|
'NOVA: Secret of Photo 51'
With Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin
Professor of Biological Sciences,
California State University
Wednesday, April 23, 2003; 1 p.m. ET
On April 25, 1953, the science journal Nature announced that James Watson and Francis Crick had discovered the double helix structure of DNA. But absent from most accounts of their Nobel Prize-winning work is the contribution made by a scientist -- molecular biologist and crystallographer Rosalind Franklin -- who would never know that Watson and Crick had seen a key piece of her data without her permission and that it would lead them to the double helix. Fifty years later, NOVA's "Secret of Photo 51" unravels the mystery behind the discovery of the double helix and investigates the seminal role that Rosalind Franklin and her remarkable X-ray photograph played in one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science.
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin, a professor of biological sciences at California
State University, was online Wednesday, April 23 at 1 p.m. ET, to discuss the discovery of the double helix, Rosalind Franklin and the NOVA special.
Elkin has been researching Rosalind Franklin since 1997, recently published the article "Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix," (Physics Today, March 2003) and is currently writing a biography of Franklin.
"NOVA: Secret of Photo 51" airs on PBS Tuesday, April 22 at 8 p.m. (check local listings).
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Boston, Mass.:
Having never heard of Franklin prior to viewing last night's NOVA, I found it a very interesting story. How sad that she died not knowing that her research should have earned her the same place in history as Crick and Watson. Has the Nobel Foundation done anything to recognize her unheralded contribution?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: The Nobel Prize seals their records for 50 years, does not reconsider and does not awards posthumously. The award gives more money for research. It would be nice, but the probability is like zero.
I had a proposal that didn't get into the show. I'd like to see all textbooks say the Watson Crick and Franklin structure for DNA.
Arlington, Va.:
The NOVA program brought tears to my eyes? Two questions: do you really think, as implied in the program, that Dr. Franklin's discovery would have gone unnoticed had it not been for Watson's awful depiction of her? And how did Photo 51 ultimately end up in Watson's hands? Is that still a matter of dispute?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: First of all, I thnk Franklin would have gone unnoticed if Watson hadn't. I've given papers about Franklin for years now and at my last AAAS talk I went over the specifics of their (lack of) acknowledgement. WHatever their intentions, people got the impression t
There's no dispute and it's more than Photo 51. Two thigns were critical. the photo affected Watson because he's a visual person. Her report had affects on Crick. Both were obtained legally, but obliquely. When Franklin asked John Tartan Randall about leaving he agreed only on condition that she stop working on DNA, so her photos were legitimately in King's College. Wilkns got photo 51 because he thought he would take over her thesis. It was so naive and he showed it to Watson. He had just thrown Franklin out of his office and was telling Watson how difficult "rosie" was. That's what started the ball rolling again. It was legal, but you just don't do stuff like that.
Part of the problem, and I want to defend WIlkins, is that he thought he was going to be a collaborator of Watson and Crick. He was just waiting for Franklin to leave. But he was still unwise in what he did.
The other thing is this internal MRC report, her numerical data. Wilkins also told Watson and Crick about the existence of this data. So they asked their Cambridge MRC rep to look at the report and he gave it to them. His name Max Perutz, an eventually Nobel Prize WInner and Crick's thesis adviser. After the double helix, this created quite a stir because you don't hand unpublished material to competitors without asking permisson. So that's the information that inspired Crick. It had some data that showed him DNA was like his thesis molecule and that information told him that the two sides of the backbone were anti-parallel, the last key piece of info about the backbone that Franklin did not have.
Arlington, Va.:
Since Watson did not accept PBS's offer to hear his side of the story... is he that embarrased know that the story has come out about Photo 51 and Rosalind?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: I don't think Watson is embarrassed about anything. And he says a lot of outrageous things. One thing I admire about him is that he honestly says whatever he thinks, but unfortunately, given his scientific stature people mistakenly equate his words with history.
