فتوگراف 51

by Anna Ziegler

Nicole Kidman made her much-anticipated return to the London stage in the fall 2015 West End production of this new play by Anna Ziegler, about the woman who discovered DNA. Does Rosalind Franklin know how precious her photograph is? In the race to unlock the secret of life it could be the one to hold the key.

Genres: Plays, Science, History, Audiobook, Drama, Historical, Theatre

135 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2011

Reviews

[Faith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This play explores the life of Dr. Rosalind Franklin, the English scientist whose work was instrumental in the discovery of DNA. In particular, her photographs revealed the helix. She was a brilliant but prickly collaborator and had a troubled relationship with the male scientists who went on to win the Nobel Prize. The play was not only entertaining but it made me want to know more about Franklin’s life.

The current pandemic has forced theaters to become even more creative. Fortunately, for both the theater and potential audience, the Williamstown Theatre Festival has partnered with Audible to release its entire season of plays as audiobooks. I never would have gone to Williamstown to see this play so I appreciate the opportunity to experience it. The acting was very good and since the play consists of a lot of talking and no action it is an excellent candidate for the audiobook treatment.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rosalind Franklin was one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century. This play about how she was bilked out of her share of the credit for the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA was both sad and moving in places.

She died of cancer so young and long before she finally got the credit she deserved. I enjoyed the part where she thinks about naming her tumors Watson and Crick.

[Boroush · Rating 4 out of 5]

چه جالب که تو روز تولد رزالین فرانکلین این کتاب تموم شد :)

[Leila ✨ · Rating 4 out of 5]

"It’s the loneliest pursuit in the world. Science. Because there either are answers or there aren’t. There either is a landscape that stretches before you or there isn’t. And when there isn’t, when you’re left in the darkness of an empty city at night, you have only yourself."

Es muy raro que disfrute de cosas que tengo que leer para la facultad, but this play was surprisingly good? Me gusta la trama, los personajes y hasta el final. Truly fascinating.

¿El audiolibro? GOD. Fue una full-cast production y sólo hizo que la lectura fuera todavía más enthralling.

"I think one sees something new each time one looks a truly beautiful things."

3.75 de 5 estrellas.

[Javad Azadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

از نظر سبک و سیاق، همه جوره جدید بود؛ حداقل برای من. از تعویض رگباری صحنه گرفته تا ترکیب چندین سبک روایت با هم دیگه و به صورت همزمان. عکس 51 روایتی فمنیستی داره، ولی شاید دقیقا از همون جنس فمنیستی هایی که دنیا بهش نیاز داره و مبتذل نیست. دنیایی که زیگلر از اتفاقات و شخصیت های واقعی میسازه و یه داستان عمیق از دلش در میاره، ستودنیه.

و دوباره داستان همیشگی و عجیب من. هرکتابی که میخونم متنش و محتواش دقیقا مناسب حال و روزمه؛ چه در مقیاس جامعه چه در شخصی ترین مقیاس ها. سرگذشت و تفکرات رزالیند فرانکلین برام تکان دهنده بود. این دقیقا متنی بود باید الانا میخوندم. اون یه ستاره هم بابت اینا که به نظر من میشد این نمایشنامه رو اندکی هیجانی تر و... نوشت.

[Nai | Libros con(té) · Rating 5 out of 5]

"It’s the loneliest pursuit in the world. Science. Because there either are answers or there aren’t. There either is a landscape that stretches before you or there isn’t. And when there isn’t, when you’re left in the darkness of an empty city at night, you have only yourself."

Rosalind Franklin supremacy🛐
la pasaron por arriba monumentalmente, todos y cada uno de los onvres 😢
el audiolibro es una joyita, disfruté mucho de esta obra de teatro
no suelo darle puntuación a historias reales pero la dramatización se merece todas las estrellas del mundo

- Are you thinking about the bases?
- I think I'm thinking about how I've come to the end of thinking, how there's nothing left."

[Lanie D · Rating 4 out of 5]

wow, i loved the little interview at the end. So good, & for being so short it did a great job at showing how one little choice can change your life forever.

