Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Houston Breakthrough, Vol. 3, No. 3, March 1978
Pages 13 and 14
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Houston Breakthrough, Vol. 3, No. 3, March 1978 - Pages 13 and 14. March 1978. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. October 19, 2019. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/1189/show/1177.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(March 1978). Houston Breakthrough, Vol. 3, No. 3, March 1978 - Pages 13 and 14. Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/1189/show/1177

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Houston Breakthrough, Vol. 3, No. 3, March 1978 - Pages 13 and 14, March 1978, Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters, Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries, accessed October 19, 2019, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/1189/show/1177.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Houston Breakthrough, Vol. 3, No. 3, March 1978
Publisher Breakthrough Publishing Co.
Date March 1978
Subject.Topical (LCSH)
  • Women--Texas--Periodicals
  • Feminism--United States--Periodicals
  • Newsletters
Subject.Geographic (TGN)
  • Houston, Texas
Genre (AAT)
  • periodicals
Language English
Type (DCMI)
  • Text
  • Image
Original Item Location HQ1101 .B74
Original Item URL http://library.uh.edu/record=b2332724~S11
Digital Collection Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters
Digital Collection URL http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist
Repository Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries
Repository URL http://info.lib.uh.edu/about/campus-libraries-collections/special-collections
Use and Reproduction Educational use only, no other permissions given. Copyright to this resource is held by the content creator, author, artist or other entity, and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the copyright owner. For more information please see UH Digital Library Fair Use policy on the UH Digital Library About page.
File Name index.cpd
Item Description
Title Pages 13 and 14
Format (IMT)
  • image/jpeg
File Name femin_201109_538m.JPG
Transcript J :Kv *j£"V£& Loretta Standard Rosalind Franklin and DNA By Anne Say re Norton, J 9 75. $2.95 By Anita Davidson "In la In 1962 the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology was shared among Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins in recognition of their work on DNA. Rosalind Franklin, had she lived, would surely have received a share of that recognition." This claim was made by J.D. Bernal, who headed the lab at Birkbeck College where Franklin worked from 1953 until her death in 1958. Bernal was not alone in his opinion; Aaron Klug and Andre Lwoff were among the other respected scientists who would attest to the importance of her work. Yet, until very recently, her contributions were virtually unknown outside a very small group of scientists. Linus Pauling in a paper published in Nature credited Maurice Wilkins with the B-Form photographs of DNA that had, in fact, been made by Franklin. Anne Say re had known Rosalind Franklin well, and was disheartened by the lack of recognition accorded to the memory of this very fine scientist. Nobel prizes, however, are not awarded posthumously; and for Anne Sayre, at least, the matter would have remained a private dis- appoinment had it not been for James Watson's publication in 1968 of The Double Helix. Watson's book is subtitled "A personal account" and relates the sequence of events leading to his discovery of the structure of DNA as remembered after fifteen years. The almost total bypass of Franklin's work in The Double Helix lead Aaron Klug to publish an _exten- sive article in Nature describing in some detail her work on the DNA problem. He called her contributions "crucial" and pointed out that she discovered the B-Form, recognized that two states of the DNA molecule existed, and defined conditions for the transition. In addition, "from early on she realized that any correct model must have the phosphate groups on the outside of the molecule." These were key points in the solution of the DNA structure. Thus, Watson's book inadvertently brought about the public recognition Rosalind Franklin's work had lacked, if only in a small scientific circle. Ironically, in the larger community of the general public, The Double Helix did Rosalind Franklin an even greater disservice than neglect. Watson missed no opportunity in his book to emphasize his position that men who work with intelligent women have reason to resent them. He used "Rosy"-a vastly warped and fictionalized version of Rosalind Franklin-to make this point. Andre Lwoff in his review of The Double Helix declared Watson's portrait of Rosalind Franklin "cruel" and his remarks about her manner of dress and lack of charm "quite unacceptable." For Anne Sayre, Watson's book was an injustice to the memory of a friend, and, added to the injustice done to Franklin's work as a scientist, it spurred her to the six-year research and study effort that went into her knowledgeable and well-documented examination of Rosalind Franklin's career and the DNA affair. Sayre points out that her version is not necessarily the way Rosalind Franklin herself would have told it; rather it is Rosalind Franklin's story, as told by a friend. Sayre begins by describing Franklin's background from a wealthy family with a strong social conscience that prompted most of its members to devote their lives to volunteer social work. There was never any doubt that