He turned down the interview because he's very busy and working on DNA programs of interest to him and he likes to do things that make him the glorious one, like the double-helix, which I call the Gone With the Wind of DNA.
Watson and Crick were brilliant, deserved the Nobels, had distinguished careers, but treated Franklin and Wilkins shabbily, as the program points out.
West hartford, Conn.:
It wasn't clear to me why Harvard would not publish Watson's book on the double helix.
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: Harvard wouldn't publish it becuase especially the original manuscript was in exceedingly poor taste. Even when Watson fixed up passages about the living participants. It also, to someone who knew something about the history, was not all historically accurate, so they balked. Which maybe was foolish, because they had a best-seller on his hands. They could have published and had him fix up the passages about Franklin.
I plan on writing a biography on Franklin. I've done the same research as Brenda Maddox, so both by design and for practical reasons, my book will not be 400 pages like Brenda's -- which is excellent. I'd like to write something as short and concise and easy to read as "The Double Helix." My goal is to be in every classroom that used "The Double Helix."
Philadelphia, PA:
Do you know if Franklin was a member of any professional societies? Because although the treatment she receives seems outrageous this type of underrecognition was normal. As a matter of fact I found it very interesting that she was asked to speak at so many places. (I'm currently taking a women's history course, where we are looking at the mistreatment of women scientists)
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: I'm well aware of the treatment of women scientists. I teach a course on the history of women and science. In spite of the negative atmosphere, severeal women did succeed and Franklin was one of them. She was very well respected by the scientific community working in her field and very well known. So she had many invitations from around the world. You might want to read the 1975 biography of Franklin by Anne Sayre, called "Rosalind Franklin and DNA." Sayre was misled about the situation of women at King's, other than that, the book is magnificent, though emotional. She was a friend of Franklin's. I mention this because it was the Crystalographic Society that was so outraged that they asked her to write this. Anyone who knew her knew how innacurate the portrayal was.
One thing I noticed in my interviews and reading Sayre's archival interviews, virtually everyone talked about how attractive she was. So I asked Watson how he could describe her that way, when everyone would say she was very beautiful. His answer was, very Watson-esquely, "She's not my type." But Sayre had some great anecdotes because she knew Franklin personally. Franklin had three very unusually wonderful close friends. Sayre, Anne Piper (who was on the show last night) and Myer Livingston, the doctor. They're three of the most incredible ladies I've ever known. If Franklin was anything like them, she must've been something.
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: The show did a magnificent job of portraying the scientific side of the story. They didn't have time to go into Franklin's personality, which was amazing. They t alked about her mountain-climbing, her cooking. She was very interesting. She didn't fit in with the pub-dwelling colleagues at King's College. The Sayre and Maddox books have a lot about her personality.
My book will be of the scope of Sayre's, but more concise. Which is hard. Take a look at the Physics Today article. That started at 9,000 words and ended up at 4,000.
Houston, Tex.:
Is not Franklin's contribution that of a
technician since she did not participate in
the deliberations with Crick and Watson?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: I vehemently disagree that she was a technician. This is the way Watson would like to rationalize using her data. She had a short, but full scientific career characterized by her brilliant interpreted data, which a tech can't do. There was one piece of DNA data which she did not interpret properly yet. She was so close, and that was the space group that told Crick that the backbone is anti-parallel.
Watson likes to make a big deal of this. He ridicules Franklin for not seeing this information, ignoring the fact that at that time he did not even know what a space group was and Crick only was able to interpret it because DNA had the same space group as his thesis molecule, hemoglobin. If you look at the archival letters and records of people who knew her, the words used to describe her are on the order of "brilliant" and "genius." Only Watson described her as a technician. Crick speaks very highly of her.
You should check out my Physics Today article.
