DOCSLIB.ORG

HST 423 - Modem Science in World History

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HST 423 - Modem Science in World History '"------- HST 423 - Modem Science in World History Prof. Zuoyue Wang 12 March 2008 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 51, 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. Ifonly she would learn some theory,,,l hence labeling her work as mere data gathering, and unable to synthesize scientific theories about DNA. Rosalind Franklin was not only a skillful crystallographer and data supplier, but beyond Photograph 51 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. I Watson, James D., The Double Helix (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 166. 1 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 2 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.4 The information in the MRC report was viewed without the consent ofFranklin, adding weight to the immorality of Watson's actions. Even when Franklin contributed this valuable information, 2 Rapoport, Sarah, "Rosalind Franklin: Unsung Hero of the DNA Revolution," The History Teacher 39, no. 1 (November 2002): 120. 3 Watson, James D., The Double Helix (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 69. 4 Manwell, Clyde, "Commentary: The Double Helix: Science and Myth in the Art of Creation," BioScience 29, no. 12 (December 1979): 744. 2 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."s Author Sarah Rapoport affirms, that if Watson, Crick, and Wilkins had properly acknowledged Franklin's contribution, she would have shared the enormous public recognition that they received for discovering the structure ofthe DNA molecule. 6 "Look, there's a helix, and that damned woman just won't see it,"? 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."s 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. 9 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 Prize, but understanding the scientific reasons behind the discrepancies ofthe two forms ofDNA. Moreover, going back to Franklin's seminar in 1951, Anne Sayre, author ofRosalind 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 Helix (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 56. 6 Rapoport, Sarah, "Rosalind Franklin: Unsung Hero ofthe DA Revolution," The History Teacher 39, no. 1 (November 2002): 117. 7 Manwell, Clyde, "Commentary: The Double Helix: Science and Myth in the Art ofCreation," BioScience 29, no. 12 (December 1979): 743. 8 Watson, James D., The Double Helix (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 165. 9 Shapley, Deborah, "Rosalind Franklin and DNA," New York Times, September 21, 1975, 27. 3 phosphates on the outside, phosphate-phosphate interhelical bonds disrupted by waste links available to proteins,."IO 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.,,11 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 ofstudying 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.,,12 Also, author Brenda Maddox describes Aaron Klug's (Franklin's colleague at Brikbeck College) conclusion that " ...after 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.,,13 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. 10 Shapley, Deborah, "Rosalind Franklin and DNA," NewYork Times, September 21, 1975,30. II Watson, James D., The Double Helix (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 210. 12 Manwell, Clyde, "Commentary: The Double Helix: Science and Myth in the Art ofCreation," BioScience 29, no.12 (December 1979): 743. 13 Cohen, Carolyn, "Review: Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady ofDNA by Brenda Maddox," The Women's Review ofBooks 20, no. 2 (November 2002): 9. 4 James Watson's portrayal ofRosy in The Double Helix is partially historically inaccurate, with of sexist comments about Franklin personality, and 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 ofDNA were a product oftheir 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 Prize, Rosalind Franklin did her work for scientific understanding, and the improvement ofhumanity. 5 Bibliography Cohen, Carolyn. "Review: Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady ofDNA by Brenda Maddox." The Women's Review ofBooks 20, no. 2 (November 2002): 9. Manwell, Clyde. "Commentary: The Double Helix: Science and Myth in the Art ofCreation." BioScience 29, no.12 (December 1979): 743-744. Rapoport, Sarah. "Rosalind Franklin: Unsung Hero ofthe DNA Revolution." The History Teacher 39, no. 1 (November 2002): 117, 120. Shapley, Deborah. "Rosalind Franklin and DNA." New York Times, September 21, 1975,27,30. Watson, James D., The Double Helix. New York: Touchstone, 2001, 56, 69, 165-166,210.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Franklin, Centre Stage
    BOOKS & ARTS COMMENT deal of complicated science into 90 minutes, TEIN capturing both the zeal and the backstab- OODS bing that often accompany the pursuit of G. G G. scientific glory. The compressed format, however, precludes the wealth of detail that appeared in Maddox’s biography, which presents Franklin not just as a dedicated scientist but as an elegant and generous young woman with many friends, who loved hiking and travelling. As in real life, Franklin battles in the play for respect as an accomplished woman scientist in the 1950s. She faces a barrage of belittling rules and remarks, not least from Watson who, as he wrote in The Double Helix, wondered how “Rosy” would look “if she took off her glasses and did something novel with her hair.” The characters in the play inform Franklin, like a chorus of bad fairies, that she might have achieved more if she had been more open, less wary, will- ing to take more risks, make models, move forwards without the certainty of proof. She may have triumphed, they jibe, if she was born at another time — or born a man. The sexism that Franklin faced in the Kristen Bush as Rosalind Franklin in a play about collaboration, competition and pursuing scientific glory. stifling environment of King’s may explain why the playwright HISTORY depicts her as stub- “She may have born, secretive and triumphed, rarely happy. One of they jibe, if she her few moments of was born at Franklin, centre stage serenity comes dur- another time ing an imagined con- — or born Josie Glausiusz enjoys a play capturing the zeal and versation with a close a man.” backstabbing in the race to discover DNA’s structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosalind Franklin, Nicole Kidman and Photograph 51
