Of Schemes and Memes Blog

Science festivals – part 10: The Secret Behind the Secret of Life: Facts and Fictions

At this year’s World Science Festival, science has been liberated from the laboratory and allowed to spread its wings through the imaginative medium of theatre. What better example of this new freedom, where art and science can complement each other like the threads of an intricately woven tapestry, than the powerful presentation of Photograph 51, performed at The 3-Legged Dog Art and Technology Centre in New York.

659 2011-06-03 The Secret Behind the Secret of Life - Facts and Fictions _DSC3218.jpgDuring the 1950s, three laboratories were in competition to be the first to decipher the structure of DNA. This breakthrough, lifting the shadowy cloak from the genetic world, was credited to scientists who are now amongst the most influential in history, and some of whom are still alive today. Fifty years after the Nobel Prize was awarded for this breakthrough, the part played in this discovery by one female scientist, remained mysterious. This production explores the role of this female scientist in determining the molecular structure of DNA; her name: Rosalind Franklin.

This historical drama, written by award-winning playwright Anna Ziegler and produced by The Ensemble Studio Theatre Production, was executed in a small, intimate theatre allowing the audience to become fully immersed in the sensational story of one determined female scientist. We were able to explore the emotional drama associated with scientific discovery and get a real glimpse at the levels of competitiveness and the drive to succeed.

Thumbnail image for 660 2011-06-03 The Secret Behind the Secret of Life - Facts and Fictions _DSC3223.jpg

Illuminating one of science’s most influential discoveries

Although roughly based on real life events, the story compresses the years between 1951 and 1953, jumping from sets in King’s College London to Cambridge University. The story begins at Kings College as Rosalind Franklin embarks on a new research position working alongside the molecular biologist, Maurice Wilkins, analysing the X-ray diffraction images of DNA.

The audience quickly learns that Rosalind Franklin is not any ordinary character, but surprisingly has a hostile, unfriendly attitude. Despite Wilkins’ attempts to be kind and work alongside her, she refuses to collaborate with him, making sure she is always referred to as Dr Franklin, never by her first name.

P1010073.JPG

The play explores Rosalind Franklin’s behaviour; she seems to work alone and for long hours, yet on occasions displays an imaginative side and can be easily distracted by mountains, dreaming of living in the Alps with abundant fresh air. She is fascinated by shapes and intricate drawings and is often happier alone in her lab than in the company of others. Her PhD student, Ray Gosling, portrayed as a mild-humoured, geeky character adds a comedic factor to the play as he battles with her tempestuous nature.

Her scientific pursuits focused on the X-Ray crystallography of DNA and the play highlights how she overcomes the limitations of her camera, so that she is able to take perfect pictures of DNA. She never looks for praise and is never in a rush to be the first; she is far more concerned that everything is correct scientifically than in winning a race.

The Competitors

In parallel, the play takes us to the University of Cambridge’s Cavendish Laboratory in England, where James Watson, first meets his future collaborator, Francis Crick. Watson is depicted as a boisterous 22 year old American who is fresh minded, determined and eager to succeed. Crick is well-spoken and certainly has an eye for the ladies, despite being married. The play creates a “laddish” sense of camaraderie between the two scientists, yet reveals their sense of competitiveness in their endeavours.

Watson and Crick believe DNA is a double helix but have no confirmation; their aim is to build a model of the structure, which they try and fail to do on one occasion which proves Photo_51.jpglaughable to Rosalind Franklin. The pinnacle scene of the play is the occasion when Watson comes to London to visit Rosalind in hopes of collaboration; she shouts him out of her lab. Instead he meets with Wilkins, who then shows Watson photograph 51, the very best image Rosalind has ever taken which clearly highlights DNA as a double helix. Watson, inspired by this image, rushes back to Cambridge where he and Crick are then able to successfully build a model of DNA.

