Rosalind Franklin and Credit Stealing

Case Writer
Dr Aamir Khan, MSc Oxford, MSc INSEAD, PhD Cranfield
Draft Case 9 April 2020
Restricted strictly to the LSE MBA program till the final draft is cleared.

It was the first week of April, 1958. In London, Rosalind Franklin lay on her bed, frail,
distraught and, at times, barely conscious. In 1956, while she was visiting the US for
research-related work, she had experienced pains in her stomach. On her return to
London, doctors told her she had ovarian cancer. Her mind immediately raced back to
the days, months and years in which she was working round the clock with X-rays,
attempting to unravel the secret of life - the structure of DNA. It would be ironic if the X-
rays that helped her to take perhaps the most important photograph of the 20 th century –
Photograph 51 – were to kill her.

Someone came to her room and informed her that Mrs. Francis Crick wanted to call on
her. Rosalind had formed a strong friendship with her and said yes. Again her mind
drifted back to the glory years of the early 1950s. The names Francis Crick, James Watson,
Maurice Wilkins, Max Perutz, amongst others, danced in front of her. Even in the bad
shape that she was in, she could not help but grimace. Did Maurice betray her? Did Max
betray her? Did James and Francis steal her work? Would James, Francis and Maurice
get the Nobel Prize? She knew that she would not get a Nobel anyway. Dead men and
women did not get Nobels. Men and women! Had she been betrayed because she was a
woman? A doubt crossed her mind: Was it her own fault for not teaming up with others,
insisting on going at it alone, down a path full of hardship, danger, even death?

1
Her thoughts were interrupted by Mrs. Francis Crick’s entrance. Rosalind smiled at her.1

Gene - The greatest story that is still unfolding

Why do children resemble their parents? The Greek scholar Pythagoras, of the
eponymous theorem we learnt in school, suggested that male semen carries hereditary
information that was absorbed from the body parts; eyes contributed color and skin
imparted texture. Perhaps, the mother and the father were the two independent sides of
a triangle, and the child the hypotenuse. Aristotle discovered a loophole in the
Pythagorean hypothesis, by asking how it could account for female anatomy. And how
about behavioral similarities? How could the child’s manner of walking resemble his
father’s? In an astonishingly insightful remark that would reverberate across two
millennia, Aristotle noted that what passed from man to woman was not matter but
message. Much later, in the medieval ages, some theorists proposed that sperm contained
a homunculus. This seemed to satisfy medieval Christians, who believed it explained
original sin – all of us had tasted the forbidden fruit. For more than two thousand years,
till the early 1800s, apart from Aristotle’s ‘message’ remark, no deep insight emerged.2

Did Darwin ever read Mendel?

In 1831, a 22-year old Englishman, Charles Darwin, boarded the HMS Beagle to travel
around the world for five years. Darwin had read Lyell, who argued that complex
geological formations, such as mountains, had come into being through slow, natural
processes over a long period of time. Laplace had hypothesized that the current solar
system had arisen from the physical process of matter cooling. These, coupled with the

1 This scene is fictitious and serves only to set an initial context and introduction to the case. The rest of the
case is based on published books and articles, which are cited. The author would like to make special
mention of “The Gene” by Siddhartha Mukherjee (2016), “The Double Helix” by James Watson (1967), and
“Rosalind Franklin and her science in-the-making” by Esha Shah (2013). This case is written solely for
educational purposes, in particular for MBA students reading my course on organizational Behavior and
Leadership. It is not for sale, and serves only as a discussion forum for themes related to the aforementioned
course. If you need a copy to teach free of charge, please email me at aamir3123@gmail.com.
2 The Gene (2016), p 21-27

2
1798 proposal by Malthus that the human population would outgrow available resources,
and be killed off by epidemics paved the way for ‘natural selection’. Darwin had also read
about new languages arising from the old through transformation and mutation. And on
the sea voyage he had collected specimens of birds, which led him to write “Each variety
is constant in its own Island.”

When he completed the voyage, Darwin had developed an outline of his theory: (a) when
animals reproduce, they produce variants that differ from their parents (b) the better
adapted variant survives hardships such as famines; and (c) the fittest survive.3 What
Darwin probably did not know, Alfred Russel Wallace, also having read Malthus, had
written a draft paper which also proposed that “the best fitted variants live.” In 1858, their
papers were read back to back in a conference and Darwin published his work in 1859:
Copies of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection were sold on the first
day.

