We watched Photograph 51 last week. A play written by Anna Zeigler, it is based on the role that an x-ray diffraction image probably played in unraveling the structure of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). In science just as in all other pursuits in life, there is a journey and a destination. My own humble life in science has taught me that the path we travel is influenced to a considerable degree on whether we are seeking the truth or a victory.
I read the biography of Rosalind Franklin when I was about forty. Up until then, I knew that James Watson and Francis Crick had discovered the DNA. I had not heard of Maurice Wilkins or Raymond Gosling. Science lessons are supposed to be objective and only state facts; not provide sociological history. May be I was too young when I gave up biology at the end of 8th class …?
Dr. Rosalind Franklin moved from Paris to London in 1951. She had expected to be given charge of an independent laboratory where she could pursue her research on x-ray diffraction in King’s College; instead she found herself mandated to assist Dr. Maurice Wilkins in his search for the structure of DNA. The disappointment caused by this arrangement and the many assumptions that Dr. Wilkins unilaterally made about their mode of collaboration got the team dynamics off to a dismal start from which it never recovered and eventually contributed to the drama that unfolded. At least two of those assumptions continue to be endemic even today in research laboratories. Dr. Wilkins transferred his PhD student Raymond Gosling to Dr. Franklin without consulting either of them. He saw Rosalind as the experimentalist who would generate the x-ray photographs while he, Maurice, the theoretician would apply his mind to the process of discovery. That Rosalind was a woman, a Jew, single and singularly determined to follow a career in science was in an institution where women were not allowed into the senior common room where lunch was served was not inconsistent with the dominant moorings of those times.
Unlike Rosalind and Maurice, the chemistry of the collaboration between Watson and Crick was magical. James, trained as a Zoologist and, Francis, a Molecular Biologist were both drawn to genetics and the DNA. Much has been written about their very distinct personalities and styles but that seems to have only fuelled a synthesis of ideas and lent momentum to their desire to be first in the race for a Nobel. Watson was adventurous and inventive. Having obtained a doctorate in the United States by the age of 22, he had figured out that the fastest way to get to the goal post was to propose, test and dispose hypotheses rapidly until you got to the one that fell in place. He and Crick had a strong intuition that x-ray diffraction would provide a clue to the structure. That was his reason to choose to work at Cambridge, to be close to Lawrence Bragg [i], the then Director of Cavendish. Watson had no fear of intermediate failure, no lack of self confidence, no qualms in looking around the corners or walking across to others like Maurice Wilkins to hunt for new information or data to bolster the models that he and Crick were building. Rosalind was a Physical Chemist and her approach was to arrive at a solution through perfecting the quality of data that would allow for calculations, reliable analysis and interpretation. Maurice was a Bio Physicist; while he admired Rosalind’s attention to detail, he wished she would relent and be more open to injecting a model based thought process into her methodology but by then the door to a dialogue had already closed. All through 1951-52, Rosalind worked tirelessly to improve the x-ray system in the lab so as to obtain pictures with sharper clarity and detail. It is this strive for perfection that led to the Photograph 51 that was taken by Gosling and the one that Maurice Wilkins shared with James Watson in a moment of despair as he frustrated over having to work with an uncompromising Rosalind. He did so without Rosalind’s knowledge. The x-ray diffraction pattern in the photograph helped Watson and Crick to work out the details of the double helix such as the placement of the phosphates (whether they were inside or outside), the pairing of the bases and the sizes of the molecules involved and present these to the scientific community in early 1953.
The Nobel was finally awarded in 1962 to Watson, Crick and Wilkins. Ovarian cancer possibly caused by over exposure to x-ray claimed Rosalind in 1958. She may have independently arrived at the structure of DNA from a detailed study of Photograph 51 by herself. But, unlike Watson, she did not have one or more models in mind. So, while she recognized the superior quality of the photo, it did not at the first glance provide her the “Eureka moment”.
A stellar performance by the cast depicting Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, Raymond Gosling, Francis Crick, James Watson and Donald Casper in the 90-minutes show of Photograph 51 at the Jagriti Theatre [ii] brought back the emotions that had swept over me when I had first read the biography. There was also the undeniable pleasure of seeing our good friend Sanjeev Gadre on stage in the role of Maurice Wilkins who I have always thought of as the most complex and nuanced character in the DNA story.
I would go on to say that Maurice Wilkins abound in Research Labs even today. They mean well, they are decent human beings but they are confused and often uncomfortable with capable and determined women colleagues. The Watsons are smart and brash, interested mostly in winning the race and will do anything to be the first to get there. They are relatively rare but know a Crick and a Wilkins when they see one. The Cricks are hard-working, brilliant and successful – but they are postponing a future they so desire, a future they may never have, for the present may consume them; they are gender neutral. Rosalind could be any scientist who is seeking perfection. Rosalind is very likely to be a woman.
Leap of faith assumptions, formulating hypotheses, testing them in rapid succession to mitigate risk has become the norm of research – certainly in industry, and, I suspect in academia as well. Much of this approach is driven by the funders and the managers in deference to efficiency and outcome being considered as measures of accountability. An endeavor in which the destination becomes more important than the journey, a scientist who pegs away patiently for the moment of truth is invisible and anachronistic.
To me Rosalind remains an inspiration not only because she was a woman steadfast in her love for nature and science but because she had the desire and the courage to undertake a journey.
[i] He and his father William Bragg had been awarded the Nobel in 1915 for proposing and demonstrating the Bragg’s Law of x-ray diffraction by crystalline structures.
Unfold the Wings 