Correpondence between Maurice Wilkins and Sir Mark Oliphant

In this post, I want to highlight correspondence that I have recently come across between Maurice Wilkins and his fellow antipodean scientist, Sir Marcus Oliphant. The letters relate to Wilkins' biographical work on Sir John Randall for his Royal Society Memoir. Oliphant was a key figure for both Randall and Wilkins as he hired and supported them both as the Head of Physics at the University of Birmingham. It was there that the Randall-Wilkins partnership first began with research on on phosphorescence and continued in some degree with (the notable exception of the radar research by Randall and Wilkins' own involvement in the Manhattan Project ) until Sir John's retirement from King's College London in 1970. The correspondence between Oliphant and Wilkins are interesting in the insights that they shed regarding the creation of the cavity magnetron, shared ideas on scientific discovery and their mutual esteem for one another. 

Figure 1

Figure 1: Letter from Maurice Wilkins to Sir Mark Oliphant, dated 23 March 1987. Wilkins sends Oliphant a finished copy of his Royal Society Memoir on Sir John Randall. He relates that he decided in his own account of the creation of the cavity magnetron to deal with the rumours regarding the possibility of John Randall and Harry Boot being influenced by Russian scientists before the war. He also states a deep gratitude towards Oliphant for his support at Cambridge [where Oliphant was his personal tutor], Birmingham [where Oliphant hired Wilkins after he left Cambridge with a second class degree] and at Berkley [where Oliphant recruited him to be part of his team working on the Manhattan Project].  

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

 Figures 2-4: Letter from Sir Mark Oliphant to Maurice Wilkins, undated [1987]. The letter begins by passing on the sad news of the death of Rosa Oliphant, his wife of sixty three years but his pleasure on receiving Maurice's letter and Royal Society Memoir. Oliphant recounts his own memory of the discovery of the cavity magnetron and how he gave the problem to Randall and Boot; Randall's brilliance in using the Hertz wire-loop detector; the difficulties in the lab between James Sayers and Randall and how close the Russians had come with their own research. In regards to Wilkins' remarks about him, he thanks him and states that he is proud to be associated with a Nobel Prize winner in Medicine and contributing to what Ernest Rutherford called the 'stamp collecting' of quantitative science [which was anything other than pure physics]. 

The correspondence makes interesting reading because of the honesty and clarity with which the two scientists view the developments of the cavity magnetron and generally their lives as a whole. As Maurice Wilkins wrote in his autobiography: "[Oliphant] had a down-to-earth approach to physics, and believed physicists should make their own apparatus. This suited me well, since I had grown up in my family's workshop tradition...Altogether, Oliphant was very good to me. I felt we were on the same wavelength" (p32-33).

Figure 5

 The final letter in this series relates to my previous post regarding MI5 suspicion that Maurice Wilkins was a soviet spy (http://dnaandsocialresponsibility.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html). As a brief recap, MI5 began monitoring Wilkins after his defence of the British physicist and convicted spy, Alan Nunn May, was passed on by an informant when Wilkins was working in St Andrew University in 1946. Wilkins had argued heatedly in support of Niel Bohr's belief that atomic secrets should be shared with the international community. Oliphant states in the letter: " I remain convinced that Bohr's idea of openness, of a world without secrecy or barriers to any kind of communication, is the only way to achieve a world with out war".Sadly, we do not have Wilkins' reply but undoubtedly he would have shared the sentiment of his former mentor and friend.

A brief tour of the original artwork of Maurice Wilkins

In today's post, I wish to offer a short tour of original artwork done by Professor Maurice Wilkins in the form of a series of playful and inventive cartoons that rather helpfully illustrate elements of the philosophy of science. The origins of these cartoons stem from Maurice Wilkins' involvement in the teaching of the course, 'Social Impact of the Biosciences' here at King's. He would also illustrate his Eddington Memorial lectures on the 'Origins of the Modern World View' (1978) with quirky artwork to illustrate certain points such as the example below: where the ancient and the modern thinkers both accuse the other of hubris in their attempt to understand the world.

Or the artwork could be purely illustrative such as this example of a hierarchy of angels...

It is however, his 'Social Impact of the Biosciences' period that we see Wilkins the artist at his most creative peak. Not many artists have attempted to graphically depict in demonic form the social conditioning that impairs objective vision (see Figure 1) or the general schisms inherent in western culture through the guise of Jim Watson and Francis Crick building the double helix (see Figure 2).