Did Darwin explain heredity? Surprisingly, Darwin had no idea how to account for it. He
was particularly disturbed by a review of his book by Fleeming Jenkin, a mathematician-
engineer, who had argued that if a white man were to marry a black woman and his
children were to marry black women, over time his “superior” gene, best suited for
survival, would be diluted. Jenkin had found the weak spot in Darwin’s elegant theory.
Darwin had no answer to this riddle except to go back to Pythagoras and propose that
minute particles (gemmules) produced by the cells of organisms carry information: Hand
particles manufactured a new hand and so on. It was a case of déjà vu.

Had Darwin read a highly original paper written by an obscure monk, Mendel, in 1866,
he might have found the answer to the question that was driving him mad. He had even
read a book in which Mendel’s work was summarized but had apparently skipped the page
summarizing Mendel’s work. Darwin was not very comfortable around numbers and

3 The phrase “survival of the fittest” was borrowed from Herbert Spencer.

3
Mendel had used a vast amount of numbers and ratios. Whatever the reason, till he died,
Darwin remained unable either to answer Jenkin’s scathing critique of his work or to
propose a theory explaining heredity. This chapter of research had been initiated by
somebody who had been failing in his exams. Enter Mendel.

Mendel, the son of two peasants, was a German priest in Brno (now in the Czech
Republic). He had been failing most of his school-teacher exams, including biology. For a
while he was enrolled at the University of Vienna, where Professor Doppler – who argued
that sound and light obeyed universal laws - became his mentor. In 1856, Mendel retook
the teacher’s exam in Vienna, failed miserably, returned to Brno and decided never to
retake the exam. In Brno he planted a crop of peas , crossed a tall plant with a short one,
and thus started a series of experiments that would continue for years. Would the two
alleles, or variants, blend? Would the colors blend? “How small a thought it takes to fill
someone’s whole life”, the linguist Wittgenstein had noted.

Mendel found that in the first-generation hybrids the traits did not blend: Only tall plants
were obtained. He again crossed tall plants with tall plants (dominant) - there were no
short ones (recessive). In amazement he watched the third generation: In some of these
crosses, shortness reappeared. There seemed to be discrete pieces of information that
were passed on from parents to offspring. In a hybrid, both traits existed intact – although
only one asserted its existence. In 1865, he published in an obscure journal, and from
1866 till 1873 he tried, politely and submissively, to convince the botanist Nageli to
consider his results but was repeatedly and contemptuously snubbed. In 1884, Mendel
died in complete anonymity.

Meanwhile, doubts about Darwin’s gemmules theory were accumulating. In a macabre

experiment conducted in 1883, Weismann had excised the tails of mice for five
generations only to find mice were still being born with tails. If gemmules had existed,
then a mouse with an excised tail would have produced a tail-less mouse. Others were
coming round to what Mendel had discovered long ago. In 1900, de Vries, about to
4
publish his research, was astonished to read Mendel’s paper – sent to him by a friend. He
decided to publish his own paper on plant hybrids, even using Mendel’s vocabulary, but
without acknowledging Mendel. Correns, Nageli’s student, also published a study on pea
hybrids, revisiting and reconfirming Mendel’s results. So did Erich von Tschermak. That
three researchers reached the same conclusions as Mendel in 1900 forced everyone to
acknowledge Mendel.

In the same year, 1900, William Bateson, the English biologist, became a convert to
Mendel’s ideas and made it his life’s mission to prevent credit from being stolen again
from Mendel. In 1905, Bateson coined the word Genetics. And in 1909, Wilhelm
Johannsen coined a word to denote a unit of heredity – the gene, just as Dalton had coined
the word atom in 1808, even though, just like Dalton, both Bateson and Johannsen had
no understanding of what a gene was. In the 1890s Boveri had proposed that genes –
without using the name – resided in chromosomes, threadlike filaments that lived, coiled
like springs, in the nucleus of cells. And in 1905, Nettie Stevens had shown that
“maleness” in worms was determined by the Y chromosome. Suddenly, after a lull of 2000
years, the whole field of genetics had come alive.4

Gene Pathbreakers

By 1910, even though the word “gene” had been coined, and it had been suggested that
these “genes” resided in chromosomes (see above), no one had any idea of what a gene
was. The researchers did not know how genes were organized on chromosomes, whether
they were strung along chromosomes, like pearls on a string, whether every gene had a
unique address, whether they overlapped, or whether they were linked to other genes.
Four gifted researchers provided important insights into these questions and opened the
door of genetics to the rest of the world.

