What do you think?
Rate this book
Rosalind Franklin and DNA
Rosalind Franklin's research was central to the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA. She never received the credit she was due during her lifetime.
In this classic work Anne Sayre, a journalist and close friend of Franklin, puts the record straight. Photographs
In this classic work Anne Sayre, a journalist and close friend of Franklin, puts the record straight. Photographs
221 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
15 people are currently reading
498 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
April 20, 2014
Sayre’s book is an essential contribution to the history of the discovery of DNA.
I read James Watson’s The Double Helix about two decades ago. His version of how the structure of DNA was discovered seemed to me so unlike the scientific research I was engaged in. Yes, I used to be a research scientist, I am now a writer.
The scientific research I was familiar with was more the sort Rosalind Franklin was doing. I never met or heard of such happy go lucky geniuses as James Watson and Francis Crick, who managed to make great breakthroughs so effortlessly, spending a great deal of their time socialising, often in pubs. Franklin was mentioned, she was the hard working, uninspiring young woman. All sweat, no inspiration. I was bewildered by that story.
So when I heard about Sayre’s book recently, I had to read it.
The book is extremely well documented. Not a scientist herself, Sayer amazed me with her understanding of the scientific process and of many techniques used in uncovering the structure of DNA, but I had doubts that her version is entirely accurate. How could a close friend of Franklin give us an unbiased account of her? So I decided to read Maurice Wilkin’s autobiography:The Third Man of the Double Helix. He too has things to say about Franklin. They both worked at Kings College London.
I can now say that Sayre is not biased, if anything she holds back too much. She tries to justify the behaviour of Watson, Wilkins and even Crick, dig into their psychology. This is one of the problems with her book.
In scientific research discussions with colleagues and going to conferences is crucial. Discussions trigger new thoughts and ideas. Sayre mention this but does not emphasise it enough.
Franklin worked largely on her own , she did have a PhD student, Gosling, who socialised with Wilkins and probably told him about their latest results. Wilkins was going to conferences and was forever wheeling and dealing with Watson and Crick behind Franklin’s back. And he even gave them her most important result, which swayed their work in the right direction.
After two years at King’s College London, Franklin decided to find another research job and she left. Wilkins was relieved. He could take over her work. But then friction with James Watson and Crick started. It did not develop. Watson and Crick had solved the DNA structure using among others, Franklins results.
Franklin was dead at the age of 37, from ovarian cancer, which might have been caused by her work in X ray crystallography.
A sad story.
This is not only the history of how the structure of DNA was discovered. This story is a lesson in the history of science. It shows that when you are an outsider (man or woman) the chances are that you are going to lose.
I read James Watson’s The Double Helix about two decades ago. His version of how the structure of DNA was discovered seemed to me so unlike the scientific research I was engaged in. Yes, I used to be a research scientist, I am now a writer.
The scientific research I was familiar with was more the sort Rosalind Franklin was doing. I never met or heard of such happy go lucky geniuses as James Watson and Francis Crick, who managed to make great breakthroughs so effortlessly, spending a great deal of their time socialising, often in pubs. Franklin was mentioned, she was the hard working, uninspiring young woman. All sweat, no inspiration. I was bewildered by that story.
So when I heard about Sayre’s book recently, I had to read it.
The book is extremely well documented. Not a scientist herself, Sayer amazed me with her understanding of the scientific process and of many techniques used in uncovering the structure of DNA, but I had doubts that her version is entirely accurate. How could a close friend of Franklin give us an unbiased account of her? So I decided to read Maurice Wilkin’s autobiography:The Third Man of the Double Helix. He too has things to say about Franklin. They both worked at Kings College London.
I can now say that Sayre is not biased, if anything she holds back too much. She tries to justify the behaviour of Watson, Wilkins and even Crick, dig into their psychology. This is one of the problems with her book.