Figure 1: Cartoon of Man having his objective vision tampered with by marauding demons representing social conditioning in the way people perceive society

Figure 2: Cartoon versions of Jim Watson and Francis Crick observe with resigned horror the inherent fractures in Western culture.

A potted account of the research on DNA at King's College London

In this post, there will be a brief overview of the research carried out here at King's on the structure of DNA. This of course is not a definitive history of the events and interactions which led to the discovery of a double helix. For a more comprehensive scientific history of DNA, I would recommend Robert Olby's book "The Path to the Double Helix: The Discovery of DNA" (1974). My purpose is to introduce some of the techniques and findings that occurred here at King's and relate it to the overall contribution to identifying the structure of DNA.

DNA enters the 'Circus'

The new Biophysics Laboratory created by J T Randall at King's College London was a lively and unconventional institution. Randall's ambition to create a laboratory where physicists could work on biological problems and vice versa were being realised at King's and an assortment of young research workers from diverse scientific backgrounds found their feet in these new disciplines. Maurice Wilkins was one of these workers. His first years at King's had proved fruitless in the field of ultrasonics causing mutations in fruit flies and he swiftly moved on to construct, with his colleagues Bill Seeds and K P Norris reflecting achromatic microscopes which he began to use on ultraviolet and dichroism studies on the Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV), nucleic acids and nucleoproteins. During these initial experiments with DNA Wilkins found a significant finding he wrote in 1962:

"While examining oriented films of DNA prepared for ultraviolet dichroism studies, I saw in the polarizing microscope extremely uniform fibres getting clear extinction between crossed nicols...each time that I touched the gel with a glass rod and removed the rod, a thin and almost invisible fibre of DNA was drawn out like a filament of spider's web. The perfection and uniformity of the fibres suggested that the molecules in them were regularly arranged"

Polarising microscope view of DNA fibre stretched at room humidity

The excellent quality of this extracted DNA was not through chance. The sample was supplied by Rudolph Signer, a Swiss biochemist who had been since the 1930s endeavouring to produce high quality extracted DNA. The sample made in 1949 with his student H Schwander made that grade. On the 12 May 1950, Signer was invited to the Faraday Society in Cambridge to discuss his work on preparing DNA samples. At the end of the talk he distributed bottles of his best DNA and Maurice Wilkins was one of the lucky recipients. Wilkins later reflected that this was "a generous act in the best tradition of science!".

Having witnessed the remarkable uniformity of the fibres, Wilkins took the DNA fibres to Raymond Gosling for X-ray diffraction. Gosling was the only person using X-ray diffraction techniques at the time to complement Randall's interest in the X-ray study of ram's sperm heads. Initially the two were unsuccessful  the specimen to the film distance too large and the X-ray tube too weak to yield a pattern but they improvised as Raymond Gosling explains:

"I wound these fibres around a wire frame, forming a dense bundle which on the conventional Raymax tube produced a diffraction pattern recordable in a few hours. If that sounds rather scientific, I must tell you that the 'wire frame' was simply a bent paper clip and the 'dense bundle' was formed by applying Lepages quick setting cement, purchased from Woolworth's in the Strand!"

First multifibre specimen taken on the Raymax tube Unicam Camera, filled with hydrogen (1950)

The above photograph is the one that Maurice Wilkins showed at the Naples conference that so captivated Jim Watson. This was obtained thanks to a suggestion by Randall , by passing hydrogen thought the camera and sealing it where possible to prevent air scattering, which caused a fog on the film. From these images it was possible to demonstrate that the molecule was packed together like cylinders 2.0 nm in diameter and  that the structure was very crystalline. The final study in this initial period was experimenting with the water content of the molecule. By drying and heating the specimen they obtained an amorphous scatter pattern .This contrasted when they repeated the process but wetted the hydrogen at 90% humidity for 12 hours prior to exposure and obtained a crystalline pattern similar tp the example above. This demonstrated that water played a vital role in maintaining an ordered crystalline structure.