    #Bio Rosalind Franklin, Nicole Kidman and Photograph 51 I must admit that when I first heard that Nicole Kidman, in establishing her career there. This and her strained Clare Sansom winner of the Best Actress Oscar for her portrayal of relationship with Wilkins have been well documented in (Birkbeck College, UK) Virginia Woolf in The Hours, was to take the role of the her biographies. Very early in the play, when Franklin had Downloaded from http://portlandpress.com/biochemist/article-pdf/37/6/45/5486/bio037060045.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 pioneering structural biologist Rosalind Franklin in a West just arrived in London, we see Wilkins informing her that End play, I was slightly sceptical. However accustomed to she could not accompany him to the college dining room portraying brilliant minds, a blonde Australian seemed to because that was for male academics only. This seems be an odd choice for an upper-middle-class Englishwoman outrageous today, but it was a matter of course only two who was culturally, if not religiously, very much a Jew. But generations ago. Franklin’s angry response showed both I couldn’t resist the idea of a play about one of the most deeply held passion and control. Throughout the play, her crucial moments in the history of molecular biology. I polite and understated feminism and (it has to be said) her was lucky enough to acquire tickets for Anna Ziegler’s reserved and somewhat prickly character bring her into Photograph 51 at the Noel Coward Theatre, and I was not conflict with her male counterparts time after time.
    [Show full text]
  • Photograph 51 Program
    WHO IS ROSALIND FRANKLIN? Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958) was an English x- ray crystallographer and chemist who made contributions to the understanding of the molecular structures of DNA, RNA, viruses, coal, and graphite. Although the work she did with coal and viruses was appreciated in her lifetime, her contributions to the discovery of the structure of DNA have largely been recognized posthumously ACTOR’S NOTE I love science. The rush I have felt when I made a discovery is second only to the rush of stepping from backstage into the light on opening night. I can only imagine the rush Dr. Franklin must have experienced the moment she looked at Photo 51. Her work. Her discovery. When I was in grad school for my Biology degree I learned I almost didn't get a summer internship because someone said I was "difficult" to work with. When I spoke with my advisor he said not to worry about it, he knew who it was and "he just doesn’t like women." I'm not sure what bothered me more: almost losing a great opportunity solely because I was female or being told not to worry about it. Unfortunately my story is very mild relative to the experiences many women in science have. In a career where the game is publish or perish women have the extra hurdle of just getting to a position where they can have the opportunity to enter the race. In 1968, 10 years after Franklin's death, Watson published his account of the discovery of DNA. He was not generous to Franklin to say the least and dismissed the importance of her role in the work.
    [Show full text]
  • Photograph 51, by Rosalind Franklin (1952) [1]
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Photograph 51, by Rosalind Franklin (1952) [1] By: Hernandez, Victoria Keywords: X-ray crystallography [2] DNA [3] DNA Helix [4] On 6 May 1952, at King´s College London in London, England, Rosalind Franklin photographed her fifty-first X-ray diffraction pattern of deoxyribosenucleic acid, or DNA. Photograph 51, or Photo 51, revealed information about DNA´s three-dimensional structure by displaying the way a beam of X-rays scattered off a pure fiber of DNA. Franklin took Photo 51 after scientists confirmed that DNA contained genes [5]. Maurice Wilkins, Franklin´s colleague showed James Watson [6] and Francis Crick [7] Photo 51 without Franklin´s knowledge. Watson and Crick used that image to develop their structural model of DNA. In 1962, after Franklin´s death, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine [8] for their findings about DNA. Franklin´s Photo 51 helped scientists learn more about the three-dimensional structure of DNA and enabled scientists to understand DNA´s role in heredity. X-ray crystallography, the technique Franklin used to produce Photo 51 of DNA, is a method scientists use to determine the three-dimensional structure of a crystal. Crystals are solids with regular, repeating units of atoms. Some biological macromolecules, such as DNA, can form fibers suitable for analysis using X-ray crystallography because their solid forms consist of atoms arranged in a regular pattern. Photo 51 used DNA fibers, DNA crystals first produced in the 1970s. To perform an X-ray crystallography, scientists mount a purified fiber or crystal in an X-ray tube.