4 The above discussion on Darwin and Mendel has been primarily taken from “The Gene” pp 17-55.

5
Thomas Morgan, a professor of zoology at Columbia, was working, with some star
students – Sturtevant, Bridges and Muller around 1910-2 -- on fruit flies, crossing fly
mutants, when he found that the white-eyed flies were linked with Y chromosomes. In
other words, he found that some genes appeared to be linked with other genes. This was
something which Mendel had not predicted. In Mendel’s world, every gene was
independent. The color of a flower was not related to the height of the plant and so on.
But occasionally, a gene could unlink itself from its partner gene. And in 1911, Sturtevant,
a 20-year-old undergraduate, worked all night to produce the first Genome map by
mapping genes as A, B …… C (A tightly linked to B but loosely linked to C).

Dobzhansky, a Ukrainian biologist working in the US in the 1930s, who had trained
with Morgan on the flies, documented that in some races of flies, two races were
differentially impacted if they were subjected to hot or cold treatment. The “fittest”
organisms, depending on what “fit” referred to, would survive. Thus, a genotype, when in
the presence of environment, triggers and chance, would lead to phenotype (features).
Effectively, because of Morgan and Dobzhansky, genetics and evolution had been brought
together into a grand synthesis: genes had a material basis, travelled vertically from
parents to children and the fittest survived depending on both the gene and externalities.

The vertical passage of genes had been taken as the norm. Transformation, or horizontal
exchange, almost never occurs in mammals. Mendel and Morgan had analyzed patterns
of heredity (movement of trait from parent to offspring) but the gene never left the cell in
such studies. Transformation was discovered by Griffith, a medical officer at the British
Ministry of Health, who published in 1928 the results of his experiment which would
launch the molecular biology revolution. Griffith killed some virulent, smooth bacteria
with heat, injected the dead ones into mice, and found no infection. But when he mixed
the same dead bacteria of the virulent strain with live bacteria of the nonvirulent strain,
the mice died rapidly. Autopsy of the mice revealed that the rough bacteria had acquired
the smooth coat. It seemed that genetic information had passed between the two strains

6
in a chemical form, and become part of the live bacteria genome. Genes could be
transmitted between two organisms without any reproduction. Griffith was reluctant to
publish, and his 1928 paper in an obscure journal, along with the implication that the
gene was a chemical, was ignored.

But what was the molecular nature of the gene? What was its nature? In 1944 the famous
physicist Schrodinger, while speaking in Dublin, made some conjectures. The gene, he
said, based only on his theorizing, had to be made of a peculiar kind of chemical; it had to
be a molecule of contradictions. It had to possess chemical regularity to copy and transmit
information – but also had to be capable of extraordinary irregularity, to account for the
enormous diversity of inheritance. It had to be able to carry vast amounts of information
but also be compact enough to be packaged into cells. It could be a chemical with multiple
chemical bonds along the chromosome fiber. It was possible that the sequence of bonds
encoded the code script. Perhaps the order of beads on the string carried the secret code
of life. Nobody had come so close to predicting the future when it came to the gene.

But which molecule would it be that carried the code of heredity? Most chemists were
guessing by 1940 that this molecule will turn out to be a protein – one of the two major
chemicals from which Chromatin (where genes reside) is made. The other chemical,
nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), was too simple to be considered the “gene molecule”. It
will be remembered that Griffith had discovered the “transforming principle”. In 1940,
Avery, a 62-year-old New York professor repeated, successfully, Griffith’s experiments.
One by one, he removed sugars, lipids and even proteins and the transformation still
worked. He finally removed DNA: it was confirmed beyond doubt that it was DNA that
was responsible for carrying the most complex information in biology.5

5The paragraphs above on Morgan, Dubzhansky, Griffith and Avery have been taken mainly from The Gene
(2016) pp 92 – 138 but also from the British Encyclopedia and Wikipedia.

