I just finished reading Anne Sayre's book "Rosalind Franklin and
DNA". This was truly an eye opening experience. I highly recommend all
women in science (not just genetics) to read this book. Reading this book
made me see some "women in science" issues quite clearly and I would like
to pose some questions for discussion to this group. If you'll bear with
me, I will very briefly outline key points in Anne Sayre's book as
background for my questions.
I read Watson's "Double Helix" quite a few years ago. At the time,
I knew enough about the history of genetics and DNA to read between the
lines and see that Rosalind Franklin was not appropriately credited for her
work on DNA. However, my "reading between the lines" fell very short of
realizing just how much credit was not given to Rosalind Franklin.
Anne Sayre does an excellent job presenting the facts about
=46ranklin's scientific achievements and explains that much of Watson's
account is a "perspective", not presentation of facts. She presents a two
pronged case discussing Franklin's accomplishments as a scientist (those
independent of the DNA work were significant) and discussing Franklin's
personality and how she dealt with the all-male scientist environment of
the time.
Franklin's scientific accomplishments before and after her DNA work
were quite extensive. Prior to Franklin's work on DNA, she had published
ground breaking work in molecular structures of various compounds, some of
the work used X-ray crystallography as a tool. By the age of 24, she had
numerous publications in prestigious journals. So her DNA work was not the
result of stumbling into results that she could not properly interpret. She
knew what she was doing and knew what her data revealed.
What is the message? What is revealed by combining the Watson's
perspective presented in the "Double Helix" and Sayre's presentation in
"Rosalind Franklin and DNA"? Towards the end of Anne Sayre's book, she
writes about her interviews with a number of graduate students who read
"Double Helix". To them, the take home message was that if Nobel Laureates
can take someone else's data and use it, then that must be o.k. Not the
type of thing we want to hear in a profession based on open discussion and
exchange of information.
As I read the book, I realized some of my own biases about
"victims". Rosalind Franklin was a victim, left out of the male-scientist
community. In my biased perspective, victims often do nothing to speak for
themselves, they let others take advantage of them (the meek, unobtrusive
woman) and amplify the injustice. But from Anne Sayre, we see that Rosalind
=46ranklin was a strong, independent person who was also an outstanding
scientist. Her "mistake" was being out of the loop, she was outside the
male-science society and their exchange of information. That removed her
>From controlling the use of her data or even knowing that her data was
being discussed and used by scientists outside of her own laboratory. Her
death at such a young age seems to have also denied her the opportunity to
stake her claim in the DNA structural work.
Now I clearly see that when you have no input/control, you may not even
have an opportunity to fight back. And this isn't just a women's issue. It
reflects a problem to those not in the loop, or not in control; for
example, post-doc/grad student vs. P.I.
Previous posts to this board have discussed honesty vs. naivet=E9 in
laboratory courses and in research projects. I think this touches
peripherally of an important aspect of scientific research, one that must
be considered when selecting graduate student advisors, post-doc advisors,
or even senior faculty collaborators. Will you get credit for your work? If
you do the bench work under the guidance of an advisor, how much is yours
vs. the advisor. Who controls the data, you or your advisor? Who sees your
data? Will you get credit for your work? How much of your work in a
combined project must be part of the published data for you to be an
author? And how do you discuss these issues at the beginning of a project
or collaboration without being labeled as a "trouble maker" etc.
The other issue touched upon is when you knowingly share your data,
how do you know that you will be included in the ongoing work? Or that you
will be duly credited for your work?
I have been very fortunate in my science career. I have had honest
advisors who were always willing to appropriately acknowledge my work.
However, some people are not so fortunate.
In a recent issue of the "Scientist" I saw the latest inductees
into the National Academy of Science. Not many women in the group. How much
can you control in your scientific career if you are not in a position of
control?
Hopefully some of the more senior scientists in this group can
respond to these questions and present some advise.
Laura Cox
*****************************************************************
Laura Cox, Ph.D.
Department of Genetics
Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research
PO Box 760549
San Antonio, TX 78245-0549
*****************************************************************
(^`-/^)_.-'"``-._
(. . `) -._ )-.`._()
(=3Dv=3D)' _ )`-.\ `--'
_;- _,-_/ / (_,'
(_,.-' (_,/
=2E.........................................................................=
=2E.....
=2E................................................................
