DOCSLIB.ORG

Lab's Labour's Lost

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Do you insist on adherence to the in no doubt that science was not welcoming historical record, or do you accept that the to women in the 1950s. aim is to illuminate and interrogate themes? Nicole Kidman as Rosalind Franklin in Photograph 51. More contentious in both history and the There is plenty here to upset the stickler — play is how to think about Franklin’s science. not least, the status of the titular X-ray diffrac- a big part in launching her as a feminist icon. Her experimental acumen is made clear; Kid- tion pattern of DNA, obtained by Franklin And Ziegler’s play (which premiered in Los man spends a lot of time at the lab bench. But and PhD student Raymond Gosling at King’s Angeles, California, in 2009) offers a more what might have held Franklin back was that College London and used as evidence for nuanced view of the myth. she did not trust model-building, believing Watson and Crick’s double-helical model. Ziegler’s players carry the story well. Wat- that the structure must be revealed through Many of Ziegler’s liberties (such as bringing son (Will Attenborough) and Crick (Edward mathematical analysis. Along with photo­ Franklin’s illness forward, and implying that Bennett), naturally; the diffident Wilkins graph 51, Watson and Crick assimilated other Wilkins was infatuated with her) serve the (Stephen Campbell Moore); Gosling (Joshua data, notably biochemist Erwin Chargaff’s narrative without compromising the core Silver) doing the PhD student’s job of fill- observation that in DNA, the amounts of issues. But casting photograph 51 as a eureka ing in gaps and making the tea, figuratively adenine and thymine bases, and of cytosine moment is awkward. and literally. US structural biologist Donald and guanine, are equal. Perhaps more impor- Franklin did not fully interpret the image, Caspar (Patrick Kennedy) almost draws the tantly, Watson, Crick and Pauling felt confi- for one thing. Nor did she take it (Gosling work-obsessed Franklin into her first — and dent enough to foul up. All three committed did), although that would not have been only — relationship. Linus Pauling, Max howlers in trying to get the prize — Pauling’s possible without her expertise. As Matthew Perutz and Lawrence Bragg stay offstage. So triple helix, published in early 1953, contained Cobb writes in his excellent Life’s Greatest does a fair bit of the science: we never see the elementary errors. Ziegler’s Franklin would Secret (Profile, 2015), the image’s significance double helix, and the audience is left to make have been mortified by such blunders. has often been overstated, largely because what it will of phosphates being on the inside That, perhaps, is the most valid message Watson chose to play it up (“The instant I saw or the outside of the structure. That is no fault of Photograph 51. For science to thrive, there the picture my mouth fell open”) in his 1968 in itself — we are spared blackboard primers. must be the freedom to fail. In Franklin’s The Double Helix (Athenaeum). But the metaphors about base-pairing (as time, it is not surprising that a female scien- In Watson’s book there was also a hint, Caspar takes Franklin’s hand) or sexualized tist would think that she could ill afford that made much of in later accounts, of some- nestling of the twin strands are clunky. luxury. I am not at all sure that even a young thing underhand in how Wilkins — Gosling’s The play belongs to Franklin. But she Watson and Crick today could so freely take supervisor — showed Watson the photo in is written as so buttoned-up, prickly and the risks they did. And shamefully, with evi- early 1953. That was not true, although focused that it is easier to warm to the urbane dence of gender imbalances in peer review certainly Wilkins had clashed terribly with Crick or even the impetuous Watson. And and tenure, harassment and discrimination Franklin. Should Ziegler have used Watson’s casting a big star brings its own compli- in the laboratory, and casual gender stereo- first-hand but unreliable narrative at face cations. Nicole Kidman’s performance is typing still deemed acceptable by some lead- value to inform the plot? One might argue restrained, but the glamour that attends her is ing scientists, the stakes remain still higher that if Watson could decorate the truth for the opposite of what the part demands. More for a latter-day Franklin. ■ the sake of a good story, why shouldn’t she? surface ordinariness would have left room for By adopting a dismissive tone towards a glimpse of depths. Philip Ball is a writer based in London. Franklin, Watson’s book inadvertently played Misogyny has loomed large in Franklin’s e-mail: [email protected] 454 | NATURE | VOL 525 | 24 SEPTEMBER 2015 © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The DNA Helix, Featured Scientist: Rosalind Franklin