X-ray Diffraction Years

In June 1950, the old wartime Siemens X-ray tube broke down leaving the department without a working X-ray diffraction camera. They soon obtained designs for new fine-focus X-ray equipment produced by Ehrenberg and Spear at Birkbeck College. Whilst the camera was being constructed Randall came to the decision that they needed a professional crystallographer to keep the work progressing. Rosalind Franklin was already on her way to the department as a research fellow to work on proteins but Randall expressed in a letter the change in orientation. The letter stated that "as far as the experimental X-ray effort is concerned there will be at the moment only yourself and Gosling..." and  gave no indication of Wilkins' continued involvement on the project. This may account for the grievance that Franklin held from what she viewed as Wilkins interpreting her problem but this issue is in no way definitive and has been heatedly debated along with the wider recognition of Franklin's role ever since. Yet, it is best to leave the issue of Franklin and Wilkins relationship to one side for a moment and recount for what was actually achieved when she joined the department.

One of the first achievements of this collaborations was a vital one in solving the structure of DNA. Franklin brought her expertise to the job by fixing the humidity and the water content of the exposures by passing the hydrogen through saturated aqueous solutions of appropriate compounds through which the hydrogen could bubble into the camera at any given temperature. They soon found that the sodium salt of DNA supplied by Signer could transform into two forms, Structure A and Structure B.

Soon after this discovery, the division between the DNA workers at King's was cemented with Franklin and Gosling continuing to work with the fine focus X-ray tube using Signer DNA to outline the Structure A pattern of DNA whilst Wilkins and Alex Stokes used the old Raymax camera and work on the Structure B pattern using Erwin Chargaff's DNA samples. This situation did not change until Franklin left King's College London in February 1953 with virtually no communication between the two groups.

In October 1951 Wilkins, who had been reading Linus Pauling's famous paper on the protein alpha-helix , wondered why Pauling had not calculated the X-ray diffraction of the structure. After discussing the matter with Stokes he came back the next day with a Bessel function calculation of diffraction of a helix. The remarkable aspect of the 'Waves at Bessel on Sea' diagram was how much it corresponded to the new B diffraction patterns that Franklin was achieving. Franklin reacted furiously to her results being interpreted and the matter was set aside.

The following month November 1951, saw the unveiling of two DNA models: one by Bruce Fraser at King's and the other by Jim Watson and Francis Crick in Cambridge. Both these models were three chained helixes and lacked the key base-pair element. Fraser's model (as described in a previous post) was a closer approximation of the correct version as a fundamental flaw in the first Cambridge model was that the helix was inside out with the bases on the outside due to Watson misjudging the water content. The failure of the Cambridge model put a temporary injunction on the pairs DNA interest, whilst model building was not pursued at King's College London after Fraser left the department shortly after this. 

At the start of 1952, Franklin, taking the advice of a Paris mentor, Vittorio Luzzati , decided to elucidate the structure of the A pattern using the crystallographic method of cylindrical Patterson function. This laborious method was a way of calculating the Fourier transform of the intensities of the spots on the X-ray films ,and involved measuring different reflexions of the specimen which required a new tilting microcamera to be designed for this process. In order to calculate the Fourier transform, Franklin and Gosling had to consult Beavers and Lipson strips (pictured below). Ray Gosling recalled that:

"These assembled the values of the periodic functions all set out at appropriate intervals and arranged sequentially in a handsomely polished mahogany box. I used to have nightmares...that I had dropped a box of 'strips' on the floor and had to sort them all out in the correct order!"

By the end of 1952, Franklin and Gosling had the preliminary results back for the cylindrical Patterson function of Structure A. Although in hindsight the data from the cylindrical Patterson and then the 3-dimensional Patterson analysis supported a double helix in the A form such a conclusion was not reached by Franklin who before leaving for Birkbeck College had begun to investigate the B form of DNA (with which, as shown in her notebooks, she would come close to solving the structure with). 

The solution to the structure:

On the 7th March 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick finished the model of the double helix. The Cambridge pair started model building again after Watson was inspired on account of being shown 'Photo 51' by Wilkins when he visited King's on the 30th January. Watson deduced that a double helix rather than a triple helix fitted with genetic transference and was supported by the biochemical work of Erwin Chargaff who had discovered that the quantities of the base pairs were equal. On the 12th March 1953 the King's team were invited up to view the model. Wilkins wrote of seeing the model: 

"...a feeling came through to me that the model, though only bits of wire on a lab bench, had a special life of its own. It seemed like an incredible new-born baby that spoke for itself, saying 'I don't care what you think - I know I am right' "

                                                              

 The diagram above on the left hand side shows some of the essential features of the double helix from the original paper by Watson and Crick such as the two sugar-phosphate chains running in opposite directions linked together by hydrogen bonded base-pairs stacked on top of each other. The diagram on the right shows a wire-model of the double helix used by Watson and Crick in their representation of the original double helical model of DNA.                     

