Source: The Conversation – in French– By Clotilde Policar, Professor, Director of Science Studies at ENS, École normale supérieure (ENS) – PSL
Rosalind Franklin, the “dark lady” of DNA, died on April 16, 1958, of ovarian cancer. An expert crystallographer, specialist in molecular structure analysis, she began her independent career (after her thesis) in Paris at the CNRS. What does her story teach us about the exclusion of women from scientific careers?
In the 1950s, a genuine scientific race to discover the structure of DNA was launched. It mainly involved three teams: Linus Pauling’s at Caltech (United States), and two in the United Kingdom: that of James Watson and Francis Crick at Cambridge, and Maurice Wilkins’ from the biophysics department of King’s College in London, led by John Randall.
It is in this context that the latter proposes to Rosalind Franklin to set up her own structural analysis team to study the structure of DNA: the stakes are high, and Rosalind Franklin settles in London in January 1951.Relations became strained very quicklywithMaurice Wilkins, who did not see her as an independent researcher (today we would say a ‘principal investigator’), but rather as working in his team, as his collaborator, evenhis assistantas Watson also points out. John Randall is probably responsible for not having welcomed her in clear conditions for her colleagues.
She works with a PhD student,Raymond Gosling, and is attempting to align DNA fibers to capture X-ray diffraction images. One of the experimental problems is the existence of two intermixed structures whose proportions depend on the degree of humidity. Rosalind Franklin proposed to prepare a sample with a single structure to get a clearer image and she succeeded. The now famous Photo 51 allowed her, together with Raymond Gosling, to obtain experimental proof of the helical structure. Butthis photo is revealed to James Watson by Maurice WilkinsA: it was transmitted to him by Raymond Gosling, and there is no trace of an agreement from Rosalind Franklin (neither Watson nor Wilkins mention Franklin when they recount this exchange in their respective books).
This photograph is the missing experimental cornerstone for Watson and Crick’s reflections on the structure of DNA. They then write an article which they intend forNature. Their proposal has the merit of justifying the stability of the structure through pairwise interactions via hydrogen bonds: this is important but should not overshadow Franklin’s contribution, whose work constitutes the experimental proof of the double helix with the presence of the phosphate backbone on the outside of the structure.
Publications inNature
In 1953, John Randall, meeting the publisher ofNature, Lionel Brimble learns of the imminent publication of the Watson and Crick proposal, and he convinces him, without mentioning that of Franklin, to publish Wilkins’ article as well, also on the structure of DNA. Rosalind Franklin,already tired of the little inclusive environment of King’s College, is about to leave for Birkbeck College where she will arrive in March 1953. She has almost finished writing her own work on DNA. Upon learning that the articles by Watson and Crick and by Wilkins were going to be published, she herself had to insist, even though the progress of her research was perfectly well known at King’s College,than his appear in the same issue.
Three articles will therefore be published in 1953, one after the other, under a common title “Molecular structure of nucleic acids”:the article by Watson and Crick, which appears first,that of Wilkinsthenthat of Franklin. A note in Watson and Crick’s article clearly states that their theoretical proposal is based on the experimental work, unpublished until then, of Wilkins and Franklin.
Today, the standards of a scientific article require that one first describes the “raw” experimental results, which are analyzed and decoded, leading to a more theoretical discussion of the implications of what has been revealed. Here, the editor placed the theoretical article before the two experimental articles. Certainly under a common heading “Molecular structure of DNA”, but which, today, is referenced onlyWeb of Scienceend of 2025) as linked to the Watson and Crick article! It is undoubtedly, precisely, because it is the first of the series of three. Could one not have imagined a single article with the experimental contributions supporting the theoretical proposal?
Is it important? It seems that it is: even if citation numbers must be handled with caution, one must note that the first article, that of Watson and Crick, has been cited more than 12,000 times, whereas that of Franklin and Gosling, about 1,140 times, and that of Wilkins, Stokes, and Wilson about 740 times (figures taken from the siteWeb of Scienceend of 2025).
The Nobel: the forgotten women
It is often said that Rosalind Franklin could not have the Nobel Prize with Watson, Crick, and Wilkins in 1962 because it is not awarded posthumously. But, one then forgets that the rule that forbids itdate of 1974. Before 1962, at least two Nobel Prizes were awarded posthumously (Erik Axel Karlfeldtin 1931 andDag Hammarskjöldin 1961). But here, there are three laureates for the 1962 prize, the maximum number for a Nobel Prize, and Rosalind Franklin was the “fourth man” (!), as was the case withJocelyn Bell,discoverer of pulsars or ofLise Meitnerfor nuclear fission. While the Nobel Prize shows only a little more than6% of the laureates, many are cited as being on this “fourth” step!