    Cover Story Featu red Scientist: The Rosalind DNA Franklin: Helix "Bold John R. Jungck Experimentalist" Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/46/8/430/86225/4447893.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 On April 25th, 1953, three papers on the struc- Thus, it is disheartening to see a biographer cite ture of DNA appearing in Nature profoundly Rosalind Franklin's work as "not characterized by changed biology. Only the one by James Watson great originality of thought." This same biog- and Francis Crick still seems to receive much at- rapher, the distinguished biology historian, Robert tention. The primary authors of the other two pa- Olby, nonetheless raises the same contradictions as pers were Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin. above. He describes Franklin as a "bold experi- While The Double Helix by "honest Jim" Watson mentalist" and "a deft experimentalist, keenly ob- (1968) changed many people's perception of sci- servant and with immense capacity for taking ence and rankled many more because of the chau- pains. As a result she was able with difficult mate- vinistic treatment of "Rosy" Franklin, I shall focus rial to achieve a remarkable standard of resolution on what has been largely ignored in our apprecia- in her X-ray diagrams" (Olby 1972). tion of these scientists, especially Franklin. While Similarly, Anne Sayre (1975, p. 84) fleetingly de- one of Franklin's biographers, Anne Sayre, spends scribes Franklin's skill: "When Rosalind was con- much space defending Franklin's role in this major fronted with DNA-an amorphous substance, diffi- discovery of our century, she only briefly discusses cult to handle experimentally, tiresomely recalci- Franklin's tremendous skill as an experimentalist.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Physics Today - February 2003
    Physics Today - February 2003 Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix Although she made essential contributions toward elucidating the structure of DNA, Rosalind Franklin is known to many only as seen through the distorting lens of James Watson's book, The Double Helix. by Lynne Osman Elkin - California State University, Hayward In 1962, James Watson, then at Harvard University, and Cambridge University's Francis Crick stood next to Maurice Wilkins from King's College, London, to receive the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their "discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material." Watson and Crick could not have proposed their celebrated structure for DNA as early in 1953 as they did without access to experimental results obtained by King's College scientist Rosalind Franklin. Franklin had died of cancer in 1958 at age 37, and so was ineligible to share the honor. Her conspicuous absence from the awards ceremony--the dramatic culmination of the struggle to determine the structure of DNA--probably contributed to the neglect, for several decades, of Franklin's role in the DNA story. She most likely never knew how significantly her data influenced Watson and Crick's proposal. Franklin was born 25 July 1920 to Muriel Waley Franklin and merchant banker Ellis Franklin, both members of educated and socially conscious Jewish families. They were a close immediate family, prone to lively discussion and vigorous debates at which the politically liberal, logical, and determined Rosalind excelled: She would even argue with her assertive, conservative father. Early in life, Rosalind manifested the creativity and drive characteristic of the Franklin women, and some of the Waley women, who were expected to focus their education, talents, and skills on political, educational, and charitable forms of community service.
    [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]
  • She Was a Doctrinaire Leftist at the Time (And Probably Stillis )
    phase of one-dimensional "radical femin• phenomenon of maternal feminism (except ism." She was a doctrinaire leftist at in Deborah Gorham's piece) and does not the time (and probably still is). After delineate the class roots of this type warmly praising Women in the Canadian of feminism. Clearly maternal feminism Mosaic, this young woman referred back was dominant in Canada and the U.S. in to the period of our acquaintance around the late nineteenth and early twentieth 1970. "Those were the good old days.1" centuries. That is not the issue. The she exclaimed with an air of nostalgia. issue, in historical terms, is why did And then she added rather wistfully, such a large number of feminists adopt "But things have never been so simple this model in this period? How did s i nee." these women come to adopt a philosophy with strong evangelical and missionary overtones, and with all the negative aspects of fear of the foreigner, race- Linda Kealey A REPLY TO GWEN MATHESON suicide, etc., rather than a philos• It is unfortunate that Gwen Matheson ophy based on equal rights. Why (whom I have not met) takes my critical did they shy away from class strug• review of Women in the Canadian Mosaic gle and opt for "Christian stewardship?" as a personal attack. Her reply is in• The idea of the woman as redeemer of dicative of the low level of critical capitalism fell flat on its face in the thinking in feminist circles (academic period after World War I. Ballots in and non-academic).