7
The Double Helix and Rosalind Franklin

It was 1951 and Maurice Wilkins, a physicist turned biologist, from New Zealand was
working at King’s College in London, trying to illuminate the structure of DNA by
crystallography and X-ray diffraction (shining X-rays on crystals to create shadows of
molecules in order to study their structure). In the same year, Rosalind Franklin, a dark-
haired dark-eyed off-shoot of a long line of illustrious Anglo-Jewish scholars and leaders,
and daughter of an English banker, joined him. 6 Franklin was “an authority on the
crystallography of coal when she arrived in London in January 1951 as a Turner Newall
Fellow.”7 “It now appears certain that John Randall, director of the laboratory, without
informing Wilkins, had written a letter to Franklin assigning DNA structural studies to
her, without warning Franklin about Wilkins's continuing interest in DNA.”8

It was very close to hate at first sight. “From the moment she arrived in Maurice's lab,
they began to upset each other. Maurice, a beginner in X-ray diffraction work, wanted
some professional help and hoped that Rosy, a trained crystallographer, could speed up
his research. Rosy, however, did not see the situation this way. She claimed that she had
been given DNA for her own problem and would not think of herself as Maurice's
assistant.”9 She, according to another close friend, Maddox, ended up telling Maurice as
early as June 1951 to mind his own business and not to intrude in her territory – the X-
ray work of DNA structure. She even “demanded in a firm and deliberate tone that he give
up X-ray work and go back to the microscopes.”10

6 Rosalind Franklin and her science in-the-making: A situated, sexual and existential portrait, by Esha Shah,
2013, p 123
7 Rosalind Franklin, by Esha Shah, 2013
8 “Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix” by Lynne Osman Elkin (2003) Physics Today, p 4
9 The Double Helix – A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, by James D. Watson,
1967 (available on the net) – hereafter “The Double Helix, 1967). I draw on this book as I draw on The Gene
by Siddhartha Mukherjee 2016 as my two main sources for this case.
10 Maddox, Rosalind Franklin. The Dark Lady of DNA, 148-49, cited in Rosalind Franklin, by Esha Shan,
2013, p 127

8
The battles were fought on land and in water. Once, as they were punting on the Cam,
Franklin’s boat came very near Wilkins’, leading to the latter’s mock cry “She’s trying to
drown me.” The joke touched a sore chord in Rosalind Franklin, who was already finding
most of the men around her uninspiring. She described her colleagues at King’s in a letter
to her friend Anne Sayre in March 1952: ‘the very young are thoroughly nice but none of
them are brilliant. And the other middle and senior people are positively repulsive. The
other serious trouble is that there isn’t a first class or even good brain among them – in
fact nobody with whom I particularly want to discuss anything, scientific or otherwise,
and I so much prefer to work under somebody who commands my respect and can offer
some encouragement.”11 That “women were not allowed upstairs for after-lunch coffee in
the smoking room, undoubtedly cut off a natural route for easy scientific conversation.” 12

Franklin and Wilkins continued to experience problems in working together to solve

DNA’s structure. Wilkinswas worried that the famous American scientist Linus Pauling
would make the DNA breakthrough, and believed Franklin was a hindrance. James
Watson who had joined the DNA race at Cambridge in 1951 (see below), believed that “the
real problem, then, was Rosy. The thought could not be avoided that the best home for a
feminist was in another person's.”13 Eventually, Franklin and Wilkins’ boss Randall was
forced to mediate and allocate different tasks. However, this separation of tasks further
impeded their work. Wilkins needed good photographs and Franklin was having
problems in interpreting her photographic data.

It was 1951 and a voluble young American, James Watson, 23, had arrived to join Max
Pertuz’s lab at Cambridge. Watson knew very little about the X-ray diffraction technique
but was fascinated by a picture shown by Wilkins of an X-diffraction of DNA in Italy.14
Soon he was into DNA, forming an almost instantaneous friendship with fellow

11 Rosalind Franklin, by Esha Shan, 2013, p 124

12 Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix” by Lynne Osman Elkin (2003) Physics Today, p 4
13 The Double Helix, p 2
14 The Double Helix, p 4

