Researching Researchers

Here are three types of sources that have proved to be insightful in my research

Newspapers:

Newspaper articles from the time of the discovery were very straight forward, with the story being presented with only Watson and Crick receiving credit. These clippings come long before the real story reaches the media.

Letters:

A letter that I found was the letter nominating Watson and Crick for the Nobel Prize. This is hard to read, with Franklin given absolutely no credit. Knowing that this, and ultimately the nobel prize, is one of the main reasons that she was left out of the equation for so long is troubling.   

Circk actually sent a letter to his friend outlining the discovery before he wrote his book. This letter gives substantial credit to Rosalind Franklin is the main source of proof of what she did. I have been having a terrible time finding this letter however. I have found many articles talking about it, but am still looking for a copy of it that I can read for myself.

Textbooks:

As my argument evolves more to critique her portrayal in modern textbooks rather than talking about her at all, I will be using these textbooks as primary sources. I have found textbooks online as well as those used at USC in Biology courses. What they have shown me is that Rosalind Franklin is continually outlined as a controversy, or a side note to the story about Watson and Crick. If she is present in the book, she is given a sidebar as an add-on to the information, rather than being presented as facts

Rosalind Franklin: Discovery is in her DNA

I have chosen to talk about Rosalind Franklin for this project. She was the person who developed the experiment that produced an image for DNA. However, two men, Watson and Crick, published findings and ultimately won the Nobel Prize for essentially her work and she died too young to advocate for herself. More than a decade ago, people our age would not have heard of her at all in their science classes. Luckily, we are now fed a revision to this story of Watson and Crick. Most moderately progressive classes and teachers will include the narrative of Franklin not receiving the credit deserved.

However, we cannot stop there. In conventional science class, her part in the discovery of DNA structure has to be a straightforward fact, rather than an addition or part of a description of controversy. This is an important consideration because we need to normalize the role of women in science. In the context of struggles against sexism, Franklin’s controversy is relevant, but in the science classroom, this is not the history that should be presented. Young girls should see her as a great science that can make groundbreaking discoveries right alongside the men.