This blog post examines the achievements of Rosalind Franklin, who made a crucial contribution to the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, yet was forgotten by history, and the reasons behind it.
Ten years after the completion of the Human Genome Project, we now live in an era where anyone with even a passing interest in biology can briefly explain that DNA has a double helix structure and describe the basic principles of DNA replication. Yet, the seemingly simple structure and replication mechanism of DNA remained undiscovered until three billion years after life first appeared on Earth. Of course, the first living organisms couldn’t have possessed intellectual ability, but this underscores how difficult it was to conceive of this principle for the first time. Understanding DNA’s structure is crucial for comprehending genetic phenomena, and the individuals who uncovered this structure and won the Nobel Prize are none other than the well-known James Watson and Francis Crick.
In fact, three people, including Maurice Wilkins, shared the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, but Watson became the most famous because he wrote a book detailing the process of uncovering DNA’s structure. The book, The Double Helix, further cemented his fame. However, The Double Helix also detailed Watson’s unethical behavior, which caused him significant trouble after its publication. The most crucial clue for understanding the DNA structure was a single photograph of DNA crystal diffraction analysis. Yet, none of the three Nobel laureates were the owner of that photograph. The person who took the photograph was Rosalind Franklin, a female scientist working under Wilkins. Wilkins showed it to Watson without her permission. Had this not occurred, Rosalind’s name might now be in biology textbooks instead of Watson and Crick’s.
Regardless of the process, it was ultimately Watson and Crick who revealed the double helix structure. Wilkins shared the Nobel Prize because he had studied DNA’s structure far longer than Watson and Crick. This is also why people don’t remember Wilkins. Yet Rosalind, who provided the crucial clue, never received a Nobel Prize.
Sadly, she passed away in 1958, four years before Watson and Crick received their Nobel Prize, after suffering from ovarian cancer. So, if Rosalind hadn’t developed ovarian cancer, would she have won the Nobel Prize? Considering Wilkins shared the award, one might assume Rosalind would have too, but the answer isn’t that simple.
Looking at Nobel Prize statistics, it’s easy to see that women winning the prize is extremely rare. By 2008, only 12 women had won Nobel Prizes in science, and at the 2001 centenary celebration, Dorothy Hodgkin was the only British woman to have ever won. Why is the proportion of women among Nobel laureates in science so low?
Most people might think the primary reason is that there are far fewer female scientists compared to male scientists. This stems from biological differences between men and women, as the brain structures of women and men show significant differences. In particular, the corpus callosum connecting the left and right hemispheres of the female brain is much more densely developed than in males, giving women superior ability in tasks requiring the use of both hemispheres. The left brain governs logic, while the right brain governs intuition. Women excel over men in tasks requiring both, such as emotional expression and language use. Conversely, men excel in abilities requiring focused use of one hemisphere, like mathematical calculation or spatial perception.
However, this is merely an average observation; exceptions always exist. The development of human brain structure is significantly influenced by testosterone hormone levels in the womb. Therefore, depending on hormone concentrations, a boy with exceptional emotional expression and language skills might be born, or a girl with a talent for math and science who enjoys spatial puzzles. However, these occurrences are exceptional and rare, which is why the number of male scientists far exceeds that of female scientists. Yet even if the number of female scientists is low, it is puzzling that in over 100 years, there have been only about 10 female laureates. In contrast, there have been over 530 male Nobel laureates in science.
The biggest problem is that prejudice and discrimination against women still exist in the scientific community. A prime example is Jocelyn Bell Burnell, the Cambridge astronomer who first discovered pulsars. She was denied the Nobel Prize solely because she was a woman. The Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of pulsars was awarded to her supervisor, Antony Hewish, whose citation credited him for “recognizing the significance of tidal observations.” Lise Meitner, the female physicist who discovered and proved uranium fission, also faced numerous restrictions. She ended up ceding her achievements, along with the Nobel Prize, to another scientist who had collaborated on the research. These are clear examples demonstrating the severity of prejudice and discrimination against women.
Let’s return to Rosalind Franklin’s story. It is no exaggeration to say that the double helix structure of DNA was discovered by her; her achievements were truly remarkable. Yet she lived in an era where, simply because she was a woman, she was barred from eating in the staff dining hall at King’s College. Considering Bell’s story—who discovered the pulsar but ceded the Nobel Prize to his supervisor—it seems highly unlikely Rosalind would have received the Nobel Prize.
Some may wonder why such an old matter is still a point of contention. After all, the situation today is vastly different. Yet the scientific community still seems unfriendly toward female scientists. In 2009, three female scientists were awarded Nobel Prizes in science. The fact that the number of female laureates, which had been only 12 over more than 100 years, increased by three in just one year is nothing short of a groundbreaking event, considering the male-dominated nature of the scientific community. This seems to indicate that prejudice against women has significantly diminished. However, Dr. Ada Yonath, a Nobel laureate in Chemistry, stated in her acceptance speech that she had never once thought of herself as a woman, either personally or as a scientist. While this can be interpreted in various ways, I believe she was likely referring to the persistent gender discrimination still prevalent in academia.
Support for female scientists remains severely lacking. Rosalind Franklin’s dramatic life and achievements are all the more valuable precisely because they were accomplished under such circumstances, presenting challenges the scientific community must now address. The burdens placed on women, such as childbirth and childcare, also pose significant obstacles to research careers. In this regard, I believe women require both government-level consideration and personal resolve. This issue is not confined solely to the scientific community or the Nobel Prize. Across many fields and in daily life, the environment women face remains far too harsh. I hope an environment is created where female scientists who wish to dedicate themselves to research can do so with peace of mind, so that, sadly, no more unfortunate female scientists have their achievements stolen from them.