[Sher · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an audible original book. I enjoyed the voice actors very much, except for the one so-called American who kept exaggerating his Rrrrrs. That got to be annoying. But the story itself was good, and a huge step up for women in science, as it is a true story. Thank you to those of you who put this all together!

[Alireza Daneshmand · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب نمایشنامه ایه درباره درگیری رزالیند فرانکین و واتسون و کریک سر اتفاقاتی که موقع کشف ساختار مارپیچ دوگانه دی ان ای افتاد.
رزالیند فرانکلین و دانشجوش عکسی از دی ان ای گرفتن که به عکس 51 معروفه و از طریق اون به ساختار مارپیچ پی بردن ولی رزالیند شخصیتی دقیق، وسواسی، کمال‌گرا و منزوی داشت و نمیخواست تا از کشفش مطمئن نشده اطلاعات اشتباه منتشر کنه، واتسون و کریک برعکس، دنبال اسم و رسم بودن و این کشف رو رقابتی میدیدن و بعد از اینکه با اشتباه همکار رزالیند به عکس 51 دسترسی پیدا کردن بدون اینکه به رزالیند اطلاعاتی بدن یواشکی و سریع یک مدل از فرضیه شون رو ساختن و در نهایت هم مدلشون برنده نوبلی شد که بیشتر زحمتش رو رزالیند کشیده بود.
رزالیند بخاطر کار با اشعه سرطان گرفت و تو 37 در سالگی مرد.

"- خب، ما خیلی نزدیک بودیم، نبودیم؟ عجیب نزدیک بودیم."
رزالیند فرانکلین به همکارش بعد از خبر کشف راز زندگی و بعد از تشخیص سرطان

تا حالا تئاتر نرفتم، اولین نمایشنامه ای هم بود که میخونم و دوستش داشتم.
(عکس رو جلد ترجمه شده هم خیلی قشنگ تره :)) یه عکس جذاب از رزالیند فرانکلین درحال کار با میکروسکوپه)

[Kate · Rating 3 out of 5]

The story of Rosalyn Franklin makes me furious, because of what was taken from her. But this play seems somewhat pointless, it didnt feel very profound, luckily it was short and easy to read.

[Tracy Hollen · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars

[Gordon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anna Ziegler's Photograph 51, an exploration of the life of British scientist, Rosalind Franklin, who nearly beat James Watkins and Francis Crick to the solution of DNA's structure, is a study of ego, drive, hubris, connection and isolation, told with fascinating tension and anticipation. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this play and would find a production thrilling, suspenseful, and engaging, based solely on how Ziegler has shaped the characters and the events of the play.
Ziegler's dialogue is wonderfully realistic and captivating, giving scenes an urgency well suited to the eagerness that electrified the various laboratories all trying to be first at discovering the secret to the spark of life. It is a tremendous gift when a writer can cause a reader (or viewer) to forget actual, historic outcomes, and cheer for the underdogs as though the storytelling could actually change events. In this play, Ziegler has not only shaped the dramatic tension of historic events in this way, but has also imbued the character of Rosalind Franklin with qualities that make us both respect her but also chide her. As crafted by Ziegler, Rosalind Franklin is a superb real-life tragic heroine by virtue of her superior dedication to work and study, which inadvertently caused her to miss out scientifically and personally.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

A two-hour adaptation of a stage play about British scientist Rosalind Franklin, free to download by Audible members as of January 2021. Includes at 12-minute interview with the play's director.

I listened mid-pandemic, making bean soup. The production was good enough to make me miss seeing live theater. It reminded me particularly of the type of theater I saw when living in London in the 1980's, by which I mean, talky, but in a good way.

I believe that audio productions of this and other stage plays are helping to support the Williamstown Theatre Festival until the pandemic abates, so I told myself, perhaps correctly, that my download of this file might help a worthy endeavor limp along until we emerge from this period of darkness.

[Charlene · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely fantastic! I listened to the audio version, available for free if your library participates in hoopla. This very short book tells the story of how Franklin, Wilkins, Crick, and Watson discovered the structure of DNA. Each scene provides banter, sometimes funny, sometimes sad or informative, from the small cast of characters.