    [Show full text]
  • New Play Tells the Story of Rosalind Franklin, the Woman Behind DNA's Double Helix by Coco Ballantyne
    March 10, 2009 New play tells the story of Rosalind Franklin, the woman behind DNA's double helix By Coco Ballantyne The Fountain Theatre in Hollywood California this month will begin running Photograph 51, a play about the human drama driving one of the most important discoveries of 20th century biology – the illumination of DNA's double helix structure. The play focuses on the role of British biophysicist Rosalind Franklin in the discovery. Many argue that her contribution, which went largely unnoticed, was so crucial that she deserved to, at the least, share the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for uncovering it that was instead snagged by geneticist James Watson and biophysicists Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins. Photograph 51 begins in 1951 when Franklin first arrives at King's College in London from the Laboratoire Central des Services Chimiques de l'Etat in Paris to study the structure of biological molecules. It's right around the time that Watson and Crick are trying to construct a model of DNA at Cambridge University, says director Simon Levy. Franklin's character, Levy says, is "very self-assertive and determined, a work-ethic driven woman trying to establish herself in what was then a very male-dominated world." She works along - side Maurice Wilkins, Levy says, "a brilliant scientist but sort of socially inept [who] has difficulty dealing with her strength and her spirit." The place traces the string of events leading up to the 1953 discovery of the DNA double helix , including the key moment when Wilkins – without Franklin's knowledge or permission -- shows Watson the famous "photograph”.
    [Show full text]
  • Lantern Theater Company Presents Philadelphia Premiere of Anna
    For further ticket information: Lantern Theater Company Box Office 215-829-0395 or lanterntheater.org For further press information: Mailing Address Lauren Tuvell Lantern Theater Company (215) 829-9002 x106 P.O. Box 53428 Philadelphia, PA 19105-3428 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Theater Address August 11, 2015 Lantern Theater Company At St. Stephen’s Theater 10th & Ludlow Streets Lantern Theater Company Presents Philadelphia Premiere Philadelphia, PA 19107 of Anna Ziegler’s PHOTOGRAPH 51 Box Office 215.829.0395 Lantern Theater Company continues the exploration of science and art and the Administrative Office 215.829.9002 ways in which they intersect with the first production of their 2015/16 season, the Fax Philadelphia Premiere of Anna Ziegler’s Photograph 51, running September 10 215.829.1161 through October 11, 2015. Email [email protected] Web In the race to unlock the structure of DNA, Rosalind Franklin was a young, www.lanterntheater.org brilliant British scientist specializing in x-ray crystallography. In the course of her work at King’s College in London in the 1950s, she produced the image now known as Photograph 51; this image became the key factor in James Watson and Francis Crick’s discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA. The 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Watson, Crick, and Maurice Wilkins, Dr. Franklin’s colleague, but not to Dr. Franklin herself. Anna Ziegler’s play dramatizes this story by allowing her characters to speak to each other across time and space, revealing the beating heart that powers the scientific brain. Photograph 51 addresses the tension between painstaking research and wild creative leaps, between the creator and the creation, and between inspiration and collaboration.
    [Show full text]
  • Production-Notes-Photos-Image-For
    2 GOODBYE CHRISTOPHER ROBIN gives a rare glimpse into the relationship between beloved children's author A. A. Milne (Domhnall Gleeson) and his son Christo- pher Robin (Will Tilston), whose toys inspired the magical world of Winnie the Pooh. Along with his mother Daphne (Margot Robbie), and his nanny Olive (Kelly Macdonald), Christopher Robin and his family are swept up in the international success of the books; the enchanting tales bringing hope and comfort to England after the First World War. But with the eyes of the world on Christopher Robin, what will the cost be to the family? GOODBYE CHRISTOPHER ROBIN stars Domhnall Gleeson (THE REVENANT, STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS), Margot Robbie (SUICIDE SQUAD, THE WOLF OF WALL STREET), Kelly Macdonald (SWALLOWS AND AMAZONS, “Boardwalk Empire”), Alex Law- ther (THE IMITATION GAME) and introducing Will Tilston. The cast also includes Stephen Campbell Moore (SEASON OF THE WITCH), Vicki Pepperdine (MY COUSIN RACHEL), Rich- ard McCabe (CINDERELLA), Geraldine Somerville (MY WEEK WITH MARILYN) and Phoebe Waller-Bridge (THE IRON LADY). Directed by Simon Curtis (WOMAN IN GOLD, MY WEEK WITH MARILYN) from a script written by Frank Cottrell-Boyce (THE RAILWAY MAN, MILLIONS) and Simon Vaughan (“War and Peace,” “Ripper Street”), the film producers are Damian Jones, p.g.a. (ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS: THE MOVIE, THE LADY IN THE VAN) and Steve Christian, p.g.a. (BELLE, THETHE LIBERTINE)LIBERTINE) withwith Curtis Curtis and and Vaughan Vaughan serves serving as executiveas executive producer producers and Mark and HubbardMark Hubbard as co-producer as co-producer (ABSOLUTELY (ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS: FABULOUS: THE MOVIE).