In scientific research discussions with colleagues and going to conferences is crucial. Discussions trigger new thoughts and ideas. Sayre mention this but does not emphasise it enough.
Franklin worked largely on her own , she did have a PhD student, Gosling, who socialised with Wilkins and probably told him about their latest results. Wilkins was going to conferences and was forever wheeling and dealing with Watson and Crick behind Franklin’s back. And he even gave them her most important result, which swayed their work in the right direction.
After two years at King’s College London, Franklin decided to find another research job and she left. Wilkins was relieved. He could take over her work. But then friction with James Watson and Crick started. It did not develop. Watson and Crick had solved the DNA structure using among others, Franklins results.
Franklin was dead at the age of 37, from ovarian cancer, which might have been caused by her work in X ray crystallography.
A sad story.
This is not only the history of how the structure of DNA was discovered. This story is a lesson in the history of science. It shows that when you are an outsider (man or woman) the chances are that you are going to lose.
June 22, 2011
OK, so it's probably a little biased because it's clear that the author was close friends with Ms Franklin, but nonetheless, it painted a very interesting picture of the woman who made many contributions to the scientific field, and who alas, received very little recognition for her work. Certainly James Watson who wrote [The Double Helix] appeared to discredit Ms Franklin almost every time he mentions her, even going so far as giving her a diminutive nickname of 'Rosy'.
This book attempts to not just describe Rosalind's drive in challenging herself and others around her, but delves also into her impressive family history, and through that, we start to see how Rosalind's character was shaped. Her confidence and penchant for discussions, even her enjoyment of dissenting opinions, was sometimes perceived by other less confident individuals as arrogance. She unfortunately, lived in a time when women were merely tolerated but hardly respected in her chosen fields in England. It was only during her years in Paris that she appeared to be at her happiest, where the environment of enthusiastic discussions and information sharing was, for her, simply ideal.
If her environment at King's College had been similar to what she experienced in Paris, it is thought she may have broken the DNA code much sooner. Instead, apart from a student, she worked in isolation. If not for the copious and detailed notes she took and which survived her, we would not have known how far she had come in her DNA research.
Once Crick and Watson had published their paper on DNA, Rosalind, not only wasn't bitter, but she wrote a supporting paper that displayed her delight in the beauty and perfection of the model.
This book attempts to not just describe Rosalind's drive in challenging herself and others around her, but delves also into her impressive family history, and through that, we start to see how Rosalind's character was shaped. Her confidence and penchant for discussions, even her enjoyment of dissenting opinions, was sometimes perceived by other less confident individuals as arrogance. She unfortunately, lived in a time when women were merely tolerated but hardly respected in her chosen fields in England. It was only during her years in Paris that she appeared to be at her happiest, where the environment of enthusiastic discussions and information sharing was, for her, simply ideal.
If her environment at King's College had been similar to what she experienced in Paris, it is thought she may have broken the DNA code much sooner. Instead, apart from a student, she worked in isolation. If not for the copious and detailed notes she took and which survived her, we would not have known how far she had come in her DNA research.
Once Crick and Watson had published their paper on DNA, Rosalind, not only wasn't bitter, but she wrote a supporting paper that displayed her delight in the beauty and perfection of the model.
July 30, 2012
The three main scientists who discovered the structure of DNA were Jim Watson, Francis Crick, and Rosalind Franklin. Rosalind Franklin was the experimentalist, who used X-ray diffraction of fibers of DNA to determine that it was helical. Francis Crick determined that there were two helices, and that they ran in opposite directions. Jim Watson discovered the base pairings based on hydrogen bonds. Since Franklin died of cancer before the Nobel prize was awarded, and since there is a rule forbidding the posthumous award of the Nobel, Franklin could not receive the Nobel prize. But her early death was not the only reason she has received far less than her fair share of the credit. At the time, there was widespread discrimination against women in science. Many people simply assumed that since she was female, she worked under the male scientist, Maurice Wilkins, when actually they were independent and of equal rank. The impression one gets is that the male scientists, especially Wilkins, acted like frightened little boys, unable to handle a woman with a strong personality. Interestingly, the fact that Franklin was Jewish, does not seem to have been a source of conflict.