Nicole Kidman is playing Franklin in Photograph 51 in England. I hope someone decides to carry out a production in NYC. I would love to see this on a stage.

In the audio version, the story is followed by a couple of bonus interviews, one about Franklin from her biographer and the other about a researcher doing similar work in the present day.

[izzy · Rating 3 out of 5]

ROSALIND FRANKLIN DESERVED BETTER

[Deb · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent script.

[samodivachka · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not much has changed for women in STEM... but even less has changed for the grads and undergrad assistants. 🤡

[sabisteb aka callisto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Für ein Theaterstück ganz gute Darstellung der Vorgänge im Wissenschaftsbetrieb

Ein gängiger Witz unter Genetikern ist ja: "Was haben Watson und Crick gefunden? - Roland Franklins Röntgenbilder".
Dieses Stück, generell, das was Rosalind Franklin passiert ist, das passiert so immer noch an den Unis heutzutage.
Rosalind wird unter Vorspiegelung falscher Tatsachen ans Kings College in London gelockt. Statt unabhängige Gruppenleiterin zu werden, wie ihr versprochen wurde, ist sie letztendlich Assistentin unter einem Prof und muss erforschen, was er ihr als Thema vorgibt. Man kann sich denken, dass das Verhältnis der beiden eher eisig ist, obwohl sie immer wieder einen Neuanfang versuchen. Auch ihr Doktorand wurde zwangszugewiesen. Die Ausstattung entspricht nicht dem, was ihr versprochen wurde (was noch gut ist. Ich kenne Fälle, die standen in leeren Laboren, in denen nicht mal Stühle waren). Rosalind macht sich also brav daran Röntgenbilder von DNA Kristallen zu erzeugen.
Watson, jung, ambitioniert, Karrierist und durch und durch unsympatisch (er hat mittlerweile diverse Titel und Anerkennungen wegen seiner rassistischen Äußerungen aberkannt bekommen und musste aus finaziellen Gründen seine Nobelmedaille verkaufen), macht das, was ich leider auch an der Uni erlebt habe. Er klaut die Ideen anderer, weil er die entsprechende Ausrüstung hat und schneller sein kann und man spielt ihm die Ergebnisse seiner Konkurrentin unter der Hand zu. Männerseilschaften halt. Der Rest ist Geschichte.

Die Geschichte einer Frau in der Wissenschaft. Do viel besser ist es immer noch nicht, sage ich mal aus eigenern Erfahrung. Ja, mittlerweile gibt es keine getrennten Speiseräume mehr, wo Frauen keinen Zutritt haben. Forschungsprojekte und Kooperationen werden aber immer noch beim Mittagessen oder abends an der Bar nach Konferenzen unter Dach und Fach gebracht, und da sind Frauen heute immer noch außen vor bei den Saufgelagen der Herren Forscher. Ich sage aus eigener Erfahrung, dass die Geldgeber mittlerweile Alkohol bei den Bewirtungskosten aus gutem Grund nicht mehr zahlen und es da schon einiges an Stress gab, bei der Abrechnung von Konferenzen. Die Herren werden meist zum Schluss rausgekehrt.
Auch heute ist der letzte Tag einer Konferenz eher schlecht besucht, milde ausgedrückt. Wer den letzten Vortrag hat, ist dumm drann.
Vorgesetzte, die die Arbeit ihrer Untergebenen als die eigene Ausgeben und dann drohen, die Fördergelder zu stoppen (S. 36) habe ich auch selber erlebt.
Und puplish or perish ist heute noch schlimmer als damals "That's what this rush to publish does. It means our publications are littered with ridiculous mistakes."
Rosalind Franklin war eine außergewöhnliche Wissenschaftlerin, die 3 Männern zu Nobelpreisen verholfen hat und leider selber zu früh verstarb, um selber einen zu bekommen.