    [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]
  • Femtosecond X-Ray Diffraction
    AMERICAN CRYSTALLOGRAPHIC ASSOCIATION Number 2 Summer 2012 Femtosecond X-Ray Diffraction American Crystallographic Association ACA HOME PAGE: www.amercrystalassn.org Table of Contents 2 President’s Column What’s on the Cover 3 News from Canada - page 40 4 ACA Balance Sheet 5 From the Editor’s Desk IUCr Partners with AIP UniPHY Errata 6 News from Argentina Contributors to this Issue / Bruker Awards 8 Puzzle Corner 9-10 Book Reviews 11-20 ACA History The Early Days of the ACA David Sayre (1924 - 2012) 21 AIP Inside Science 22 ACA Corporate Members 23-31 Candidates for ACA Officers and Committees for 2012 32 ACA Trueblood Award to Tom Terwilliger ACA Fankuchen Award to Richard Dickerson 34-35 Carl Branden Award to Helen Berman AIP Andrew Gemant Award to Lisa Randall Golden Mouse Award to Crystallographic iPhone app Awards Available / Travel and Fellowships 36 Scientific Controversies and Crystallography 37 Big Data Initiative 38 ACA 2012 Student Award Winners 39 ACA 2012 Exhibitors and Sponsors / ACA 2013 - Hawaii - Preview 40 Future Meetings / Index of Advertisers What’s on the Cover ACA RefleXions staff: Please address matters pertaining to ads, membeship, or use of Editor: Connie Rajnak [email protected] the ACA mailing list to: Editor: Judith L. Flippen-Anderson [email protected] Marcia J. Colquhoun, Director of Administrative Services Copy Editor: Jane Griffin [email protected] American Crystallographic Association Book Reviews: Joe Ferrara [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • David Sayre Between 1956 and 1990, David He Scored His Own Share of Winning Worked for IBM
    AIP/ESVA, GALLERY OF MEMBER SOCIETY PRESIDENTS Athletic activity formed a major Dorothy Hodgkin. During that time counterpoint to Phil’s science. His var- David and his wife, Anne, got to know sity basketball at MIT continued into Rosalind Franklin, another young crys- pick-up games at Bell Labs, gradually to tallographer who was working at be replaced by tennis, which he played King’s College London. the rest of his active life. He loved the David wrote some of his seminal outdoors, from winter ski trips to papers during 1951–52. He had discov- mountain hikes to weeklong backpack- ered what is known today as Sayre’s ing trips in western wilderness areas. equation, which was the critical step An avid sports fan, Phil followed his needed in the development of direct favorite teams in baseball, basketball, methods in crystallography. His half- and football. Two days before his death, page 1952 paper in Acta Crystallograph- as he sat enthralled by the final tense ica, “Some implications of a theorem moments of the 2012 Super Bowl, he due to Shannon,” forms the foundation made an unprecedented statement: of diffraction microscopy, also known “This has been such a good game that I as coherent diffraction imaging and don’t even care if the Giants lose!” lensless imaging. Sixty years later it is Metaphorically, that summarized his still frequently cited in the literature. life in physics—he loved the game. And David Sayre Between 1956 and 1990, David he scored his own share of winning worked for IBM. He was part of the touchdowns.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Genes, Girls and Gamow, James D. Watson, Oxford
    Genes, Girls and Gamow, James D. Watson, Oxford University Press, 2001, 019164742X, 9780191647420, 304 pages. In 1953 Watson and Crick discovered the double helical structure of DNA and Watson's personal account of the discovery, The Double Helix, was published in 1968. Genes, Girls and Gamow is also autobiographical, covering the period from when The Double Helix ends, in 1953, to a few years later, and ending with a Postscript bringing the story up to date. Here is Watson adjusting to new-found fame, carrying out tantalizing experiments on the role of RNA in biology, and falling in love. The book is enlivened with copies of handwritten letters from the larger than life character George Gamow, who had made significant contributions to physics but became intrigued by genes, RNA and the elusive genetic code. This is a tale of heartbreak, scientific excitement and ambition, laced with travelogue and '50s atmosphere.. DOWNLOAD HERE A Passion for DNA Genes, Genomes, and Society, James D. Watson, 2001, Science, 250 pages. In 1953, two young, unknown scientists sparked a worldwide revolution. Studying DNA for clues to the nature of genes, James Watson and Francis Crick deduced its molecular .... Molecular Biology of the Gene, Page 2 , , 2004, Molecular biology, 732 pages. Double Helix , James D. Watson, Jan 1, 2009, , 151 pages. James Watson Solving the Mystery of DNA, Janet Hamilton, Jun 1, 2004, Biography & Autobiography, 104 pages. A biography of James Watson, one of the scientists who helped discover the structure of DNA, the carrier of heredity in higher organisms.. IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, Volumes 1-6 , IEEE Circuits and Syatems Society, 1996, Technology & Engineering, 3000 pages.
    [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]
  • 1 David Sayre (1924 - 2012) Summer 2012
    David Sayre (1924 - 2012) Summer 2012 DAVID SAYRE (1924 – 2012) problem” in crystallography so that good electron-density maps can be obtained from x-ray diffraction data from crystals, When I wrote David to (2) how to improve and simplify the communication between congratulate him on be- crystallographers and computers so that the calculations neces- ing selected for the IUCr sary to obtain electron-density maps will be made easier for the Ewald Prize he replied scientist, and (3) how to make it possible, using methods similar asking if I knew who was to those used currently by crystallographers, to “see” molecules on the selection commit- at atomic resolution in non-crystalline (rather than just crystal- tee: “Not that I would do line) materials. anything about it, but I would be very interested to know what might have motivated the selection of the single-particle concept, which to date has produced very little in the way of important science, when crystallography it- self is producing such fantastically important science.” As I did not know who was on the committee I sent him the text of the announcement of the prize: “The IUCr is pleased to announce that Dr. D. Sayre has been awarded the eighth Ewald Prize for the unique breadth of his contributions to crystallography, which range from seminal contributions to the solving of the phase problem to the complex physics of imaging generic objects by X-ray diffraction and microscopy, and for never losing touch with the physical reality of the processes involved.” To which David and Anne Sayre visit with Kay Onan (center) at he replied “thanks that helps a little”.
    [Show full text]