February 8, 2008
So the basic premise here--- is that the author feels that Watson was a total jerk about Rosalind Franklin in his book "The Double Helix". When I read the Double Helix, I thought this myself, even though I did not know much about her--- beyond the fact that she took some xray pics that let us know DNA forms a double helix.
I suppose the authors had an important message to put out there in the world--- and I think as a result Franklin has gotten more props in the textbooks of today's generation. But, the author held back a bit too much and tried to be really diplomatic about the whole thing. I actually just wanted her to come out and say "Watson is a doofus".
But, she was friends with Franklin, and stood up for her legacy, which is cool. So, girlfriends--- if I ever do anything cool in science, but then get my name dragged through the mud--- I demand you take this lady's lead and write a rebuttel. Thanks.
I suppose the authors had an important message to put out there in the world--- and I think as a result Franklin has gotten more props in the textbooks of today's generation. But, the author held back a bit too much and tried to be really diplomatic about the whole thing. I actually just wanted her to come out and say "Watson is a doofus".
But, she was friends with Franklin, and stood up for her legacy, which is cool. So, girlfriends--- if I ever do anything cool in science, but then get my name dragged through the mud--- I demand you take this lady's lead and write a rebuttel. Thanks.
July 29, 2021
Sayre writes a needed counterbalance to Watson's The Double Helix. However, she goes too far in the other direction. She correctly claims that Watson treated Franklin unfairly in his book (and in real life), casting himself as a hero and Franklin as a villain (somewhat debatable), Sayre takes the opposite tack, casting Franklin as the hero who can do no wrong and Watson, among others, as the villain. In fact, the book comes very close to a hagiography.
Both books should be read - preferably one after the other - and the most outlandish claims from each discarded. Then the reader will likely obtain something close to the truth, i.e., somewhere between the two viewpoints.
Both books should be read - preferably one after the other - and the most outlandish claims from each discarded. Then the reader will likely obtain something close to the truth, i.e., somewhere between the two viewpoints.
May 22, 2021
Anne Sayre's explicit rebuttal to Rosalind's portrayal in The Double Helix reads delightfully, perhaps at most occasionally dueling between blandness and repetition. As a work from someone close to Franklin, it goes without saying that the perspective expressed within will give Rosalind the benefit of the doubt, yet in doing so it sets the record straight from Watson's unmitigated artistic devising of a "Rosy" which never existed.
Covering her entire arc from brilliant school student to precisely determined researcher to a tragic yet warm end, Sayre in no uncertain terms tells the story of not only a scientist, but a very vivid character, deserving of the honor from receiving a proper re-telling of her impressive life. Always living with the burden of proving she belongs, in a field at the time still mightily carrying the weight of prejudiced expectations and standards based on sex, her after-the-fact interpretation as a feminist is carefully navigated; her meticulous distinction between social activism pursuing change and her record of proving herself to be no less capable as a force for change is addressed as it affected her in the present as well as how it was told incorrectly by Watson in The Double Helix.
It is fair to say that a majority of the book is spent on rebutting claims made in The Double Helix. Certain evidence is provided for Watson's timeline in publishing his book being quite purposeful, not the least that of being published after Rosalind cannot defend herself from the nearly-defamatory claims made about her legacy. In no uncertain words, Sayre relies on the best record as is available, correcting many of the myths spread by Watson's narrative, the largest being that Rosalind was fruitless and futile in her parallel, isolated efforts investigating DNA. She left quite a record of objective analysis of the A-type and B-type strands, and well-dispelled is the myth that she was unsupportive of DNA being helical. Through extensive discussion about the social and communicative dynamics between Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and Franklin, the incorporation of Rosalind's work as crucial into Watson and Crick's final model is made evident. Despite her being unaware of having been so crucial as to have potentially been the reason for which the discovery was even possible, she lived a fulfilled life even not knowing such a fact. She admired Watson and Crick's model without reservation, not even in passing critical of their usage of model building in contrast to X-ray crystallography, in fact awed by their ability to piece together isolated evidence into one beautiful final product.