Franklin would receive an education commensurate with her abilities, but she came by her deep sense of vocation without encouragement from her family, for she did not have to earn a living. That she always insisted on living within her own earnings speaks for the sincerity of her choice. Sayre follows Franklin through her Cambridge years, through her significant work as assistant research officer of the British Coal Utilization Research Association (CURA), and her four years in Paris as a.chercheur in the Laboratoire Central des Services Chimiques de I'Etat. In 1951 Rosalind Franklin accepted Laboratory Director Randall's offer of a Turner-Newall Research Fellowship at King's College with the understanding that she would be put in charge of building up an x-ray diffraction unit within the laboratory, which at that time lacked one, and this she accomplished. Of the number of research projects going on to which the application of x-ray diffraction methods was appropriate, the one devoted to the investigation of DNA was the most important, and to any imaginative scientist, the most provocative and fascinating. In 1950 Erwin Chargaff, using methods of paper chromatography which made possible very exact measurements of the components of DNA, had demonstrated that the four bases present in DNA—adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine—were present in varying proportions according to the biological source from which the DNA was taken, thus provides essential information without which the structure of DNA could not have been determined at the time at which it was. Along with others from the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, James Watson attended the colloquium at King's, but insists in his book that he got nothing out of Franklin's talk. He spent fifteen months cultivating the friendship of Maurice Wilkins in order to milk information about what "Rosy" was doing. Maurice Wilkins did not know that Watson was working on DNA-Watson kept that fact well hidden-and therefore had no idea that he was supplying invaluable information to his "friend." It was not until Maurice Wilkins showed Watson Franklin's x-ray picture of the B-Form of DNA that Watson admits to grasping what Franklin had observed and presented at her colloquium. About the photograph Watson writes "mere inspection...gave several of the vital helical parameters." (Unfathomably, he continues to refer to Franklin as "anti- helical"). Franklin was unaware that Watson had seen her x-ray picture, and she was also unaware that he had received a copy of a report that she and her student, R. G. Gosling, had written summarizing the results of their x-ray studies of calf thymus DNA. Watson writes that he was elated by the report because it assured him that what he and Crick had in mind "was not incompatible with the experimental data." The "experimental data" was Franklin's. As Sayre points out, on February 5, 1953, Watson and Crick had nothing in mind which permitted them a certain retelling of the circumstances in his 1968 account. Watson attempted to gain "underdog" sympathy from the reader and at the same time to lift his quest out of the personal and into the larger national realm by incorporating Linus Pauling as the California "giant" he was racing to beat to the solution of the DNA problem, even though Pauling was unaware that a race was on. The reader of The Double Helix is led to believe that graciousness alone prompted Watson to invite Franklin to view his completed model (after publication of the first paper in Nature on April 25, 1953). We learn from Sayre that Watson needed Franklin's opinion and views of his model before he could undertake to write the second paper discussing the real beauty of the structure, that it explained how the genetic code is carried. James Watson and Francis Crick made a brilliant solution to the problem of the method of base-pairing in the DNA structure. Watson chose to present this theory as if it had come off the top of his head rather than acknowledge the base of information which he had obtained indirectly and in such a way that he preferred not to make it known at that time. Watson and Crick deserve full credit for perceiving the nature of the base pairing, and this is a very high and unarguable claim to glory. But as Andre Lwoff put it in a conversation with Sayre, the evidence for the rest of the structure lay in Franklin's data which they had received unconventionally, and surely they should either have confined their paper to the scheme of base pairing or offered her joint auth- Had Rosalind Franklin lived, James Watson could not have written The Double Helix, an account of the discovery of DNA which completely undermines "Rosy's" (sic) vital contributions as a scientist." clearing the way for the formulation of a theory of how DNA can act as the carrier of genetic information. This was the general state of affairs with regard to DNA when Franklin came to King's College. The problem was irresistible and challenging. Previous attempts to delineate the structure of the DNA molecule through x-ray diffraction methods had not gotten very far beyond indicating that DNA was a poor subject for x-ray photography, producing very little diffraction data, very possibly too little to allow any significant interpretation. Franklin was drawn to the challenge. By November, she had produced some interesting experimental results and presented them at a colloquium given at King's. The notes for her talk include most of the material contained in her report to Randall which she wrote three months later. Sayre points out