Rosalind Franklin was systematically excluded from a network of exchanges (including data exchange, those of photograph 51) and discussions in ahighly sexist environment. For example, the teachers-researchers’ lounge at King’s College at the timeforbidden to womenHowever, these places allow for informal meetings that are crucial in the relationships between scientists.
Without resentment, it seems, against Watson and Crick,she leaves King’s Collegeshortly afterwards to conduct pioneering fundamental work on the structure of viruses at Birkbeck College.
The editorial ofNatureof April 27, 2023, 70 years after the publication of the three articles, discusses this question and concludes:
“Unfortunately, this remains true: the title of an article published inNature(in 2022) “Women are less recognized than men in the scientific field,” says a lot. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are concepts that some still consider temporary trends and an anathema to “good” science. However, the history of DNA proves that they are the foundations of fruitful collaboration and scientific progress.”
A long-lasting insidious exclusion: what to do?
It is important to evolve the vocabulary: why not choose to talk about the “double helix of Franklin, Watson, and Crick”? And above all, this story should be taught in school, high school, and university: it is also our responsibility as teachers and academics to convey messages to our student audiences about the place of women in science. Obviously, this does not mean silencing the names of Watson and Crick; let us think, in an inclusive manner, to mention those of Franklin and other women scientists: Jeanne Barret in botany, Ada Lovelace, pioneer of computer programming, Lise Meitner and the discovery of nuclear fission, Maud Menten for enzymatic catalysis kinetic models, Marie Tharp for seabed maps and her contribution to plate tectonics theory, Marthe Gautier in the context of the discovery of the chromosomal origin of Down syndrome, Chien-Shiung Wu for her studies on weak interactions, Jocelyn Bell for pulsars, and many others…
Forgetting them is to embed in young women the idea that the world of science is made for men and to exclude them: this is the well-known mechanism today ofthreat of stereotype, concept proposed in 1995 by Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson: the stereotype (for example, “women are less gifted than men in sciences,” “boys are less gifted than girls in drawing”), even if it has no biological basis, induces in those who know it, and particularly those who are victims of it, abehavior that confirms it.
Like Rosalind Franklin, women are still partially excluded from scientific venues and places of scientific power, but it is more subtle than an exclusively male staff room as was the case at King’s College.The filmPicture a Scientistnotably shows us examples: more difficult recruitment and career paths, smaller workspaces, unheard voices, greater efforts demanded of women, or even remarks made about clothing…
It is necessary to discuss and promote the collection of gendered data to enable the identification of these biases, a prerequisite for their consideration and for actions to counter them. While this is often done to document the effects of gender on recruitment (and to verify that the processes are virtuous), this is rarely or not at all done for working conditions (support for women’s activities, allocation of workspace, shared offices or not, contributions to collective tasks, singular over-solicitationfor tasks that are unrewarding for the careerin connection with the requirement for quotas…). Should we not consider, until parity becomes effective, compensatory measures so that women are not penalized in scientific careers? One could think of strengthening support at the time of maternity leave, for example: without disadvantaging male colleagues, this would contribute in turn to making these careers more welcoming for young girls. Because, now more than ever, facing the challenges threatening our planet, we need all the brains to find solutions and cannot afford to exclude by default half of the population! Much remains to be done for a fairer and more effective scientific society!
I warmly thank Sophie Vriz for drawing my attention to Watson and Crick’s note in the 1953 article, Elisabeth Bouchaud for pointing out that the prohibition of posthumous Nobel prizes dates from 1974 and for her magnificent series of plays “Les Fabuleuses” at the Reine Blanche, Dominique Guianvarc’h for indicating the name “dark lady” of DNA, and all those who, like Bernold Hasenknopf, systematically, every year, mention women scientists in their courses.
Clotilde Policar does not work for, does not advise, does not own shares, does not receive funds from an organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no other affiliation except her research institution.
–ref. Rosalind Franklin, the “dark lady” of the DNA structure or how women are excluded from sciences –https://theconversation.com/rosalind-franklin-the-dark-lady-of-dna-structure-or-how-women-are-excluded-from-science-281277