Amongst these events, we are also introduced to another character, Donald Caspar, who has recently completed his PhD and has been in awe of Franklin from afar. He takes a fellowship in her lab and the play explores their emotional connection. It is clear that Donald is in love with her and the play suggests she has feelings for him too, as he is the only man who is allowed to call her Rosie and not Dr Franklin.

This love connection between Caspar and Franklin causes a stir in Maurice Wilkins, suggesting that he also harbours some feelings of love for her; however she just cannot let go to experience love. Franklin falls ill and dies in 1958 at the age of 37 from complications arising from ovarian cancer. The play juxtaposes her lonely love life with her lonely scientific career and ends on a sad note: an untimely death after a life without the ultimate scientific prize and without experience of love.

What if?

Francis, Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 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”, but where was Rosalind’s acknowledgment? After all, it was her picture which led to the discovery? The play raises questions. Would it have been different if she has been an easier person to work with? Or would the discovery have happened faster if she had been happier to collaborate with others and less secretive about her own work? Or what if she had been born a man?

Grappling with a debate between fact and fiction – the after-discussion

What we came away from the play with was a dramatic, emotional image of these historical events which led up to the ultimate scientific accolade, the discovery of DNA. But what we wanted to know, apart from whether these timelines were accurate, was largely personal. Was Rosalind Franklin really such a tyrant? Was Francis Crick a womaniser? Did James Watson really have bad hair? Was Raymond Gosling really in love with Rosalind Franklin? Was it true that she had never been kissed?

P1010104.JPG

After the riveting performance, a rare opportunity arose to actually ask these questions of three of the men whose lives the play dramatises, the real life stars of the play – James Watson, Donald Caspar and Raymond Gosling.

The after-discussion was an interesting glance into the reality of characters and events. James Watson explained that the play did depict Franklin’s unfriendly nature, but did not capture her full character. She was portrayed as a lonely scientist, but in real life she had a naturally terrific sense of humour and enjoyed a fine lifestyle, appreciating the theatre and dancing. In fact, on one occasion, having forgotten to do something, she returned to the laboratory decked out in a dance gown and jewels – that’s how dedicated she was. Donald Gosling who worked with Rosalind for years seemed to agree with Watson’s more positive testament of her character.

She really did inspire affection. Now you wouldn’t get that feeling of affection from a really shrewish woman. She had great verve and vitality. But the thing that annoyed the boys with their toys was that she had a separate life, a personal life, which grubby little physicists…couldn’t afford to have.” -Raymond Gosling

To our dismay Raymond- from his own mouth- was not in love with Franklin, which was disappointing for the audience to hear. Interestingly enough, he was not even working in her lab at the time the play’s main events occurred; he said that this depiction was “just plain wrong.”

Conclusion

Having listened to the comments of the real-life “players” we must question whether drama serves science if it lacks accuracy. How much dramatic license should theatre take when presenting a factually-based scientific story? Can something like science, which depends on facts and accuracy, be transposed into the world of drama? Does the truth of the characters matter as long as the facts of the science itself are accurate? You can make up your own mind on this, but one thing is for sure; it is always stimulating to see the spotlight on science.

If you want to read more highlights from the World Science Festival, you can find a summary of all our coverage here.

Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Laura Wheeler said:

     We asked our Facebook fans, "Should Rosalind Franklin have won a Nobel Prize??"  Here are some of the responses:

    • 16 people like this.

