems quite balanced and fair, although of course Sayre has a distinct preference, being a friend of Franklin's. "Blah" from Connecticut, another reviewer here, makes his or her critical credetials quite clear when he/she says the book was scientific and therefore "jibberish." Ah, the intellectual acuity of American conservatives. You see, "Blah," the book was about science; it's going to have "science things" in it; if you can't understand them, that's a reflection on you, not the author. I'm a white male from Way-Back-Woodsville, Alaska, and I found the book quite readable, informative, and insightful. It's obvious that Franklin was never given her due credit until Sayre's book came out some 20 years after Watson and Crick's "discovery"...which they NEVER could have made without Franklin's work. Watson claims he was racing against Linus Pauling, but it's obvious he was actually racing against Franklin. Even Crick, in Sayre's book, admits she was only a few weeks away from DNA's structure. If Watson hadn't robbed her, she would have trumped Watson, Crick, AND Pauling and would have won the Nobel all by herself. So, "Blah," if you appreciate thievery and self-aggrandizement, Watson's definitely your cup of Rush Limbaugh. Me, I'll stick with the real hero...ine: Rosalind Franklin
Rating:
Summary: Gibberish to stupid people
Review: Sayre's book really was excellent, and, if read carefully enough, seems quite balanced and fair, although of course Sayre has a distinct preference, being a friend of Franklin's. "Blah" from Connecticut, another reviewer here, makes his or her critical credetials quite clear when he/she says the book was scientific and therefore "jibberish." Ah, the intellectual acuity of American conservatives. You see, "Blah," the book was about science; it's going to have "science things" in it; if you can't understand them, that's a reflection on you, not the author. I'm a white male from Way-Back-Woodsville, Alaska, and I found the book quite readable, informative, and insightful. It's obvious that Franklin was never given her due credit until Sayre's book came out some 20 years after Watson and Crick's "discovery"...which they NEVER could have made without Franklin's work. Watson claims he was racing against Linus Pauling, but it's obvious he was actually racing against Franklin. Even Crick, in Sayre's book, admits she was only a few weeks away from DNA's structure. If Watson hadn't robbed her, she would have trumped Watson, Crick, AND Pauling and would have won the Nobel all by herself. So, "Blah," if you appreciate thievery and self-aggrandizement, Watson's definitely your cup of Rush Limbaugh. Me, I'll stick with the real hero...ine: Rosalind Franklin
Rating:
Summary: A much-needed antidote to Watson's self-serving novel
Review: This biography is not especially a quick and easy read. However, it is thorough and well researched The unethical behavior of the so-called discovers of the DNA double-helix when they discredited the vital contributions of Rosalind Franklin was despicable. James Watson added insult to injury by writing THE DOUBLE HELIX, a highly fictional, self-serving account of that discovery. This biography of Franklin irrefutably sets the record straight and at last makes clear Rosalind Franklin's indispensable role in the discovery.
|
