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.

During 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.

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.

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 laughable 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?

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.