Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady Of DNA [Paperback]

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.

On the DNA controversy, Brenda Fox gives the most compelling account that I have read of what actually happened: if anything, Franklin was a victim of the fractious atmosphere created by J.T. Randall, head of the department of Biophysics at King's college. By not clarifying the working relations between Wilkins, Franklin and their students, Randall deliberately created an ugly turf war. That Watson and Crick got to see her data was a result of confusion rather than espionage.

Yet, the question is often raised that Franklin was not capable of solving the structure on her own. To answer that question, one only has to follow her later career to find out that she was truly one of the great crystallographers. Her elucidation of the structure of the tobacco mosaic virus was a technical achievement easily rivalling that of DNA, and might have led to a Nobel-prize if not for her early death. Indeed, her junior collaborator on the mosaic virus, Aaron Klug, would go on to win a Nobel prize himself, citing Franklin as his greatest mentor in his Nobel-prize speech (a high honour amongst scientists). Brenda Fox unearths a voluminous amount of material, which shows that Franklin was careful rather than unimaginative, as some have claimed. In a more supportive atmosphere, Franklin would have solved the DNA structure herself. However, Watson and Crick built on so many of Franklin's results (that DNA was helical, that the phosphates are on the outside, that there are 2 forms of DNA) that the real scandal is that they lied in their paper about having come to the model through pure theory alone.

Brenda Fox paints a magnetic portrait of Franklin - a woman who was alternatively gregarious and witty, with a penchant for all things French (a very fine prejudice indeed), yet was also cold, hostile and aristocratically overbearing. Her relations with the men in her life were complex and dissected with sympathetic acumen by Brenda Fox. In short, I came away with the impression that Rosalind Franklin was someone I would have liked to have known. I can think of no greater praise for a biography than that.

p.s. just a little note to a previous reviewer: crystallography in proteins is alive and well: the 2003 Chemistry Nobel-prize went to Rod McKinnon for the crystal structure of the potassium channel, in 1997, it went to John Walker for the structure of ATP-synthase.

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