Harwich Port, Mass.:
How is it possible for the two extremely long strands of DNA, which are intertwined, to pass through each and separate?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: If you envision a spiral staircase unwound, it becomes like a ladder and the rungs are pairs of nigtrogenous bases and the hydrogen bonds between the bases are broken with the aid of an enzyme. Beyond that any basic biology textbook would go into more detail.
West Hartford, Conn.:
Rosalind's grandfather had a sister who was married to Hebert Samuel who was the first British High Commissioner of Palestine. Is there any evidence that Rosalind derived any of her strength from the prominance of some members of her family or that she had any particular interest in Israel as a consequence of her relationship to Samuel?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: Rosalind's family on both sides had very accomplished women. Most of them were in public service or married to someone like Samuel. She was very aware of being Jewish and proud of that, but not religious. But she traveled extensively and was fascinated with Israel. That would have been the case even without Samuel. I really refer you to the beginning chapters of Sayre's and Maddoxes books. Sayre traveled with her a lot.
Tampa, Fla.:
Chicanery such as Watson et al, exist in all fields of endeavor, as I understand it did with the identification of the AIDS virus involving Anthony Fouci and others. It is always a sad, however it is encouraging to see the truth uncovered. It is unfortunate that her recognition was posthumous.
Will Watson ever make any amends, such as donation of book royalties in Rosalind Franklin's name, or publicly acknowledge his true debt to her?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: I doubt it. And you're right, this kind of thing happens more often than the general public knows. What is unique about the situation is that Watson is the only one who has bragged about it. IF you look at reviews of "The Double Helix", people minimize or overlook these "borderline unethical" actions and I think that's outrageous. Whether that's because of the ignorance of reporters or because Watson is so powerful, I don't know. I criticize him, we'll see what happens to me.
When I applied for an NSF grant to do my research and the hostility towards Franklin was palpable. I think Maddox's greatest contribution is that she could criticize Watson and Crick while remaining in the politically correct mainstream. Reviews of her book have made clear that Franklin was not properly acknowledged, although Maddox never steps over the line and talks about ethics the way Sayre and I do -- which may be why she is where she is today and could work on her book full-time, which frustrates me to no end.
Arlington, Va.:
I watched this edition of NOVA with great interest as I had no prior knowledge of the controversy regarding Watson & Cricks seminal discovery. That said, if Rosalind Franklin was as important to the discovery as you conclude, I dare say your presentation did her memory a disservice buy centering so much of the argument on a single X-Ray diffraction image. Going on the information presented (all I have on the matter) I was left with the impression that Watsons barbs were valid, if also blunt and harsh: That "Rosie" was difficult to work with and that lead to her academic isolation, that she was secretive with her data as a result, and that she did concentrate her analysis efforts on the less profound and potentially productive of her own X-Ray diffraction images.
How much of the pivotal numerical data derived from image 51 was the result of her analysis? Did she have the base pair knowledge of Watson & Crick necessary to piece together the big picture? Was the notion of molecular symmetry suggested by the image her conclusion, or a commonly understood property of X-Ray diffraction images?
You did an excellent job recounting the subterfuge involved in what was essentially the theft of her raw data. However, you left out far too much information on her contributions to the theory and analysis. At the close, I was left with the notion that her main contribution was the ability to take better resolution images. The passion of the program and the respect of the scientists interviewed suggests she contributed much more. What did I miss, or what was left on the cutting room floor?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: Aaaron Cluke only went through a small part of her notebook, but if you look at the entire book, she was incredibly close to the solution. But for television the visual picture is easiest to talk about. Also Watson is the key person slandering Franklin and was most affected by that photograph. So in one hour I think they did a magnificent job, but you're correct that it would be better if they had time to go into more detail about her work and her notebook.
Franklin was difficult to work with, but as pointed out, no more difficult than a lot of men, where it doesn't matter. She was very well respected and liked by most at the college, even when they mentioned how difficult she was. She was considered formidable and frightening to some. Her personality was more like you'd expect from someone from New York, like me, or Paris. Which was not proper at King's College. Gosling made an interesting comment that Rosalind had temperment, Rosalind had passion. You weren't supposed to have passion at King's College. I couldn't find anyone who disliked Franklin except Watson. Although they were wary of her intensity.