Though her life is not perfect in the slightest, and perhaps even slightly glorified by means of being written by a friend's generous hand, Sayre's account lovingly affirms the legacy for a brilliant scientist whose accomplishments are far too often swept under the rug, both in the laboratory scientifically and in history as a force for upending expectations and norms to normalize the studying of our own environment for the common good as a pursuit available to anyone and fulfilling to everyone.
Covering her entire arc from brilliant school student to precisely determined researcher to a tragic yet warm end, Sayre in no uncertain terms tells the story of not only a scientist, but a very vivid character, deserving of the honor from receiving a proper re-telling of her impressive life. Always living with the burden of proving she belongs, in a field at the time still mightily carrying the weight of prejudiced expectations and standards based on sex, her after-the-fact interpretation as a feminist is carefully navigated; her meticulous distinction between social activism pursuing change and her record of proving herself to be no less capable as a force for change is addressed as it affected her in the present as well as how it was told incorrectly by Watson in The Double Helix.
It is fair to say that a majority of the book is spent on rebutting claims made in The Double Helix. Certain evidence is provided for Watson's timeline in publishing his book being quite purposeful, not the least that of being published after Rosalind cannot defend herself from the nearly-defamatory claims made about her legacy. In no uncertain words, Sayre relies on the best record as is available, correcting many of the myths spread by Watson's narrative, the largest being that Rosalind was fruitless and futile in her parallel, isolated efforts investigating DNA. She left quite a record of objective analysis of the A-type and B-type strands, and well-dispelled is the myth that she was unsupportive of DNA being helical. Through extensive discussion about the social and communicative dynamics between Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and Franklin, the incorporation of Rosalind's work as crucial into Watson and Crick's final model is made evident. Despite her being unaware of having been so crucial as to have potentially been the reason for which the discovery was even possible, she lived a fulfilled life even not knowing such a fact. She admired Watson and Crick's model without reservation, not even in passing critical of their usage of model building in contrast to X-ray crystallography, in fact awed by their ability to piece together isolated evidence into one beautiful final product.
Though her life is not perfect in the slightest, and perhaps even slightly glorified by means of being written by a friend's generous hand, Sayre's account lovingly affirms the legacy for a brilliant scientist whose accomplishments are far too often swept under the rug, both in the laboratory scientifically and in history as a force for upending expectations and norms to normalize the studying of our own environment for the common good as a pursuit available to anyone and fulfilling to everyone.
March 7, 2021
Rosalind Franklin and DNA is a nonfiction book written by Anne Sayre. This book tells the real story of how Rosalind contributed to discovering the model of DNA. The Double Helix by James Watson is the most famous book about this famous discovery, but his book doesn't tell the whole story. Rosalind worked very hard and discovered a whole new form of DNA: the B form, to have much of her work stolen by Watson and Crick. Sayre, one of Rosalind's close friends tells this story truthfully and with heart as she proves that Rosalind had a bigger part in this discovery than she gets credit for.
Sayre first starts out by explaining Rosalind's early life. She attended Cambridge University and had a passion for science. She then took many jobs before finally landing at King's College where all of her most important work on DNA took place. Early on at King's, Rosalind makes her first "enemy": Maurice Wilkens. Their personalities clashed because Rosalind liked to prove her point and have long discussions, while Wilken's found this annoying. She worked with him for many years before the final model of DNA was discovered and they parted ways.