Das Thema des Theaterstück ist somit gute Lablit und auch soweit realistisch dargestellt, auch wenn Rosalind hier deutlich früher verstirbt als in RL.
Die Umsetzung jedoch ist spartanisch. Kaum Regieanweisungen. Die Szenen scheinen parallel und auf verschiedenen Zeitebenen und teils parallel an verschiedenen Orten zu spielen. Mal Rückblicke, mal parallele Handlung, sehr schneller Wechsel. Nicht gut zu lesen, funktioniert wohl nur als Aufführung.

[Gil · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Photograph 51"
By Anna Ziegler
Performed by: Matthew Arkin, Maxwell Caulfield, Miriam Margolyes, Jon Matthews, Darren Richardson, Nick Toren
Length: 1 hr and 58 mins
Release date: 11-22-11
Publisher: L.A. Theatre Works

Once again I become cultured for a couple of hours and attend a live play production.  Okay, this one is in the mind thanks to the audio productions of L.A. Theatre Works.  LATW's releases of theatrical performances in audiobook format are pure genius and a delight to hear.  The performances are always great and the production put in to each one places the listener smack-dab in the middle of the audience.   

This time around I was enlightened with the story of Rosalind Franklin whose x-ray photographs proved the helix shape of DNA, unfortunately for Rosalind, Watson and Krick got all the credit.  But after listening to this Ms. Franklin didn't seem to concerned with who got the credit, just so science advanced with research to help humanity.  

The real eye-opener of this production was the ill-treatment of female scientists back in the day. It was as though women didn't have the brains to be scientists.  Yet women such as Rosalind Franklin have/had just as much to contribute (if not more) than any man.  I love how this play does not sledge hammer that point but only subtly points it out.   

This is a must hear for any one that knows of or is a woman seeking a career in the scientific field.  (I'd also venture to say that this is a must hear for anyone.)

Publisher's Summary
Rosalind Franklin was a gifted research scientist who was part of the race to uncover the secrets of DNA in the 1950’s. Her more famous contemporaries Watson and Krick took all the kudos for the discovery of the molecule’s double helix structure – yet it was Franklin’s skill with X-ray diffraction that first uncovered what’s called “the secret of life”.

Includes an interview with Brenda Maddox, the world's foremost biographer of Rosalind Franklin and author of Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA.

Also includes and interview with Dr Pamela Björkman, the Max Delbruck Professor of Biology at the California Institute of Technology, and an Investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

An L.A. Theatre Works full-cast performance featuring:

Miriam Margolyes as Rosalind

Matthew Arkin as Caspar

Maxwell Caulfield as Wilkins

Jon Matthews as Watson

Darren Richardson as Gosling

Nick Toren as Crick

Directed by Michael Hackett. Recorded at the Invisible Studios, West Hollywood.

Photograph 51 is part of L.A. Theatre Works’ Relativity Series featuring science-themed plays. Major funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to enhance public understanding of science and technology in the modern world."

©2011 L.A. Theatre Works (P)2011 L.A. Theatre Works

[Neeraja Sankaran · Rating 2.5 out of 5]

I just finished listening to this play, and have to confess that I was underwhelmed. Not by the performance, but by the material performed. Admittedly I'm not the target audience for this play, which another scientist (invisible in this play but who had a role nevertheless as a mentor to James Watson) aptly said should be assumed as possessing "infinite ignorance and unlimited intelligence." I have no pretensions to the latter, but in this case am not infinitely ignorant either. As a historian of biology I have a fair bit bit of knowledge about the characters, though I am learning still more as time ticks on And because of that baggage I guess, I could not like this play as much as others obviously have.

My main grouse is this: if one writes something as a corrective--and certainly Ziegler's aim in writing this play, was at least partially to compensate for the relative lack of recognition of Rosalind Franklin's role in resolving the DNA structure and also for the misrepresentation of her role in various accounts of this episode in the history of science--then he/she should be doubly careful to not be guilty of the same crime vis-à-vis other characters. And Ziegler was guilty in spades of that crime. She out and out invented a breakup of Francis Crick's marriage (in fact, he remained married to Odile Crick until the end of his life in 2004!), imagined some unrequited love that Maurice Wilkins had for Franklin and ignored the very real role that Raymond Gosling had in the taking of the famed photograph 51, treating him as some sort of minor player instead. And these are just the main inaccuracies, that I took issue with. I understand all about artistic license--really, I do--but there was just too much distortion. For instance, despite Watson's mean-spirited portrayal of "Rosie" in his book The Double Helix, he and Franklin actually has a good intellectual relationship and even collaborated post-helix on virus research. As for Cricks, Franklin actually convalesced at their home in Cambridge twice after her cancer diagnosis and surgery.

