Rosalind Franklin should be a feminist icon - we women in science need her more than ever

In the past being a woman and being a scientist was not an easy combination.

Historically, female scientists found it difficult to assert themselves. Access to education was limited, progression in academia was curtailed, and their contributions were dismissed - or even misattributed.

Now, it’s become fashionable to uncover these lost women. The latest forgotten female scientist to be thrust into the limelight is Rosalind Franklin. The silent partner in revealing the structure of DNA is often cited as a quintessential example of the maligned woman in science.

Marginalised during her research in the 1950s, ostracised by male peers and ultimately overlooked by the establishment, Franklin’s data was used without her permission and her contribution to science was drastically under-acknowledged.

All that is about to change. Nicole Kidman is taking on the role of Franklin in Anna Ziegler’s play, Photograph 51, which opened this week in London.

The Hollywood actress hasn’t performed on the London stage for over fifteen years, so it’s interesting to speculate why this role in particular would have proved so attractive.

The title of the play may offer a clue. It hints at the controversy, which consumed Franklin’s later life. The infamous ‘photograph 51’ refers to one of her central pieces of research - allegedly shared without her permission and used to develop the DNA model, for which she received no credit.

Really, Franklin’s story offers the perfect plot: a beautiful photograph snatched from an unwitting young female scientist and used without her knowledge to change the course of human history. You couldn’t write it.

So why was Franklin’s research overlooked? Was she marginalised because of her gender, or merely prickly and difficult to work with as some have suggested? The debate rages on.

Rosalind Franklin was a highly skilled X-ray crystallographer by the time John Randall, director at King’s College London, instructed her to research DNA in the college labs in 1951.

There was a global race to identify the correct model for the structure of DNA and Randall was determined to win.

Franklin’s expertise would provide an invaluable contribution. But, also at King’s College at the same time, Maurice Wilkins was using X-ray diffraction in an attempt to solve the problem.

The working relationship between Franklin and Wilkins was not easy.

Rather than working on the DNA conundrum together, the pair operated in isolation. It’s not a huge stretch of the imagination to think of a disgruntled Wilkins suddenly having to share his team, equipment and research with Franklin. Meanwhile, Franklin may have exacerbated the problem by refusing to discuss her work. Eventually their working relationship became too difficult and Franklin left.

Meanwhile a pair of scientists in Cambridge, James Watson and Francis Crick, had begun working on the problem in an entirely different way. Their approach was to build models.

Using information from Wilkins’s research they began to tackle the problem - but their initial attempts were unsuccessful.

Then, they used an X-ray photograph of DNA, the now famous ‘photograph 51’. Neither scientist explicitly told Franklin they were using her research, and they later argued it hadn’t been stolen - although others dispute this.

Before long, Franklin saw one of their models and was relieved to find it full of errors. Crick and Watson needed more information. Using more of Franklin’s research they were finally able to correct the errors and were successful in uncovering the now familiar double-helix structure. They published a triumphant article on their discovery in 1953 in Nature magazine.

Ten years later – and four years after Franklin’s death from ovarian cancer - Watson, Crick and Wilkins were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for their work in uncovering the structure of DNA. Franklin received no mention.

Her sister later said that Franklin had no idea how significant her contribution had been and would have 'exploded with fury' is she'd known how much they'd relied on her work.

Watson was later criticised for his unflattering and sexist portrayal of Franklin in his memoir Double Helix. And it was only years later that Crick and Watson would acknowledge how essential Franklin’s research was to their own work.

Some of Franklin’s relatives argue that she would be shocked by her recreation as a feminist icon. They argue that Franklin herself did not feel her gender had a significant impact on her career.

As a young woman scientist myself, I feel that she was a product of her society - accepting the status quo. She may not have felt that she’d experienced obvious gender bias, but there can be no doubt that systematic inequalities existed.

Female academics were paid less. In King’s College there was an all-male common room, which prevented women scientists from collaborating and integrating. There were women who had successful careers in science but they were in the minority and seemed like the exception. Women who wanted to progress simply had to try harder.

In 1970, the famous scientist Kathleen Lonsdale gave a talk on “Women in Science” at the Royal Institution, where I have worked on the Christmas lectures.

She argued that, although the number of female scientists had increased, this was not reflected by the number of women leading departments or research. The problem was self-perpetuating, she said. A lack of leading female scientists meant a lack of role models. Young women simply wouldn’t believe that having a successful career in science was an option.

If Lonsdale were around today, she would be shocked by the lack of change in the admission numbers of female students. Men outnumber women in many university science courses and in 2011, 85 per cent of engineering degrees in Britain were awarded to men. Just one per cent of parents want their daughters to choose careers in STEM and we're told that sexist toys are turning girls off.

Speaking as someone who has sat among over a hundred students - and could count the number of women on one hand - being part of a minority does put extra pressure on you.

Such pressures and systematic inequalities would have meant Franklin, like other women, had to try harder to succeed. But I’m not convinced these issues alone are the reason that her contribution was overlooked.

Simply, she was caught in the power struggle of the men around her; left out of the Nobel Prize to which her work was essential and portrayed by her male peers in a sexist way.

It’s easy to see why she has become the iconic overlooked female scientist (for she is far from the only one – think Lisa Meitner who discovered nuclear fission or Ada Lovelace who wrote the first computer programme in the 19th century).

What’s most important now – and what Kidman will hopefully bring to the fore - is to acknowledge Franklin’s contribution to the field of DNA. Because, amid all the debate, she was simply a brilliant scientist.

It’s this we should remember – and it’s what aspiring female scientists should aspire to – not the controversy that later surrounded her life.