Throughout the book, Anne Sayre makes the argument that Rosalind contributed much more to the discovery of DNA than she gets credit for. After discovering the model of DNA, Watson claimed that he had beaten Rosalind to it "by a mile", but it had been Rosalind's suggestion in the first place that the backbone of DNA went on the outside, and that the B form of DNA would play a huge role. Anne argues that the only reason he even knew this was because he had visited King's college at this time and listened to one of Rosalind's presentations on the subject. Sayre said, "The vital information which was leading Rosalind toward the correct solution, she had developed for herself, experimentally, and all of it was available to Watson and Crick." The entire time Rosalind had not been aware that Watson and Crick had access to some of her work, and they didn't give her the credit she deserved at all. They merely said that Rosalind had "stimulated" them, not that they had used her work entirely.
Sayre also explains Rosalind's contribution by explaining what happened after the discovery. She left King's College but had to leave all of her work behind. Even after leaving, she finished her paper Nature which supported Watson and Crick's model. She really looked up to Crick and thought of him as a genius without knowing some of the work he used was hers. Anne said, “She was pleased that it confirmed her work precisely as her work confirmed it, she did not know that, indeed, it incorporated her work.” Throughout the book, Anne Sayre makes it clear that Rosalind had no idea her work was being used
Rosalind Franklin and DNA is not the type of book that I normally would read or find interesting but this was one of the few non-fiction books that I really did enjoy. I would definitely recommend reading it especially if you are interested in DNA and its helical model. I think this book is made for teachers, scholars, students, and really anyone in general who wants to learn the full story about DNA that is commonly overlooked in schools. Even though I did only read this book because of Biology class I really enjoyed reading it and I even got my mom to read it.
Sayre first starts out by explaining Rosalind's early life. She attended Cambridge University and had a passion for science. She then took many jobs before finally landing at King's College where all of her most important work on DNA took place. Early on at King's, Rosalind makes her first "enemy": Maurice Wilkens. Their personalities clashed because Rosalind liked to prove her point and have long discussions, while Wilken's found this annoying. She worked with him for many years before the final model of DNA was discovered and they parted ways.
Throughout the book, Anne Sayre makes the argument that Rosalind contributed much more to the discovery of DNA than she gets credit for. After discovering the model of DNA, Watson claimed that he had beaten Rosalind to it "by a mile", but it had been Rosalind's suggestion in the first place that the backbone of DNA went on the outside, and that the B form of DNA would play a huge role. Anne argues that the only reason he even knew this was because he had visited King's college at this time and listened to one of Rosalind's presentations on the subject. Sayre said, "The vital information which was leading Rosalind toward the correct solution, she had developed for herself, experimentally, and all of it was available to Watson and Crick." The entire time Rosalind had not been aware that Watson and Crick had access to some of her work, and they didn't give her the credit she deserved at all. They merely said that Rosalind had "stimulated" them, not that they had used her work entirely.
Sayre also explains Rosalind's contribution by explaining what happened after the discovery. She left King's College but had to leave all of her work behind. Even after leaving, she finished her paper Nature which supported Watson and Crick's model. She really looked up to Crick and thought of him as a genius without knowing some of the work he used was hers. Anne said, “She was pleased that it confirmed her work precisely as her work confirmed it, she did not know that, indeed, it incorporated her work.” Throughout the book, Anne Sayre makes it clear that Rosalind had no idea her work was being used
Rosalind Franklin and DNA is not the type of book that I normally would read or find interesting but this was one of the few non-fiction books that I really did enjoy. I would definitely recommend reading it especially if you are interested in DNA and its helical model. I think this book is made for teachers, scholars, students, and really anyone in general who wants to learn the full story about DNA that is commonly overlooked in schools. Even though I did only read this book because of Biology class I really enjoyed reading it and I even got my mom to read it.