First of all it wasn't photo 51 that gave anyone the pairing. What Frankin's data did and the show showed quickly, her data gave them the backbone, not the rungs, of DNA. What the show did not have time to do was examine her notebook. I purposely put a few scraps of it in my Physics Today article. She was very close to base pairing and I'd hoped Aaron Cluke would go over that in detail. As a chemist capable of reading chemical papers, she was aware that at least three of the four bases had to be in the correct keto form. She was aware of hydrogen bonding and papers by Donahue and Shargas papers about basic ratios. Watson was able to figure out base pairing through a magnificent, also improperly acknoledged gift, from Jerry Donahue. Donahue spent a week arguing with Watson to try the keto form of bases, not the eno form as was typical in most text books. This doesn't diminish Watson's insightful brilliance, but Franklin was not far behind. So photo 51 and the MRC report gave Franklin the backbone and Watson figured out base pairing which fit right into the backbone. You needed both.
One more thing, it was more than photo 51. Franklin did this incredibly difficult cylindrical Patterson calculation which gave many of the key parameters of the backbone.
I'd refer you to the Physics Today article and Sayre's book for more.
Irvington, N.J.:
Is teamwork to be trusted?
Would you recommend to somebody able to develop alone an idea to a result, to join with others in his/her work, just to see things running faster?
The researchers are humans, and what happened with Ms. Rosalind Franklin happened many times before. I'll give you only two examples.
1. A British doctor living in a remote island in the Indian Ocean sent his notes about evolutionism and species to Charles Darwin in London, to ask for his point of view. When Charles Darwin read this work, he realized he had to hurry up to be the first in publishing about the evolution of species.
2. The Romanian Nicolae Paulescu published in 1921, in "Archives Internationales de Physiologie"(in French) about insulin and its effects in fighting with diabetes. One year later, the Canadians Grant Banting and Colin Munro published also about insulin. And they got the Nobel Prize (together with Herbert Best), and not Paulescu, who did it before!
What I learned from the documentary with Ms. Rosalind Franklin is so sad. Personally, I do not trust teamwork.
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: Darwin did his work independently, but perhaps was inspired to publish by getting that information. But you're correct in talking about the dangers of working with other scientists.
If you want to be outraged about what happens when collaboration is misused, read up on the story of Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars and was ridiculed by her thesis adviser, Hewish, for the discovery, calling her observations "little green men." By the time the paper was published there were seven authors and Hewish got the NObel prize. Two historians have written about this Broade and Wade. YOu might want to look them up.
In general science is so complicated today that collaboration is the order of business. No one person can master all the complexities, with DNA being one of the first examples of this. To solve DNA you needed to know defraction, all aspects of chemistry and genetics. The one who came the closest to this was Rosalind Franklin. She just didn't know the genetics, but even if she had, she worked so hard, nothing could have made her work harder than her own drive.
Philadelphia, PA:
Is there a tenative date yet for when your book will be available?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: It is still in development. I've been doing all my research while teaching nine courses a year and wore myself out. That has slowed me considerably. I hope to have it finished this year, but I don't make any deadlines or promises given the state of my health at the moment.
Philadelphia, PA:
One thing I found very interesting was the ambiguity of Franklin's job title, i.e. who exactly was in charge. This is something I believe Randall could have cleared up very easily, why do you think he allowed this confusion to go on? Is it possible he wanted Franklin to believe she was in charge so she would be more willing to take the position?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: Randall was very adept at raising funds. He was exceedingly poor at managing people. He often pitted two members of his staff against each other. In most cases it didn't matter. He his minipulations cost him the Nobel prize. To give you an example that I just wrote about and was eliminated from my article. Randall, without consulting Franklin, hired someone to build DNA models for Franklin. Franklin was understandably upset and rejected this person, whereas if Randall had approached her about having a junior colleague, Franklin probably would have been glad for the help. She had no one professional to talk to and the extreme irony of this is that this woman, Pauline Cowen Harrison, recently trained by Hodgkin, would have known the significance of Franklin's classification of the space group as meaning that the backbone was anti-parallel, just as Crick realized. They would have solved DNA long before Watson and Crick got any of her data.