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking Biological Boundaries: Rosalind Franklin and the Experimental Foundation of the Double Helix Theory
    Breaking Biological Boundaries: Rosalind Franklin and the Experimental Foundation of the Double Helix Theory Michaila Peters Senior Division Individual Exhibit Student-Composed Words: 498 words Process Paper Word Count: 499 words Process Paper Two things drew my interest to Rosalind Franklin; First, I have always been fascinated by women’s history and the history of science. Second, Rosalind’s personality and interests were things I could relate to in my own life, and the mystery surrounding her story, as well as its complexity, made me want to understand her, both in terms of the theme, and personally. My preliminary research proved challenging when secondary historical accounts I viewed at Edinboro Universtiy all had contradictory accounts of Rosalind, debating her relationship with feminism. To understand why, I had to focus on objective primary sources; lab notebooks, journals, photos, published papers, and most importantly, collections of Oral Histories of those who worked with Rosalind. I then applied historical context by looking at statistics on women in science/education/workforce at that time (from Dr. Pat Thane, professor of Kings College, London), oral histories on gender prejudice, and effects from major events like WWII. Conclusively, I determined that the contradictory accounts were so because some were pieces of writing written by the 1960s British Women’s Liberation Movement, which, though she was not, had made Rosalind into a feminist icon and subsequently wrote feminist-biased biographies on her to use as a platform to preach women’s equality, while others were more objective historical accounts written by more modern historians. From here, I could build the rest of Rosalind’s story, while maintaining historical accuracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Lab's Labour's Lost
    COMMENT BOOKS & ARTS THEATRE Lab’s labour’s lost Philip Ball appraises Nicole Kidman’s stage turn as crystallographer Rosalind Franklin. he 1953 discovery of DNA’s structure Photograph 51 tale ever since the by James Watson and Francis Crick is ANNA ZIEGLER feminist reading a triumphant narrative with an uneasy Until 21 November 2015. of Anne Sayre’s Tsubtext. Rosalind Franklin’s crystallographic Noël Coward Theatre, Rosalind Franklin London. JOHAN PERSSON work was a vital part of the evidence. Yet, and DNA (Nor- although her results (and those of Maurice ton, 1975) — an Wilkins) were published in the same issue interpretation that Franklin would have of Nature as theirs, Franklin was denied disavowed, her sister has said. Had Franklin adequate credit for years (see Nature 496, 270; been less excluded and patronized by her 2013). Watson and Crick never fully acknowl- male peers, might she have had the feedback edged the debt while she lived, and when she and confidence to solve the structure first? died at 37 of ovarian cancer, she effectively In her authoritative The Dark Lady of DNA spared the Nobel committee the impossible (Harper­Collins, 2002), Brenda Maddox chal- decision of which trio to reward with the 1962 lenges that idea, suggesting that Franklin’s prize in medicine or physiology. class and religion (she came from a wealthy The question you need to ask yourself Jewish family) had an equal role in her isola- before seeing Photograph 51, Anna Ziegler’s tion at King’s. Ziegler finds a good accom- play about Franklin and the race to pin down modation: without any of the male characters the double helix, is how you like your science- becoming chauvinistic caricatures, we are left in-theatre.