September 2, 2024
An excellent book about an excellent person. It is almost unbelievable the way James Watson treated Rosalind Franklin despite immensely profiting from her, to the point even Francis Crick thought of The Double Helix as nonsencial. At times it makes you angry, more so when you realise not only did Rosalind face this again and again in her life, but that there are countless other women scientists who faced the same and received even less recognition. I love the book isn't just a biographical retelling of Rosalind's life or the supposed race to uncover the DNA, but a philosophical, feminist, and contextual analysis of the scientific world and how it operates. We often conflate scientific brilliance with overall brilliance, that someone who made such a great contribution to science must himself be a great person, but James's stereotyping of women and attitude towards self-heroism makes you question just how much can a person be admired for their work whilst also detested for the scummy methods with which they went about said work. Anne presents her thoughts on the whole situation, and what it means to be a scientist, very beautifully and I found my own thoughts corroborating with hers. In hindsight, as I write this, Rosalind has become the foremost name when discussing the plights of women in academia. Reading this book and getting to know Rosalind a bit more personally just makes me wonder how would she react to how the world remembers her
September 25, 2024
An excellent book about an excellent person. It is almost unbelievable the way James Watson treated Rosalind Franklin despite immensely profiting from her, to the point even Francis Crick thought of The Double Helix as nonsencial. At times it makes you angry, more so when you realise not only did Rosalind face this again and again in her life, but that there are countless other women scientists who faced the same and received even less recognition. I love the book isn't just a biographical retelling of Rosalind's life or the supposed race to uncover the DNA, but a philosophical, feminist, and contextual analysis of the scientific world and how it operates. We often conflate scientific brilliance with overall brilliance, that someone who made such a great contribution to science must himself be a great person, but James's stereotyping of women and attitude towards self-heroism makes you question just how much can a person be admired for their work whilst also detested for the scummy methods with which they went about said work. Anne presents her thoughts on the whole situation, and what it means to be a scientist, very beautifully and I found my own thoughts corroborating with hers. In hindsight, as I write this, Rosalind has become the foremost name when discussing the plights of women in academia. Reading this book and getting to know Rosalind a bit more personally just makes me wonder how would she react to how the world remembers her
March 9, 2025
Even as a scientist myself, I did not know just how much of the DNA research, attributed to Crick & Watson, was based on Franklin' work, which was "borrowed" without her awareness...
The writer did a great job at researching the truth behind the story and also Franklin's persona. The book lays the facts very clearly, while of course, the overall emotion of the book was greatly influenced by two of them being friends. Even so, I think the writer kept a very "lawyer-like" approach throughout the book, which both eluminated me a lot about the historical period and social context in general (womens rights in Europe, vs Britain; UK Universities policies, etc), but also made the reading a bit hard to follow (not the easiest language, hence, 4 stars).
Despite of not being a scientist herself, the author communicated the field of research really well, I'm impressed!
The writer did a great job at researching the truth behind the story and also Franklin's persona. The book lays the facts very clearly, while of course, the overall emotion of the book was greatly influenced by two of them being friends. Even so, I think the writer kept a very "lawyer-like" approach throughout the book, which both eluminated me a lot about the historical period and social context in general (womens rights in Europe, vs Britain; UK Universities policies, etc), but also made the reading a bit hard to follow (not the easiest language, hence, 4 stars).
Despite of not being a scientist herself, the author communicated the field of research really well, I'm impressed!
June 8, 2022
I've known James Watson to be scummy but didn't realize there was another person who was equally as sexist and faulty in the stealing of Rosalind Franklin's data. Maurice Wilkins is equally implicit. This book was incredibly illuminating to the struggles that scientists who are female go through to get their work fairly judged by their colleagues with antiquated sexist ideals. I would highly recommend reading this book, especially if you've already read Watson's The Double Helix. Pay your dues and read Rosalind Franklin's side. I found the book difficult to read at some points but that's most likely due to the writing style that was prominent when this book was published.