You're very astute picking up on the role of Randall as fundamental to this fiasco, but it's also important to realize how diametrically opposed personalities of Franklin and Wilkins were and they just couldn't rise above that. It was a mutual thing.
Huntington Beach, CA:
Because I am almost almost a contemporary of Rosalind Franklin,with some "first" degrees in science I am interested I am very interested in pursuing this further. I am hoping to make some connection . Can you suggest anything?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: My article, Sayre's Book and when I teach physics I encounter many women as yourself and they are all outraged how they were "bumped off the path" by the scientific community.
Washington, D C:
First, the intro doesn't say which CSU campus you are with. I've taught in the system, hence the interest.
The TV program didn't mention that Watson got his PhD from Indiana University in Bloomington. We arrived at the Chemistry Building just as he was exiting. When the findings were published, they were met with some deflation. Biochemistry had been sewn up for the rest of the century.
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: First of all, I'm at Cal State at Hayward and my e-mail is in the Physics Today article if you want to correspond with me.
And Bloomington Indiana is not the strongest part of Watson's pedigree, so usually not mentioned, although a fine institution.
washington, dc:
Not a question but a comment. I am a scientist who watched the Nova program. While it is deplorable that Rosalind Franklin's contribution was minimized and that the unbalanced view projected by Watson's book still remains to be rectified,nevertheless the fact remains that the crucial step from Franklin's photo 51 to the double helix structure required someone who had marvellous visual abilities, someone who could construct the correct 3-d model. And it is Watson & Crick who did that. Given Franklin's preoccupation with Structure A and not Structure B (which was the double helix), there is a possibility that if Watson & Crick had not been given access to photo 51, the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA would have been delayed.
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: You've been taking Watson's arguments too seriously. Franklin had a wonderful 3 dimensional sense. She was an artist, machined her own equipment, very capable of model building, but only in favor of it when data existed. If you looked at her notebooks, you could see how close she came. This does not minimize the brilliance of Watson and Crick, but it is Watson's view that they had to rescue the data from an incompetent woman who did not know what to do with it. Watson is the only one that says this.
In fact, on March 17 Franklin polished an already written draft paper which was modified into her Nature paper which had the healable backbone of DNA. If Watson and Crick did not have access to her data, that would have been published and would have precipitated the solution to DNA really quickly with her being acknowledged properly.
For a crystalographer the A form data was much more complete and interesting and Franklin was never afraid of hard work, so she tackled the A form first. She did not ignore the B form data. That's Watson's line. If you look at her letters, people were in awe of her cylindrical Patterson A Form analysis. If she hadn't been scooped with her own data no one would ever have accused her of wasting time with the A form. Remember Watson and Crick guessed at the structure of DNA -- Crick is honest about this. They built several models.
Philadelphia, PA:
It seems from what I have read in my Women Scientists In America book (Margaret Rossiter) and from some of your information that the Nobel Prize commitee is/was either biased against women scientist or doesn't/didn't research the contributions of the prize winners to well. What do you think?
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: I think it's a combination of both. I don't think "bias" is the right word so much as oblivous to women. I don't think they researched the history well and they did that for some women as well. One frightening thing is when people are knocked off the pedestal.
Dr. Lynne Osman Elkin: It was frustrating to get in on this show towards the end of the production. There is much more material, which my article hints at. I travel around the country speaking. I'm open to offers to lecture.
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