    [Show full text]
  • The Three-Dimensional Structure of DNA: Replicating Photograph 51
    The three-dimensional structure of DNA: Replicating photograph 51 How do we know that the DNA molecule is a double helix? Goal: In this experiment, students will reproduce the experiment done by Rosalind Franklin that showed that the structure of the DNA molecule is a double helix. However, the students will be using light rather than x-rays and a helical tungsten filament rather than DNA. Background: One of the most useful ways to understand how something works is to look at its structure. This is why the discovery of the helical structure of DNA started a DNA revolution that would last the next 50 years. Knowing the structure of DNA allowed us to understand how genes work and how they are replicated from one cell to another for generations. It allowed us to better understand inherited diseases and how one single change or mutation could lead to those diseases. Knowing the structure of DNA lead to DNA fingerprinting, which has revolutionized forensic sciences by matching DNA samples to crime suspects, and can also be used to determine the paternity or ancestry of humans or pets. Recently, new developments in DNA technology (including cutting edge CRISPR technology) could lead to gene editing and gene therapies. But, this all started with determining the structure of DNA. Back in the 1800’s, scientists knew about genetic traits, but it wasn't until 1943 that they learned that DNA was the "genetic factor" and not until 1953 that the helical structure of DNA that we know today was described. While the discovery of the structure of DNA involved four scientists, many scientific breakthroughs had to occur for the structure of DNA to be found.
    [Show full text]
  • Photograph 51
    SC 55th Season • 525th Production JULIANNE ARGYROS STAGE / MARCH 3-24, 2019 David Ivers Paula Tomei ARTISTIC DIRECTOR MANAGING DIRECTOR David Emmes & Martin Benson FOUNDING ARTISTIC DIRECTORS presents PHOTOGRAPH 51 by Anna Ziegler Cameron Anderson Elisa Benzoni Jaymi Lee Smith Cricket Myers SCENIC DESIGN COSTUME DESIGN LIGHTING DESIGN SOUND DESIGN Holly Ahlborn Joanne DeNaut, CSa Alyssa Escalante PRODUCTION MANAGER CASTING STAGE MANAGER Directed by Kimberly Senior Joan & Andy Fimiano Jean & Tim Weiss Honorary Producer Honorary Producer BNY Mellon Wealth Management Corporate Honorary Associate Producer This play is the winner of the 2008 STAGE International Script Competition and was developed, in part, through the University of California, Santa Barbara’s STAGE Project by the Professional Artists Lab (Nancy Kawalek, Director) and the California NanoSystems Institute. PHOTOGRAPH 51 was developed by The Ensemble Studio Theatre/Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Science and Technology Project and received its New York premiere at the Ensemble Studio Theatre on October 27, 2010. Originally commissioned and produced by Active Cultures,The Vernacular Theatre for Maryland. Opening Night on Sunday, February 10, 2008. PHOTOGRAPH 51 was developed by the Cape Cod Theatre Project. PHOTOGRAPH 51 is presented by special arrangement with Dramatists Play Service, Inc., New York. Photograph 51 • South CoaSt RepeRtoRy • P1 CAST OF CHARACTERS Don Caspar ..................................................................................... Josh Odsess-Rubin Francis
    [Show full text]
  • Three-Dimensional Double Helical DNA Structure Directly Revealed from Its X-Ray Fiber Diffraction Pattern by Iterative Phase Retrieval
    Three-dimensional double helical DNA structure directly revealed from its X-ray fiber diffraction pattern by iterative phase retrieval Tatiana Latychevskaia* and Hans-Werner Fink Physics Department of the University of Zurich, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland *[email protected] Abstract: Coherent diffraction imaging (CDI) allows the retrieval of the structure of an isolated object, such as a macromolecule, from its diffraction pattern. CDI requires the fulfilment of two conditions: the imaging radiation must be coherent and the object must be isolated. We discuss that it is possible to directly retrieve the molecular structure from its diffraction pattern which was acquired neither with coherent radiation nor from an individual molecule, provided the molecule exhibits periodicity in one direction, as in the case of fiber diffraction. We demonstrate that by applying iterative phase retrieval methods to a fiber diffraction pattern, the repeating unit, that is, the molecule structure, can directly be reconstructed without any prior modeling. As an example, we recover the structure of the DNA double helix in three-dimensions from its two-dimensional X-ray fiber diffraction pattern, Photograph 51, acquired in the famous experiment by Raymond Gosling and Rosalind Franklin, at a resolution of 3.4 Å. 1. Introduction In 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick deduced the structure of B-DNA from its X-ray fiber diffraction pattern which was acquired by Raymond Gosling, a PhD student of Rosalind Franklin [1-3]. Fiber diffraction [4-6] is employed for studying the molecular structure of elongated assemblies of repeating units. In the case of a subunit consisting of a few atoms, such as the DNA nucleotide, the atomic positions can be determined by combining X-ray diffraction data with the known chemical composition of the unit.
    [Show full text]