Conclusion:

The contribution of the the Biophysics department at King's to the discovery of the structure of DNA was vital. The x-ray diffraction studies and other experimental methods provided the essential properties for Watson and Crick to elucidate the structure.Yet these achievements were not in isolation and needed to be combined with the knowledge acquired from Pauling and Chargaff along with many others to lead to the structure of DNA. The cracking of the structure should not be seen in terms of a race but the culmination of advances in chemistry, biology and physics spanning back to the nineteenth century when Fritz Miescher extracted DNA for the first time. 

Fortieth Anniversary of the Discovery of the structure of DNA. Pictured from left to right are four of the five named workers featured on the commemorative plaque (exception being Rosalind Franklin) they are: Ray Gosling, Herbert Wilson, Maurice Wilkins and Alec Stokes.

                                    

Public unveiling of frieze celebrating Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins work at King's College London

On the 13th September 2010 Principal Professor Rick Trainor unveiled the newly designed DNA frieze outside the Franklin-Wilkins building on the Waterloo Campus. The new permanent window display was sponsored by Ecovert FM to mark the 10th anniversary of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) contract with King's.  The set of friezes depict the two scientists and the key developments associated with them that led to the solving of the structure of DNA. To celebrate the unveiling members of the Franklin and Wilkins family joined the Principal and the CEO of Ecovert Group Bruno Bodin for this special occasion.

(Left to right) Jenifer Glyn, her husband Ian, Sarah Wilkins, CEO of Ecovert Group Bruno Bodin, George Wilkins, King's Principal Professor Rick Trainor and at the front, George Wilkins' two sons.

The set of friezes on street level on Stamford Street give an excellent introduction to the DNA work undertaken at King's: for the representation of Rosalind Franklin it praises the X-ray diffraction studies that she and Ray Gosling took and couples her with her most famous creation, 'Photo 51'. It's visually arresting for the casual pedestrian or distracted student but the real treat is the detail on the friezes: the extracts and images of Franklin's notebook and a brief diagrammatic explanation of the significance of 'Photo 51'. 

Frieze panel of 'Photo 51' with explanation below. 

 Maurice Wilkins the frieze acknowledges both the work that he achieved in the early fifties and the later work verifying the Watson-Crick model. Again the frieze is a fine tribute pointing out the early X-ray diffraction work and early helical interpretations harbored by Maurice Wilkins and his collaborator Alec Stokes. 

 Alongside these panels on the story of DNA is the impressive representation of the scale and enormity of DNA through a linear outline of a section of a double helix coiled around the three revolving doors of the entrance of the Franklin-Wilkins building. The creator of the artwork, Ian Chilvers of Atelier Works, aided by Dr Roland Roberts of the Department of Medical & Molecular Genetics here at King's College, scaled up a section of DNA from the smallest human chromosome (21) by a factor of 1.1. billion and applied the design to the doors used a frosted linear vinyl. The artwork gives a visual demonstration of the complexity of our genetic make-up: In order to depict the total size of this chromosome at this scale it would involve having to stack 10 million of these doors on top of each other- making it a staggering 20,000 km high!

Model of the DNA design courtesy of Atelier Works

The project is part of a larger renovation scheme by KCL and its facilities management partner Ecovert FM to reduce the ecological impact of all campus buildings. The Franklin-Wilkins building can now harvest rainwater for cleaning and toilets, reduce energy waste through energy efficient lighting and heating systems and even convert waste into biomass. This larger project would have pleased Maurice Wilkins who was a keen advocate of alternative energy use and would appreciate that a building that shares his name was pursuing an innovative and environmentally responsible policy towards energy consumption.

Exterior of the Franklin-Wilkins building on Stamford Street

New Flickr Set and Project Update

Apologies for not updating any fresh content sooner but we have been busy here at King's College Archives regarding the Maurice Wilkins collection having participated in the recent "Story of London" festival where Maurice- and the scientific tradition of King's College London- were given star billing. The event allowed us to showcase some of the highlights of the collection and show off some of the numerous artifacts that we have alongside paper records with the collection. These include a number of X-ray diffraction cameras including the microcamera that Rosalind Franklin took 'Photo 51' with. Visitors also got to read extracts from the letters of Maurice Wilkins to Francis Crick and John T Randall from the early fifties and peruse are large photographic collection that ranges from X-ray diffraction images of DNA to official photographs of the 1962 Nobel Prize ceremony.