      •  

        Kevin Hines Yes. End of story.

        about an hour ago · Like ·  1 person

      •  

        Benedita Andrade Pinheiro yes.

        about an hour ago · Like

      •  

        Silvia Mota Of course yes, no doubt about it!!!

        about an hour ago · Like

      •  

        Danae Dodge Absolutely 100%!

        about an hour ago · Like

      •  

        Israel Barrantes If you are going to discuss about giving Nobel prices to dead people, start with Democritus, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, and so on. How many times do we have to talk about the same topic? POSTHUMOUS NOMINATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED by the comitee! PS. My respects to Ms Franklin though.

        about an hour ago · Like ·  3 people

      •  

        Beatriz Gallo Of course!!!

        about an hour ago · Like

      •  

        Francisco Manuel Garcia Guirado Of course, the story must go to end.

        about an hour ago · Like

      •  

        Wioletta Kowalska right

        about an hour ago · Like

      •  

        John Araujo I agree

        56 minutes ago · Like

      •  

        Samantha Van Houtte Exactly. From what I remember from working in the Nobel Museum, the science prizes are awarded conservatively, once the discovery pans out. Maybe if it had been awarded before ‘57, but Israel’s right- not posthumously. The point of the prize is to fund future work, not just to crown the achievement.

        50 minutes ago · Like ·  1 person

      •  

        Michel Guerrero No doubt … !!!!!! She worked hard on those X ray diffraction images of DNA … !!!! Crick said it himself: "Her data were the data we actually used" to formulate the hypothesis of the structure of DNA.

        42 minutes ago · Like

      •  

        Gülşen Uz Absolutely she deserves the prize !

        34 minutes ago · Like

     

  2. Report this comment

    C. C. said:

     Rosiland Franklin died (of cancer-most likely from prolonged X-ray exposure) in 1958. The prize for this discovery was awarded in 1962. The Nobel committee does not give the award posthumously.  For this reason, she did not receive the award.

    We can speculate all we want about her deservedness of the prize, but the reality is we will never know.  I would like to believe she would have been included had she been alive. 

  3. Report this comment

    Laura Wheeler said:

    This is true C.C, thanks for your input.

    You are correct, the Nobel committee does not give the award posthumously, we should therefore have asked, "Had she been alive, would Rosalind Franklin have won a Nobel Prize?"  Or what has also cropped up, "Should the Nobel Prize rules be changed?"  What do you think??

  4. Report this comment

    Laura Wheeler said:

     Here are some more thoughts from Facebook :

    •  

    •  

      Aisha Syeda Yes.period.

      20 hours ago · Like

    •  

      Conrado Bosman Absolutely yes

      20 hours ago · Like

    •  

      Jennifer Wessel Hell YES!!

      20 hours ago · Like

    •  

      Felicita Quagliozzi yes! yes! yes!

      19 hours ago · Like

    •  

      Ivan Calderon Yes !

      18 hours ago · Like

    •  

      Matt Chew 

      It’s a thoroughly misleading question. Nobel Prizes are not awarded by popular demand. It isn’t a popularity contest. The prize money comes from a private endowment. Awards do not have to be fair, just, even-handed, thoughtful or even defensible. The contributions have to seem important or ‘outstanding’ at the time they are recognized. Visit https://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/to see how many winners you’ve ever even heard of.

      17 hours ago · Like ·  1 person

    •  

      Ana Paula Costa-Pereira 

      Rosalind was a superb scientist who fought tremendously to do what she loved most: research. Her untimely death terminated what was a brilliant career. And, yes, it was only the fact that her data was shown to Watson and Crick that enable them to formulate their theory when they did. 

      I met by chance, in the London tube, one of her cousins’ wife (a wonderfully bizarre and magical moment that only happens in places like this). She advised me to read Brenda Murdock’s biography of Rosalind. I urge you to do the same if you have any doubts that Rosalind deserved to shake hands with the Swedish king…

      11 hours ago · Like ·  1 person

    •  

      Ngashangva Ngalengshim yes.

      5 hours ago · Like

    •  

      David Nucleo Alexander Yes.

      3 hours ago · Like

    •  

      National Adrenal Diseases Foundation Yes. Definitely. I’m also sharing this on the NADF page-everybody should know who Rosalind Franklin is, and her incredibly important research that contributed so much.

      2 hours ago · Like

    •  

      Heather Bain Yes-she deserved much more credit for her work than she received.

      2 hours ago · Like

     

Comments are closed.