9
researcher physicist turned biologist Francis Crick, 35, sharing with him exuberant
dreams, mad ambitions and harebrained schemes of cracking the code of DNA. Watson
would write later “Francis talked too much. Often he came up with something novel,
would become enormously excited, and immediately tell it to anyone who would listen. A
day or so later he would often realize that his theory did not work and return to
experiments, until boredom generated a new attack on theory.”15

Crick had initially focused on proteins like many but had soon been intrigued by DNA.
Both were now working in the shadow of the famous Linus Pauling, the Caltech chemist
in the US who was assumed to be working at breakneck pace to unravel the structure of
DNA 5000 miles away. Both Watson and Crick were also learning fast from Pauling:
“Within a few days after my arrival, we knew what to do: imitate Linus Pauling and beat
him at his own game.”16 Behind his equations and numbers, Crick told Watson, one could
see that the real magic lay not in mathematics but in imagination: “I soon was taught that
Pauling's accomplishment was a product of common sense, not the result of complicated
mathematical reasoning.”17

There was one problem with the dyadic friendship. Both scientists soon realized that they
needed much better X-ray pictures of DNA and it appeared only Franklin had them. “The
painful fact that the pictures belonged to Maurice could not be avoided.” 18 Both decided
to talk to Maurice Wilkins. But there was now an additional problem. Franklin “was now
insisting that not even Maurice himself should take any more X-ray photographs of DNA.
The point had been reached where Rosy would not even tell Maurice her latest results.”

Watson, it seems, also had an issue with the way Franklin dressed and made up. “By
choice she did not emphasize her feminine qualities. Though her features were strong,
she was not unattractive and might have been quite stunning had she taken even a mild

15 The Double Helix p 2

16 The Double Helix p 7
17 The Double Helix p 7
18 The Double Helix p 7

10
interest in clothes. This she did not. There was never lipstick to contrast with her straight
black hair. So it was quite easy to imagine her the product of an unsatisfied mother who
unduly stressed the desirability of professional careers that could save bright girls from
marriages to dull men. Clearly Rosy had to go or be put in her place.”19

On November 21, 1951, Franklin gave a talk at King’s which Watson attended on the
invitation of Wilkins. In that talk, Franklin made big conceptual leaps and visualized a
“big helix with several chains with phosphates on the outside.” As Watson reported to
Crick the summary of the talk, the latter asked him about precise numbers. His “answers
were frequently vague, and Francis was visibly annoyed by my habit of always trusting to
memory and never writing anything on paper.”20 Crick did get enough material though
out of Franklin’s talk to begin a model of his own along with Watson. They built a
preliminary model and invited Wilkins and Franklin to come and have a look. “Without
wasting any time on greetings, Franklin immediately pointed out that the calculations
were grossly incorrect and pointed out several mistakes in a matter of minutes. The model
made it more than clear that neither Watson nor Crick knew their basic chemistry. And
this was Franklin’s powerful response to the patronizing attitude that Watson and Crick
had adopted with her.”21

Franklin’s demolition of their model was brisk, complete and brutal. Crick and Watson
were crestfallen, again worried that Linus Pauling in the US could beat them any minute.
Pauling’s paper was published in January 1953. They eagerly read early copies of it and
rushed to the nearby pub for a drink: it seemed flawed and inelegant. There still was time.
But both also realized this would be borrowed time, as the mistake in Pauling’s paper
would be discovered in six weeks by him and he would rectify them into a better model.
Nothing less than the secret of life was at stake.

19 The Double Helix, p 2. The slightly patronizing, if not anti-feminist tone of the book was noted by later commentators.
20 The Double Helix p 11
21 Rosalind Franklin, by Esha Shah, 2013, p 130

11
Also in January 1953, at least according to Watson’s memoirs “Rosy's days at King's were
numbered. She had told Maurice that she wanted to transfer to Birkbeck College.
Moreover, to Maurice's surprise and relief, she would not take the DNA problem with her.
In the next several months she was to conclude her stay by writing up her work for
publication. Then, with Rosy at last out of his life, he would commence an all-out search
for the structure.”