Hopefully there be shortly be a video of the evening that I can post and give a bit more body of the structure of the night and elaborate on its highlights (such as an unexpected appearance from Maurice Wilkins...).

In other news, I have just added a new Flickr set that gives a sample of the photographic images we have in the collection. The set can be found on the link below (or alternatively click on the photostream at the bottom of the page):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51665752@N04/sets/72157625030543691/

Lost Wilkins-Crick DNA correspondence discovered

Maurice Wilkins is in the news yet again thanks to the discovery of a lost series of correspondence between him and Francis Crick on DNA. It had been previously believed that the early correspondence between him and Francis Crick had been lost in a moment of over-zealous house-keeping. However, due to moving laboratory muddle, part of Francis Crick's papers were mixed with  those of his long-time DNA collaborator, Sidney Brenner while they shared an office in Cambridge. Brenner's papers were recently donated to the Cold Spring Harbor Library Archives, where nine archival boxes of material belonging to Francis Crick came to light.

John Steinbeck, Maurice Wilkins, James Watson and Francis Crick at the 1962 Nobel Prize ceremony (Steinbeck won his for his contribution to literature)

 

The correspondence with Wilkins consists of thirty four letters and three postcards between 1951 and 1964, which include eleven written between 1951 and 1953. The newly discovered letters shed light on the tensions present between the two laboratories, the strained relationship between Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin and the informal arrangements behind the famous note by Watson and Crick to Nature on the structure of DNA. Of particular interest is the complaint regarding Crick's dismissal of the Bruce Fraser DNA model; the anger felt by Randall towards Watson and Crick's involvement in DNA and above all the good humour and wit found in Wilkins letters to Crick that reflect their strong friendship.

 The new Nature article by Alexander Gann and Jann Witkowski, entitled "The lost correspondence of Francis Crick" gives excellent insight into the letters and a chance to view samples of the correspondence:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/full/467519a.html

One or two other news articles also worth perusing are: 

An article on the discovery and context around the letters can also be read on the Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/29/letters-dna-double-helix-francis-crick

 To hear an interview with Raymond Gosling's witty and informed take on the newly discovered letters for BBC Radio 4's Today programme:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2010/09/scientific_feuds.html

DNA Story at King's: The Hidden DNA workers

Fortieth Anniversary at King's College London of the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1993. Pictured are four of the five names commemorated in  the grey plaque on the background wall ( from left-right they are: Raymond Gosling, Herbert Wilson, Maurice Wilkins and Alexander Stokes)

On the unveiling of the grey plaque to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the discovery of the Double Helix at King's College London, Maurice Wilkins said these words:

"I'd like to emphasize that my presence in front of this plaque is to emphasize all five names there, including that of Rosalind Franklin who is not able to be present".

This magnanimous gesture was not just based on politeness and modesty but reflected the key collaborative effort required to provide the experimental data needed to crack the structure of the double helix. In this blog, I will provide a little background on some of the key collaborators at King's during the early years of the DNA work at King's who have been somewhat overshadowed in DNA history due to the grand narratives of Jim Watson and the biographers of Rosalind Franklin.

Raymond Gosling (born 1926):

Raymond Gosling is relatively well known in the DNA story because of his collaboration with Rosalind Franklin on the X-ray crystallography of DNA. However, Gosling's role in the DNA story pre-dated Franklin's arrival at the lab and it is this work in collaboration with Maurice Wilkins which was also of great importance to the discovery of the double helix. He first joined the lab as a PhD student under the supervision of John Randall in 1949 and began working on the cell nucleus. This approach soon led to Gosling working on studies involving DNA and by 1950 Randall asked Gosling to gather information on ram sperm using X-ray diffraction. These fuzzy pictures were in rough accordance with the X-ray diffraction pictures of DNA by Astbury. The introduction of Signer DNA and the expert manipulation by Wilkins to obtain DNA threads allowed Gosling to improve these initial results and produce X-ray pictures that showed DNA's crystalline structure. With help from Randall, Gosling and Wilkins were able to produce the "Structure A" form of DNA through the bubbling of hydrogen through the camera to prevent air scattering. In early 1951, Rosalind Franklin joined the lab and Gosling was transferred to work under her in a crystallographic analysis of DNA. The crystallographic work of the two provided a key component to obtaining the structure of DNA by vastly improving the crystallographic images and distinguishing structures A and B of DNA. There collaboration continued until Rosalind Franklin left of Birkbeck College in early 1953 and is thankfully well documented  due to the survival of Rosalind Franklin's experimental notebooks (found at the Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge) and also several articles the two published in Nature and Acta Crystallographica.