May 19, 2024
An extremely persuasive book. If I was an English teacher, I teach the introduction as an ideal example of rhetoric. This book does such a good job at giving Watson (and a few others) the benefit of the doubt, and then respectfully tearing them down with extensive research and evidence. I learned a lot about Rosalind Franklin as a scientist and a person and I think it's an extremely valuable book to read, not only for people interested in molecular genetics and biology, but any budding scientist in general.
June 22, 2022
I find it sad that you can get a copy of The Double Helix at any library but to track down this book I had to borrow if from a library multiple states away.
I loved that Sayre started to set the record straight on Watson from page one. Had I read this book in the 70s when it first came out, I would have found it to be more biased, but now that we know Watson is a sexist, racist, turd I appreciated the book and the glimpse into Franklin’s life and accomplishments.
I loved that Sayre started to set the record straight on Watson from page one. Had I read this book in the 70s when it first came out, I would have found it to be more biased, but now that we know Watson is a sexist, racist, turd I appreciated the book and the glimpse into Franklin’s life and accomplishments.
January 7, 2021
I went into this book wanting to know about her life and what made her amazing and special. All I heard about was how everyone was sexist. I get that and I get that Rosalind had a harder time of it because she was a woman. But I want to hear about her life and what she did... not how she was victimized all her life.
April 13, 2022
I think everyone should read this book, both because it's a great biographical defense of Franklin but also served as a good reminder that history is written by men and therefore we can be sure there are many other intelligent, capable, and productive women in all fields that we just weren't told about.
July 16, 2022
I am so happy that a defense of Rosalind against Watson's false caricature was made by a friend of hers. She was a brilliant scientist who deserved the recognition this book brings. This should be required reading for everyone who has read the Double Helix, and she needs to be mentioned by more textbooks. She seems to have been an incredible woman and an incredible scientist.
November 9, 2024
another history class book. gives another side to rosalind franklin to counter james watson's unfavorable narrative of her. anne sayre was a good friend of franklin and wanted to set the story right, which would have been more effective if she really understood what was going on at the lab at kings college. good read!
Read
December 31, 2024This book was well worth the read. Made me angry, similar to how I felt while reading The Exceptions. The text is a little hard to get through due to an older fashioned style of writing. But if you've read The Double Helix, or learned about Watson and Crick, you need to read this side of the story.
September 22, 2018
This book tells in a clear and succinct manner the true story of the discovery of DNA. So compelling and eye opening.
January 29, 2016
Franklin is a fascinating woman and the passage of time has only increased interest in how she may/may not have been cheated out of recognition for research she did on DNA. But I’m not certain this book is the best one to read to learn about her or that controversy.
Sayre’s work was published in 1975 and cannot help but be dated to a contemporary reader. When originally published, she took criticism for making Franklin seem “too much of a feminist” when she was not; by today’s standards Sayre’s description of Franklin’s attitudes are pretty tepid. (And, more to the point, Franklin clearly held some fairly traditional views about women.)
The author’s writing style is veddy British and an American reader often has to navigate weedy sentences. And there are more than a few points which are made again and again.
But Sayre’s is also working with a handicap: to be truly enjoyable, the book would benefit from some information about Franklin’s personal and interior life. She died too soon and left little for the author to work with. (And Franklin and Sayre were friends!) The cover of the book shows Franklin’s face in hazy silhouette; when I finished reading it I still saw her that way.
Sayre’s work was published in 1975 and cannot help but be dated to a contemporary reader. When originally published, she took criticism for making Franklin seem “too much of a feminist” when she was not; by today’s standards Sayre’s description of Franklin’s attitudes are pretty tepid. (And, more to the point, Franklin clearly held some fairly traditional views about women.)
The author’s writing style is veddy British and an American reader often has to navigate weedy sentences. And there are more than a few points which are made again and again.
But Sayre’s is also working with a handicap: to be truly enjoyable, the book would benefit from some information about Franklin’s personal and interior life. She died too soon and left little for the author to work with. (And Franklin and Sayre were friends!) The cover of the book shows Franklin’s face in hazy silhouette; when I finished reading it I still saw her that way.