that although Franklin's report does not, of course, describe the structure of DNA, it then to build a conclusive model of DNA, but between February 6 and February 28, a successful model had become possible. Certainly the data received from King's was not all that was required to allow them to do this, but certainly it was essential. Both Franklin's density data which indicated the possibility of a two- chain model, and the diffraction pattern she had obtained in the B-Form photograph provided evidence of the diameter of the helix; and Watson admits "Rosy had hit it right in wanting the bases in the center and the backbone (phosphates) outside." To have acknowledged the source of such key information would have denied Watson the aura of exclusivity. In order to make exclusive claims, it was necessary to gather information indirectly; and as Watson frankly admits in 7776? Double Helix, this is exactly what he did. However, the exclusive priority of discovery which Watson claimed in 1953 demanded orship for supplying the rest of the information. Rosalind Franklin was not a meek soul. Sayre assures us that if she had known the extent of her contribution to the Watson-Crick model, she would surely have taken steps to set the record straight. Had she lived, Watson could not have written The Double Helix in its present form. Anne Sayre delves deeply and examines thoroughly every aspect and detail of the events and personalities of the DNA affair. With clarity and fairness, Watson's actions are viewed in the context of his inherited values and attitudes; while he is held accountable, he is not accused beyond his own personal responsibility. As a consequence of Watson's deception, Rosalind Franklin's achievements were made practically invisible to succeeding generations. Anne Sayre has delivered from anonymity the contributions of an important scientist. lurnabout by Jean Kirkpatrick, PhD Doubleday, 1978. 183 pages. $6.95. By Elnora Mendias Women for Sobriety, Inc. (WFS) is a loosely knit national organization of self-help groups for women alcoholics. Jean Kirkpatrick is a recovered alcoholic who founded this organization partly as a step in maintaining her own sobriety. Turnabout: Help for a New Life is Kirkpatrick's own story of her alcoholic years prior to founding WFS, as well as a brief description of the organization itself and its treatment program. Kirkpatrick's story is vivid and compelling. A bright and talented woman, she was an alcoholic from age 18, yet she managed to go on to graduate school and work in responsible positions. Alcohol disgusted her—and also fascinated and captured her. Her life alternated between optimistic plans to stop drinking and achieve great things and defiant drinking until she had sustained physical and emotional damage. Alcohol alternately built and diminished Kirkpatrick's self- respect, filled her with both confident elation and self-loathing, and enmeshed her in a nightmare of nights, days and events she couldn't remember or remembered only vaguely through a distorting alcoholic fog. In despair, she tried several times to take her own life. Kirkpatrick's story is typical of the cyclical denial and despair, defiant drinking and miserable self-loathing, faced by the alcoholic. The story is tragic because of the pain and self-destruction this talented individual brought upon herself. The story is unusual because of the courage it took to reveal it. Though it is estimated that there are 5 million women alcoholics in the United States (as many as there are estimated male alcoholics), female alcoholism still carries a more severe social f_i_M *3#^. stigma. It's considered "unlady-like" behavior. Kirkpatrick contrasts the WFS program of "13 Statements of Acceptance "with the "12 Steps" of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). She contends that A A was designed for men at a time when women alcoholics were thought to be rare, and proposes that many women cannot be helped by AA. She contrasts the focii of AA and WFS; WFS shifts from dependence on God for help in overcoming alcoholism to the development of positive thinking and improved self-worth. Loretta Standard AA WFS 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol. . .that our lives had become unmanageable. 2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. 3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. 4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. 5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. 7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings. 8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed and became willing to make amends to them all. 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. 10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it. 11.Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry them out. 12.Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs. 1. I have a drinking problem that once had me. 2. Negative emotions destroy only myself. 3. Happiness is a habit I will develop. 4. Problems bother me only to the degree I permit them to. 5. I am what I think. 6. Life can be ordinary or it can be great. 7. Love can change the course of my world. 8. The fundamental object of life is emotional and spiritual growth. 9. The past is gone forever. 10.All love given returns two-fold. 11 .Enthusiasm is my daily exercise. 12.1 am a competent woman and have much to give others. 13.1am responsible for myself and my sisters. (c)1978 Turnabout: Help for a new life, pp. 161-162. *:&h,< Page 12 HOUSTON BREAKTHROUGH March 1978 March 1978 HOUSTON BREAKTHROUGH Page 13