Alexander Stokes (1919-2003):
 

  Whilst Gosling was the diligent lab worker, Alex Stokes was the theoretician who provided the crucial mathematical interpretations of the x-ray diffraction studies in order to guide the King's team in the right direction. Stokes was one of the initial appointments into the unit by Randall and came with valuable experience of X-ray crystallography from his time at the Cavendish Lab in Cambridge during the war. What distinguished Stokes from his other colleagues was his consummate ease in translating the patterns created on an X-ray diffraction film into a description of the atomic arrangement using his skills in mathematics. For example, it was Stokes who first noticed in 1950 that the X-ray diffraction photographs of DNA gave an indication of a helical structure by the absence of diffraction along the length of the molecule. Stokes later used complex mathematics in the form of Bessel functions to underline this, by famously working it out on a single train journey from his home in Welwyn Gardens City to London before christening the diagram, " Waves at Bessell-on-sea".

"Waves at Bessell-on-sea" by Alexander Stokes

Herbert Wilson (1929-2008):

Though Herbert Wilson arrived six months before Watson and Crick unveiled the double helix to the world, his work with Maurice Wilkins uncovered essential information regarding the structure of DNA. Wilson arrived at the biophysics unit in September 1952 under tenure of the University of Wales. He soon began X-ray diffraction studies of DNA, nucleoproteins and cell nuclei under the guidance of Maurice Wilkins. The two collaborated on a number of investigations beginning in the autumn of 1952 comparing, under different humidities, different samples of DNA (such as pig thymus, squid sperm, and wheatgerm DNA). Their observations confirmed what Franklin and Gosling had concluded that the phosphate groups were found on the outside of DNA. They then extended the study to look at the effect of undried preparation of live trout sperm to support the hypothesis that the drying process had no affect on the in vivo structure which it subsequently confirmed. The importance of these comparative studies was affirmed by the growing number of samples that were collected that not only showed para-crystalline patterns but also the A-type of DNA. This indicated that the crystalline appearance of DNA was not laboratory induced but occurred in biologically active samples and that the work of Franklin and Gosling would have universal applications.

The Molecular Configuration of Nucleic Acids", twenty six people along with organisations that contributed. Along with those mentioned already they also include from King's Sir John Randall, Bill Seeds, Bruce Fraser, Geoffrey Brown, Gerald Oster, Watson Fuller and Struther Arnott.

The Biophysics Research Unit

King's Biophysics Department Prospective (1962)

In understanding the role of Maurice Wilkins and King’s in the discovery of the double helix it is necessary to explore the background of the Biophysics Research unit. This Medical Research Council (MRC) funded group was crucial in the discovery due to its unique status as the only interdisciplinary biophysics laboratory in the UK.  Its self-consciously hybridised and almost dilettante approach to science bore fruit not just with the landmark discovery of DNA but also in regards to the pioneering muscle work of Jean Hanson and the research on collagen under J T Randall.

Biophysics in a Bombsite:

The Department owes its creation to the vision and direction of Sir Professor John Randall. He had been appointed Wheatstone Professor of Physics at King’s  in 1946 and part of his initiative was to have a separate biophysics department alongside the existing Physics department. It was Randall’s fantastic aptitude to wheel and deal that secured government funding for the unit through the Medical Research Council in 1946. This was shortly followed by Rockefeller Foundation granting funds for special apparatus such as electron microscopes and X-ray diffraction apparatus. Whilst money was not a problem the physical devastation of the Second World War was.

Construction work begins on re-building the Physics laboratories at the Strand Campus (1950)

The impact of German bombs had left a crater 58 feet long and 27 feet deep and had completely destroyed the Physics laboratories in the basement of the quadrangle. Randall described the facilities as appalling but pressed the College for new rooms which he obtained in 1950 and was shortly followed in 1952 with an even better space in the form of the reconstructed quad laboratory in the Strand. Recruiting staff for the new unit was also relative ease with Randall transporting the core of his staff from his old St Andrews Department, including Maurice Wilkins who became his right hand man. Although established scientists were unwilling to join Randall’s venture he did manage to attract bright young scientists who were interested in interdisciplinary work. The likes of Jean Hanson, Geoffrey Brown, Bruce Fraser and Raymond Gosling joined the department in these early years.