I couldn't help but compare this play to Michael Frayn's Copenhagen because of a similar framing (ghosts or later selves commenting on past events) and to my mind Ziegler came up short. I later found out that the resemblance was not altogether co-incidental, but she didn't emulate what for me was most admirable about Frayn--that he never put words into the mouths of the actual characters. Sure he imagined conversations among the ghosts of the characters, but anything that the younger selves of the characters said came straight from written record. And while I concede that Ziegler may not have such rich original material to work with, I still felt that she did all the characters a disservice by making them all into caricatures, even Franklin herself, I venture to say.

And that's my fifty-pence's worth on this matter (a nod to the commemorative fifty pence coin issued in honor of Franklin's 100th birth anniversary in 2021).

[verónica · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't have a review but since i read this for university, i'm gonna leave here my not-spoiler-free character notes

Rosalind: ✨her✨, doesn’t put up with men's bullshit, paris girlie, overanalizer, double checks, triple checks, hates mistakes, a bit annoying, nada le viene bien, laser-focused on her work, not mad at the men who in fact stole her work, got ovarian cancer and died without knowing what could have happened with maurice, we end up finding out she was just a girl~

Maurice: ✨him✨, kinda like the first part of an academic rivals to lovers, a bit stupid, wants to get on well with her but keeps saying the wrong thing, her lab partner, ends up doing whatever she wants, once pulled a ted mosby a told a woman he loved her without even having one date, was/is married to an american who doesn’t love him, can't believe don stole his woman, owner of a thousand what if's

Ray: their puppy/child, main narrator, a child of divorce, avoid conflict at all costs, he doesn’t take sides (he's on rosalind's)

Don: on the verge of graduating, a rosalind fan, writes her letters asking about her research, then he ends up working for her, he had one chance he took it (he asked "rosy" out), he kisses the ground she walks on

James and Francis: they are like the married couple of dumb villains from a kids cartoon, faster at drawing conclusions (even if they are the wrong ones), they just want to get published, have money and go down in history, they somehow got their hands on rosalind's paper and arrived to the answer faster
—James: rejected by maurice, now the competition along with francis, maurice (the idiot) showed him the fucking photograph, he memorized it and replicated it, not good with women (🏳️‍🌈?)
—Francis: james' partener, childhood friend of maurice, cheats on his wife odile

[Shravasti Misra · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had read The Double Helix as a teen. Rosalind Franklin's contributions and exclusion wasn't talked about as much then, but I was still infuriated with her depiction. James Watson was a brash 23 year old with an entitled, arrogant narrative. There's a line in the play about how Franklin would be a lot prettier if she just took off her glasses and grew her hair or something, that was pretty much how Watson summed her up. A sourpuss, someone who could have been attractive if she tried, who hoarded her instruments and her data...
It is possible that she really was an unpleasant person but in the context of that era, we will really never know how much of this was because she had to protect herself from the sexism around her. She was very aware of the way she was viewed because she was a woman and had to maintain a particularly tough exterior to be taken half seriously. Also I remember Watson alluding to her having a life after lab hours although towards the end of the 'race', perhaps everyone was working overtime. In the play she is always working late, poring over her photographs, guarding them fiercely. I also don't know if Caspar's romantic interests were real or imagined, possibly imagined, but maybe she wasn't mean to him because he was not mean or sexist to her. I mean Watson, Crick and Wilkins did not even properly recognize her contributions, I can't imagine they were very nice to her in real life.
Some parts are really well written, and a good insight into how sexism affects women in science. Unfortunately, we still grapple with many of the same problems today.

[Amir · Rating 4 out of 5]

عکس ۵۱ تصویری تهیه شده از دی‌ان‌ایه که به کمک اشعه‌ی ایکس به‌ دست اومده. این تصویر به خصوص، اطلاعات ارزشمندی در رابطه با دی‌ان‌ای به مخاطب زمان خودش داده.

ویلکینز و فرانکلین دانشمندهای مسئول پروژه‌ی عکس‌برداری از دی‌ان‌ای بودن. دوره‌ای که داریم درباره‌ش حرف می‌زنیم زمانیه که زن به‌عنوان دانشمند پذیرفته نشده بوده. حتی توی دپارتمان‌های فیزیک دانشگاه‌های مطرح جهان اجازه‌ی ورود نداشتن.
توی چنین وضعیتی، رزالیند فرانکلین داشته سعی می‌کرده از اساسی‌ترین مولکول زیستی [حداقل با توجه به علم فعلی ما] عکس‌برداری کنه که خب، به خودی خودش عمل بزرگیه.

نمایشنامه‌ی آنا زیگلر اومده ماجرای عکس ۵۱ و در پی اون، کشف ساختار نردبان مارپیچ به‌وسیله‌ی واتسون و کریک رو به شکلی تخیلی و داستانی نشون داده. خود نویسنده هم تاکید داشته که اخلاق و رفتار دانشمندهای این نمایشنامه زاده‌ی تفکر خودشه و این اساتید در اصل اینطوری نبودن و فقط برای "داستانی‌تر" کردن ماجرا بهشون چنین شکلی داده شده. وقایعی هم توی داستان بین شخصیت‌ها شکل گرفته که تخیلی هستن. در واقع "عکس ۵۱" روایتی غیر واقعی از اشخاص واقعی با نتیجه‌ای تاریخیه.

خوندنش کار جالبیه اگر به بند بالا آگاه باشید و با دید منبع معتبر تاریخی سراغش نرید.
به علاقمندان زیست‌شناسی، ژنتیک و تاریخ علم پیشنهادش می‌کنم.

May The Winds Rise

[Joy_S · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting dramatization of a fascinating piece of history. The play wasn't completely historically accurate, but it did a great job of showing how Franklin's work (and Gosling's, for that matter) failed to be recognized as critical to the understanding of DNA. It's interesting to note that the instance in which Wilkins and Watson commiserated after Watson argued with Franklin--the incident in which Wilkins showed Watson Photograph 51--was something that really happened, though perhaps not exactly as portrayed in this play (I read about it after finishing the recording). When listening to that, before I even knew it was roughly how things had happened, I said out loud, "Oh you idiot!" in response to Wilkins. I'm sure he looked back later in life and said the same thing in his own head. An audio play well worth listening to, which will hopefully inspire you to learn more about Rosalind Franklin, and think about how women in science have struggled to be taken seriously and to be recognized for their contributions to society.

[Norma · Rating 4 out of 5]

( Format : Audiobook )
"We're here to start again."
This is an Audible Original recording of the two hour play performed at the Williamstown Theatre Festival, with various actors including Anna Chiumsky as Rosalind Franklin.
Franklin died, aged only 37, from ovarian cancer. Her brilliantly innovative photography was central to the modelling of the double helix, deciphering the structure of DNA, in the mid twentieth century. Yet she received no recognition for this when the Nobel prize were handed out - she was, after all, just a woman.

I confess I knew nothing about Franklin before this play - a huge indictment in itself - so I cannot tell if the events portrayed are accurate. She seemed to be a character consumed, uneasy with others, a difficult woman to like but who, through her dedication to her work, enabled colleagues to discover the secret of life. The actors were good, voices distinctive. I feel now that I would like to learn more about Rosalind Franklin.

Available to download for free on the Audible Plus programme.

[Ursula Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I did not realize that this was the audio version of a play. I thought it was an audio drama. It concerns the work of a forgotten female chemist Rosalind Franklin and her photographic work on the search for DNA. The cast was wonderful, but I had a difficult time with this work. She comes off as such a bitch, it's hard to feel any sympathy for her. Despite the usual things a woman had to deal with in the earlier eras, her attitude and personality ensured she would have few friends or achieve heights in her work for what she refused to do. Her character flaws made a great many people dislike her. I felt bad for her partner, who went out of his way to be accommodating and she was just a bitch. Her snobbery and utter disdain for others stood out most and she had few redeeming qualities. Glad it was free, a one time listen.

[Travis Berketa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had to read this book to help out one of my students that I tutor. Photograph 51 is a play written by Anna Ziegler. It is an interesting read in that it tells a story about scientist, Dr. Rosalind Franklin, who assisted in the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.

Whether it is completely biographical, I do not know, but I found the character of Rosalind somewhat cold and annoying; although it did depict her focus and determination. I also liked the way she shrugged off the way the Nobel Prize winners, James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, had taken Franklin's work and used it to discover the structure of DNA; basically saying that they had all solved it and was ready to move on to the next study.

[Chris Lindert · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a new addition to the VCAA English reading list which I enjoyed. However as with most plays, the optimum way being to experience them, it would have been better to see a performance in the theatre. The premise of the brilliant mind of a woman overshadowed by the perception that men have been responsible for great leaps forward in a number of areas of the sciences is well articulated. Coincidentally, I viewed the film Hidden Figures not long after reading the play. Perhaps the fact that these injustices are now being acknowledged will give brilliant young women of this generation the hope of the recognition that they truly deserve.

[Steven Kolber · Rating 5 out of 5]

Find the listening version on Soundcloud, it’s fantastic. A lovely play that set out to tell the feminist focussed history of an often overlooked female scientist, but then chose to have her have a romantic subplot? That seemed an odd choice, the domineering and outgoing characterisation of Watson and Crick was really well done, but left Rosalind harder to relate to. A must read for anyone interested in the development of our understanding of the ‘key to life’ DNA and the process of great scientists.

[Patrick Neylan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Apparently this play shows how Rosalind Franklin was cheated out the Nobel Prize by conspiracy, theft and sexism with a dash of antisemitism. In reality she wasn't, and thankfully the play doesn't say that either.

It's not that Franklin wasn't treated badly at times, both by her scientific contemporaries and posterity, but she was partly the architect of her own misfortune. Besides, this is a play, and any historical fiction has to compromise historical fact for character and narrative. As long as it doesn't introduce major fallacies, fiction is justified in taking shortcuts and simplifying the story for the sake of drama. It's not just poets who are entitled to poetic licence.

Ziegler's play focuses on Franklin's strained relationship with her colleague Maurice Wilkins at Kings College, and how Crick and Watson at Cambridge beat them to publication. The vital piece of the puzzle was Franklin's image - Photograph 51 - showing the double-helix structure of DNA. Crucially (in the play), Wilkins shows Crick and Watson the photo without Franklin's knowledge. In reality, Franklin had shown others the photo and, while recognising its significance, hadn't been able to take the next step. Crick and Watson would never have solved the puzzle so quickly without Franklin's photo, but maybe Franklin and Wilkins would never have solved it even with the photo.

On stage, we see Wilkins, stiff and formal, unable to cope with the confident but prickly Franklin. Their relationship never clicks: he has trouble accepting a woman as his equal while she refuses to co-operate or compromise. Soon they retreat into silos, which suits Franklin as she has no interest in working with anyone else. Wilkins is friendly with his old colleague Crick, while Franklin gives Watson the cold shoulder when he visits hoping to share research.

Anyone hoping (or fearing) that this is a feminist rewriting of history would have to acknowledge that Franklin is, in terms of personality, perhaps the least sympathetic character in the play. Did she receive due credit for her work? No. Did the others shut her out? No: she shut them out, again and again.

None of this should be taken as historical truth. It's a character-based drama and it works well on those terms, which are the only terms on which the play should be judged. On stage, Franklin toys with naming her ovarian cysts Crick and Watson; in reality she became friends with Crick and lived with him and his wife during her final remission.

What Ziegler gives us is a drama of four very different characters striving with and against each other. There's little scope for fancy staging, so you're in for a night of words rather than action, but there is humour and energy in those words, while the playwright thankfully avoids the simplistic narrative of "good woman cheated by bad men" (even if some readers have mystifyingly seen it as exactly that).