Rosalind Franklin and DNA

by Anne Sayre

Book Overview

Rosalind Franklin's research was central to the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA. She never received the credit she was due during her lifetime.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0393074935
• ISBN13: 9780393074932
• Release Date: January 1975
• Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company
• Length: 221 Pages
• Weight: 0.13 lbs.

Customer Reviews

The Forgotten Heroine of the Double Helix

+++++ 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 ch

The True Story of the Double Helix

When I first read Watson's "Double Helix" there were a few things that bothered me. First, it is clear that this guy was really full of himself- that's OK, maybe he's entitled, but his view of science as an exercise in cunning, of "beating others in the race", finding out what they were doing but keeping your results close to your vest, was so at odds with the prevailing view of science and ethics that Harvard University Press refused to publish it. And of course, what seemed to be continual derogatory references to Rosalind Franklin and her family- "Rosy has to go". How in the world could Watson call for the firing of somebody working in another Laboratory many miles away?Of course, Rosalind Franklin had died by that time and couldn't defend herself.But as an experimental physicist, I could not understand Watson's fixation on large tinkertoy models. After all,the data supporting such a structure has to be obtained elsewhere, from physics experiments like x-ray diffraction. And Anne Sayre's book explains this to the popular reader.Perhaps the most impressive thing about all this is the support she received from Max Perutz and Aaron Klug, among others.Klug and Franklin were the first to determine the structure of a virus (just before her death). She never knew that a few years before, Wilkins, also at Kings College, had given her experimental results to Watson, allowing him to obtain the correct structure for DNA. Aaron Klug won the Nobel Prize in 1982. On June 25, 1997, he dedicated the new Rosalind Franklin Laboratory at Birkbeck College in London...

Reader from Sugar Land, Texas

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.

Read it 15 years ago and it stuck

This book made such a lasting impression on me. In a sentence: She was robbed.Everytime I hear the overwhelming praise for Crick and Watts I cringe over the critical parts of the story that have not been told. Franklin was a pioneer, at a time, in a profession, where women were demonized for initiative and ambition. I hope one day our country recognizes how significant her contributions were to scientific advances in the 20th C. She is a role model for the marraige of passion and intelligence. Do yourself a favor and read the book.

What "The Double Helix" didn't tell you

Sayre's book is a biography with an agenda. It is also one of the rare instances where an author is sufficiently thoughtful and objective to keep the agenda from ruining the piece.Rosalind Franklin was a chemist doing x-ray crystallography on DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) in Maurice Wilkins' laboratory at King's College, London. Concurrently, James Watson and Francis Crick were trying to puzzle out DNA's molecular structure in the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge. Technically the two institutions were not competitors, because the English scientific establishment had "ceded" the DNA problem to King's. The world knows that Watson and Crick were first to publish the correct structure of the substance which encodes and controls every detail of the configuration, development, maintenance and reproduction of living things.Watson and Crick were the kind of bad boys we generally admire. From positions very low on the Cavendish totem pole, they tunneled under, around and through the decorous conventions of incremental science to snatch a Nobel-caliber breakthrough from the very hands of the people who were supposed (eventually) to produce it. They even had a plausible excuse for ethical shortcuts, because the American superstar-chemist Linus Pauling, unconstrained by British decorum, was known to be working on the DNA structure.In 1968, Watson published "The Double Helix", an entertaining and irreverent personal account of the triumph he and Crick had achieved in 1953. On the positive side, the book gave many people (including myself) their first look at the fascinating scientific and human details of a brilliant achievement in the relatively new field of molecular biology. On the negative side, Watson's version of the story did not please everyone who had prior knowledge of the people and events involved. Among the least pleased, to put it mildly, were the family and friends of Rosalind Franklin (Ms. Franklin herself did not live to see the cruelly caricatured "Rosy" that Watson sketched for his largely naive and trusting audience.)One of the friends, Anne Sayre, took on the task of providing a comprehensive portrait of Franklin, interwoven with a retelling of the DNA story centered on the tragic consequences flowing from the simple inability of two intelligent people (Franklin and Wilkins) to get along. But the book is much more than a psychological study. Sayre documents some unambiguous facts that establish what Franklin knew about DNA and when she knew it. Also revealed are the instances in which her work was used without her knowledge and, even more unfortunately, the degree to which misunderstanding of Franklin's conclusions about the B-form of DNA slowed everyone's progress and robbed her of due credit.I found Sayre to be unfailingly perceptive and balanced while following a course of strong, even indignant, advocacy. This is no mean feat, and follows in part from her extensive interviews with a