The “Circus”:

Although the biophysics unit at King’s was the bright young thing of the British physics scene this did not lead automatically to stellar success. The staff had to find their feet in new disciplines as physicist tried to be a biologist and vice versa. Randall in his 1951 Royal Society lecture on the unit described the lab as “an experiment in co-ordination centred in a University physics laboratory”. As an experiment, some failure was expected but this however was seen by some, such as Maurice Wilkins as not a bad thing: “If our programme had been thought out more clearly in advance they would unavoidably have been dominated by existing ideas as a result would not have provided the fullest opportunity for new ideas to arise”. In Maurice’s own case is own failure with ultrasonics led to microscopic work on sperm heads that convinced him in 1950 that DNA held genetic material. The enthusiasm and spirit of innovation is perhaps best captured by this a further recollection by Maurice:

“In one room in 1948 I remember two physicists setting up reflecting ultraviolet microscopes with a technician grinding and polishing quartz coverslips, a physicist trying to construct a high voltage electron microscope for direct study of thin tissue culture cells, another physicist smashing cell nuclei in a blender to make ‘Mirshy chromosomes’ and a biological technician handling tissue cultures under the expert supervision of Honor Fell”.

This frantic inter-disciplined laboratory was not the only reason why it began to be referred to as “Randall’s Circus” in King’s corridors. The spirit of the lab was maintained by hilarious Christmas parties with irrelevant songs, dances and once an opera being performed that pointed out the absurdities of the lab and made everyone laugh. This was complemented by the annual summer cricket match where J T Randall would take centre stage with his solid batting displays.

 The collaborative, congenial and diverse scientific skills of the biophysics unit helped advance science in several directions during this period. It should be remembered that the discovery of DNA was not down to a few individuals but a number of scientists from around the world.

Christmas in a Biophysics Laboratory when you don't have enough decorations at hand- here J T Randall is depicted as Father Christmas whilst on his right hand side, Maurice Wilkins makes an angelic appearance (1960s)

Maurice Wilkins: A brief biography

Maurice Wilkins (1916-2004): New Zealand born Nobel Prize winning biophysicist

The Nobel Prize winning biophysicist is chiefly known for his experimental work that led to Watson and Crick discovering the correct double helical structure of DNA. The importance of Wilkins, and that of the King’s biophysics department in the discovery of DNA has been somewhat overshadowed by the dynamic duo from Cambridge ( even to the extent that the publisher of Wilkins’s autobiography thought to mention in choosing the title, “The Third Man of the Double Helix”). This is a disservice to both pioneering DNA work at King’s which paved the way for its discovery and which as an institute spent the next decade after the discovery confirming the validity of the Watson-Crick model.

His early life and education:

 Maurice was born in Pongaroa, New Zealand in December 1916 where he lived happily until the age of six before his father, a medical practitioner, moved his family to England in 1923. Whilst living in Birmingham, Wilkins began to display his characteristic ingenuity and craftsmanship as he built his own telescopes and microscopes to pursue his interests in astronomy and optics. He won a scholarship to St John’s College, Cambridge in 1935 to study physics but due to both his eclectic tastes in physics and his preoccupation with university politics he obtained a low second degree in 1938. Although disappointed by the result, Wilkins’s eclecticism and good fortune allowed him to join his former tutor, Mark Oliphant, at Birmingham. Oliphant had been impressed by Wilkins’s ability and interest in thermoluminescence and phosphorescence and set him up as the research student for a certain, John Randall- whom Wilkins would enjoy a fruitful, if not fractious thirty year collaboration. Wilkins made rapid progress in Birmingham obtaining his PhD in luminescence in 1940.

He was subsequently recruited into the Ministry of Home Security and Aircraft Production to work on the improvement of radar screens. In 1944, Wilkins followed Oliphant to the University of California at Berkeley, to work on the Manhattan project. Although Maurice played a small role within the project he became increasingly concerned about the ethical implications of atomic weapons and like many of his colleagues turned away from atomic physics to pursue biophysics inspired to some extent by Erwin Schrodinger's book, What is Life? (1944). 