What both Watson and Crick did not know was that in May 1952, Rosalind Franklin had
taken a picture of a DNA fiber which had come out as the most perfect till then. She had
labelled it as “Photograph 51”. In January 1953, Watson visited London to meet Wilkins.
He stopped by Franklin’s office but the meeting with her ended badly. She was, according
to Watson, contemptuously dismissive of both Watson and Pauling for persisting with
helices when no shred of evidence favored the theory.22 When Watson persisted and even
suggested that Franklin should use more theory to interpret her own data, “suddenly Rosy
came from behind the lab bench that separated us and began moving toward me. Fearing
that in her hot anger she might strike me, I grabbed up the Pauling manuscript and hastily
retreated to the open door.” Maurice happened to drop by at that very moment, invited
Watson to tea, and Rosy shut the door.23 According to Watson, Maurice then told him
that Rosy might have assaulted Watson and that “some months earlier she had made a
similar lunge toward him.”24

Probably due to this incident, according to Watson, Wilkins was more friendly towards
him. This led to a series of activities whose facts and interpretation would remain
controversial perhaps for centuries to come. Wilkins told him that he had been
duplicating Franklin’s X-ray work. Wilkins then showed Watson one of the pictures
Franklin had developed. “The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse

22 The Double Helix, p 23

23 The Double Helix, p 23
24 The Double Helix, p 23

12
began to race.”25 This was happening without either permission or even the knowledge of
Franklin. Wilkins would later write “Perhaps I should have asked Rosalind’s permission.”

By the time Watson had returned to Cambridge, he had been convinced that DNA had to
be made of two intertwined, helical chains. The next morning both Watson and Crick
started model building afresh. It was difficult to put all the four bases, A, T, G and C to fit
together but then they recalled Erwin Chargaff’s 1950 discovery that A and T, and G and
C appeared to come together in pairs. 26 Still, there were complications and again,
Rosalind Franklin came to help – and again, without her knowledge (“Rosy, of course, did
not directly give us her data.”27). This time it was Max Perutz, a member of the committee
who had reviewed Wilkins and Franklin’s work on DNA who came to their rescue. The
report prepared by Wilkins and Franklin contained priceless data on measurements
which would help Watson and Crick in solving the “packing problem” i.e. fitting the
double helix model. Perutz handed a copy of the report to Watson and Crick. He would
later write “I was inexperienced and casual in administrative matters and since the report
was not ‘Confidential’ I saw no reason for withholding it.”

How important was this data? “Only after Crick obtained Franklin's data--his thesis
adviser, Max Perutz, agreed to give him a copy of the 1952 report and Watson had seen
photograph #51--was he sufficiently convinced to start constructing the backbone of the
successful DNA model. He recognized the similarity of the space group Franklin had
calculated to that of his thesis molecule, hemoglobin, and immediately deduced that there
would be an antiparallel orientation between the two DNA coaxial fibers. Within one
week, he started modeling the correct backbone in a manner compatible with Franklin's
data. On several occasions, Crick has acknowledged that the data and conclusions in the
1952 report were essential.”28

25 The Double Helix, p 23

26 The Double Helix p 18; The Gene p 155
27 The Double Helix, p 25
28 “Rosalind Franklin and the Double Helix” by Lynne Osman Elkin (2003) Physics Today, p 3

13
In February Watson came up with some models, only to be shot down by nearby
researchers. “I no sooner got to the office and began explaining my scheme than the
American crystallographer Jerry Donohue protested that the idea would not work.” 29
They revised the model many times based on criticisms of their fellow researchers.

By the end of February, Watson and Crick were ready with their double-helical model of
DNA. Franklin saw the model and was convinced: “Rosy's instant acceptance of our model
at first amazed me. I had feared that her sharp, stubborn mind, caught in her self-made
anti-helical trap, might dig up irrelevant results that would foster uncertainty about the
correctness of the double helix. Nonetheless, like almost everyone else, she saw the appeal
of the base pairs and accepted the fact that the structure was too pretty not to be true.
Moreover, even before she learned of our proposal, the X-ray evidence had been forcing
her more than she cared to admit toward a helical structure.”30

Linus Pauling visited them and “gave his opinion that we had the answer.” 31

On April 25, 1953, Watson and Crick published their paper.

In 1962, James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins won the Nobel Prize for their
discovery.

Rosalind Franklin was not included in the prize because she had died in 1958, at the age
of 37, from ovarian cancer.

29 The Double Helix, p 26

30 The Double Helix, p 28
31 The Double Helix, p 29

14