October 20, 2012
I wanted to write my review as soon as I completed reading this book. I got to say that Rosalind Franklin can be a source of motivation during my working career! Being "sunk up" in DNA means viewing every angle of it. So I choose to read the pioneers behind this Complex yet Organized Molecule. Although I got to say that the author might seem to be very close to Rosalind, I preferred to have a decent judgment on the case mentioned in the book. Well she acheived it! They way she spread the facts and information and suddenly notting down the question, that was very intelligent of her.
All in all, the author was spectacular in giving information about Rosalind and succeeded in making this ambitious Woman, a person to stand for and respect.
All in all, the author was spectacular in giving information about Rosalind and succeeded in making this ambitious Woman, a person to stand for and respect.
June 9, 2014
When I was an undergraduate, Rosalind Franklin was never mentioned in discussions about the structure of DNA. Yet the x-rays of the molecule which she produced were essential to the work of Watson and Crick. The EXCUSE that has been used was the Nobel Prize has never been awarded posthumously and unfortunately she died young. Furthermore, Maurice Wilkins, was given credit for the work she performed. I believe the real problem at the time was the male dominated field of science and the male view of contributions by women. Fortunately, my cousin's SON who works in Biochemistry/Molecular Biology WAS well informed about her role when HE was in school.
January 1, 2017
I generally enjoy any book about the history of important events in science, and this book was set up to be more interesting then most. The book is written by a friend of Rosalind Franklin, years after Franklin has died. It was published in 1975 and written around events that took place in the early 1950s. Sayre uses the book to stand up for her late friend's career, and to try to set the record straight about all of the accomplishments she made that were credited to others. The book has a clear bias, so it's best to keep in mind who your author is along the way, but it's well worth the read.
August 20, 2013
Anne Sayre sets the record straight and provides a brief biography of her friend Rosalind Franklin.
Franklin is given due credit for her part in the discovery of the shape and structure of DNA. Sayre also rebukes the absurd stereotypes about Franklin that are found in the popular book Double Helix, which was written by the very man who heavily relied on her unpublished research, and took credit for all the work.
Franklin is given due credit for her part in the discovery of the shape and structure of DNA. Sayre also rebukes the absurd stereotypes about Franklin that are found in the popular book Double Helix, which was written by the very man who heavily relied on her unpublished research, and took credit for all the work.
November 26, 2014
As a DNA freek (where would I be without it?), I am fascinated with the research and researchers that figured out the elegant structure. Rosalind Franklin did some amazing work in producing crystallographs of the molecule.
She worked with chauvinist, dismissive men in the early '50s. She was a difficult person in her own right. She died before the Nobel Prize was awarded. It is challenging to consider whether she would have been named on the three person team if she lived.
She worked with chauvinist, dismissive men in the early '50s. She was a difficult person in her own right. She died before the Nobel Prize was awarded. It is challenging to consider whether she would have been named on the three person team if she lived.
September 14, 2023
Anne Sayre was a friend of Rosalind Franklin, and in her book Sayre vehemently disputes the negative report created by her male competitors. Sayre's defense is detailed and unequivocal. Having read Her Hidden Genius which cites Sayre as one of the author's sources, I wanted to see what the source information is. That being said, I had a difficult time getting past the midpoint of the novel. I did not finish. Maybe some day.
November 29, 2015
I am so frustrated that I can only find one biography on this great scientist. This is a small book and it is not the most absorbing read but I am grateful that someone has chosen to write her story.
April 27, 2020
An excellent detailing of the life of the incredible Rosalind Franklin, and Sayre's personal anecdotes of their friendship beautifully highlight the story. Sayre's resources are undeniable, and as it states on the back, anyone who has read The Double Helix out to read this as well.
June 15, 2016
An excellent read for fans of DNA and scientists...and a good shot at men who rip off and then disparage women scientists. I'm looking at you, James.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews