The passage discusses the discovery of DNA's double helix structure by James Watson and Rosalind Franklin. It describes Watson as brilliant yet arrogant, wanting fame and glory. Franklin is portrayed as cautious, humble, and meticulous in her work. While Watson gathered data from others, Franklin's X-ray crystallography provided crucial evidence of DNA's structure. The discovery has immense social implications, enabling advances like genetic testing but also controversies around ethics.

1. Maria Rojas
May 7, 2012
The Heroic Narrative in Science:
Watson and Franklin
Unlike the scientific heroic journeys we have discussed thus far, the heroic quest of
finding the structure of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) has more than one important character
involved. Its discovery was achieved through the combinational work of different people,
including James Watson and Rosalind Franklin. Hence, there is more than one type of scientific
hero involved. As seen in Catherine Milne's essay "Philosophically Correct Science Stories?
Examining the Implications of Heroic Science Stories for School Science," there are three types
of scientific heroes: the cautious and deprecating scientist, the well-connected scientist marked
by "blather, bluster, brilliance," and the listener of nature (Milne, pg. 185). While James Watson
seems to fall into the second category of scientific hero, Rosalind Franklin falls into the first.
Thus, each influences the public perception on what a scientist is differently.
To begin with, James Watson's character is brilliant, ambitious, and arrogant. At an
extraordinary early age, he was accepted to the University of Chicago and then to the University
of Indiana. Eventually, he got a fellowship from the National Research Council, and through his
good connections, he ended up at the University of Cambridge. In other words, it was through
his social networks and genius mind that Watson was able to obtained the position that changed
his life. He met Francis Crick, who shared his interest in finding the DNA, and began the race for
the double helix. As it can be seen in his autobiography, The Double Helix: A Personal Account
of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, James Watson is quite ambitious and wanted to finish

2. the race so badly. He knew that whoever discovered the "secret of life" would obtain a Noble
Prize, but in order to do so, he had to beat all the other contenders, including Linus Pauling.
Unfortunately for him, Watson did not have the necessary tools or knowledge to discover the
structure of DNA by himself. Fortunately for him, however, he was around the "right"
institution—King's College. Watson, along with Crick, became the dangerous duo obsessed with
glory. They gathered the necessary data and research from other scientists, including Franklin's,
and with their visionary intelligence, they unraveled the mystery of DNA.
Hence, James Watson influences the public perception of what a scientist is as he
embodies the brilliant enthusiastic scientist ready for adventure. At the other end, however, he
also represents negative characteristics that are present in some scientists as well. He is very
competitive, arrogant, and at times egotistical. In his candid autobiographical narrative, he
constantly criticizes his contemporaries, including Francis Crick and Rosalind Franklin. Watson
is often seen as irritated by Crick's blathering and blustering style (when he himself has it too)
and is impatient towards Franklin's cautious work with X-ray diffraction crystallography. Thus,
Watson seems to fit pretty well under the second type of scientific "hero": he is brilliantly
annoying.
Rosalind Franklin's character, however, is different. She falls into the second type of
scientist: she "presented [her] results with caution and [was] deprecating about [her]
achievements" (Milne, pg.185). Although she was as brilliant as the rest of the characters in this
heroic narrative, she was not as boastful about it. Instead, she was ever so humble, reserved, and
an introvert. Perhaps, this was due to the stereotypical roles held for women in her day. She did
not conform to them, thus faced sexism. Furthermore, unlike Watson and Crick, Franklin was
cautious and patient with her work. Such can be seen in the movie The Race for the Double

3. Helix, where she is very careful and attentive, but does not want to show her work until figuring
out what it means. Not only is she interested in what is happening in her X-ray diffraction
crystallography, but on why it is happening as well. Thus, she takes her time with her work,
instead of rushing into figuring out the structure of DNA.
Hence, Rosalind Franklin’s heroic type of scientist differs from that of Watson, which
has different social implications: she embodies a different public perception of what a scientist
is. In fact, she reminds me of a comment made by one of my psychology professors. Initially, my
professor did not what to become an experimental psychologist working alone in a basement
with rats. Although she was not working with rats but with DNA, Franklin fits perfectly into this
public perception of what a scientist is. She was constantly alone, working hard and meticulous
with DNA, detached from the world.
Social Implication of DNA as a Science
The social implications for finding the “secret of life” (DNA) are too numerous to count:
this discovery has opened up to endless possibilities. To begin with, the Human Genome Project
has been completed, but the data collected is still being analyzed. Genetic testing and
engineering have been done in bacteria, animals, and in food, but it has generated the greatest
controversy when it comes to humans. There are several societal concerns dealing with this new
form of genetics, which includes the use of genetic information, the distribution and privacy of
this information, and the selection of DNA in offspring. Part of the public supports this genetic
testing and engineering; for it can help individuals detect and prevent diseases they may have
and cure other individuals with diseases already. Others, however, are concerned with scientists
going to far and playing God.

4. Works Cited
Milne, Catherine. “Philosophically Correct Science Stories? Examining the Implications of
Heroic Science Stories for School Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching
35.2 (1998): 175-187. Web. 27 Feb 2010.
The Race for the Double Helix. Dir. Mick Jackson. Perf. Jeff Goldblum, Tim Pigott-Smith, Alan
Howard, and Juliet Stevenson. BBC, 1987. Film.
Watson, James. The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996. Print.