King’s College London: 

After returning from California after the war, Maurice decided to rejoin Randall’s research group at first at St Andrew’s University in 1945. This group then moved in 1946 to King’s College, London where Randall was appointed the Wheatstone professor of physics and had obtained funding from both the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Rockefeller institute for a new Biophysics Research Unit. This new MRC unit was fairly unprecedented with interdisciplinary work within science not being a common occurrence. Maurice was integral in the early years of the institution with innovative work in adapting microscopes to use optical, ultraviolet and infra-red light. He turned to studying DNA, on Randall’s bequest in 1950. Working closely with the PhD student, Raymond Gosling and the mathematician, Alec Stokes they started to produce the first crystalline diffraction patterns for DNA. This formative period convinced Wilkins that DNA had a clear crystalline symmetry and could be readily pursued. It was whilst at a conference in Naples in 1951, that Wilkins showed a slide of their results that excitedly transfixed a previously bored and distracted Jim Watson as he realised that the structure of DNA was possible to study.

  Later that year, Wilkins was joined by Rosalind Franklin to work on X-ray diffraction experiments on DNA. The need for a professional crystallographer was essential for progress on the structure but due to misunderstanding over each others role the two fell out splitting the laboratory where Franklin and Gosling would continue working on the X ray diffraction of the A Crystalline Signer DNA whilst Wilkins and Alec Stokes (and later Herbert Wilson too) would work on the “B” form though without access to the Signer which was a remarkably pure form of extracted calf thymus DNA. Franklin and Gosling produced enhanced the quality of the X-ray diffraction photos thanks largely to Franklin’s expertise in crystallography with the vital “photo 51” being taken in May 1952 as a consequence. The teams effectively worked in isolation and it was not until 1953 when Franklin had left for Birkbeck College that any unified King’s response occurred. By then it was too late. Watson and Crick cracked the structure of DNA in March 1953. Somewhat unfortunately,the spur for Jim Watson's new attempt at model building had been seeing the marvellously clear helical pattern of "photo 51" and deciding to discard experimental data pointing to three chains and opt for two.

 Yet, to Maurice’s credit rather than throw in the towel he and the department of King’s continued to work on DNA. The process of checking the validity of the model was required especially with the constant bombardment of competing models appearing during the fifties and sixties. The work was painstaking and the refinement of the Watson - Crick Model took seven years. The toil was however worth it with the Albert Lasker Award being given to Maurice, Watson and Crick in 1960 and a general indication that a Nobel Prize would be soon on the cards.  

With Science comes Great (or Social) Responsibility:

Whilst the DNA aspect of this project is self evident, the ‘social responsibility’ requires explanation. This phrase embodies Maurice’s dual pursuit of a scientific profession but with a social consciousness. This distinct direction was present from his Cambridge student days where his anti-war activities led to him investigating the effect of incendiary bombs (the devastation that they ensured had only just been witnessed during the Spanish Civil War). Despite, and in some ways because of his work on the Manhattan project, Maurice became an ardent opponent of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and a member of organisations such as CND and Pugwash. In 1968, his opposition to biological and chemical weapons led him into contact with Hilary and Stephen Rose and together they set up the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science with Maurice serving as President. The initial aims of the society were to challenge the belief that science was a ‘pure knowledge’ that only caused harm through its application and therefore ridding the scientist any mental anguish on the ethical implications of this research. This reductionist approach to science was abhorrent to Maurice who believed the practice of science to be embedded with human values and should therefore be made to be held accountable for its impact on society. His passionate belief that the broader implications of science should be taught led to the creation of the “Social impact of the biosciences” which is run to this day in the Biophysics department here at King’s.

Fortieth Anniversary celebration of the discovery of the structure of DNA (1993). Pictured (left-right), Raymond Gosling, Herbert Wilson, Maurice Wilson, Alexander Stokes.

DNA model building: The Fraser Model

Model building by Watson and Crick famously led to them being the first to that discover the structure of DNA was in fact in the form of a double helix. It was the orientation and the manipulation of the central spine of base-pairs that proved essential to solving the structure. However, this approach to solving the structure of DNA was not unique. Model building was in vogue in the world of biophysics, thanks to the pioneering work of Linus Pauling on helical proteins. Previous DNA models had been already attempted by William Astbury and Sven Furberg but they were not based on the more accurate experimental results of the King's Biophysics department and were therefore inaccurate as they were calculated to comprise of only one chain. The first attempted model to use the experimental results of the King's biophysics department was built in late 1951 by Robert 'Bruce' Fraser. Fraser was at the time a research student in William Price's spectroscopy group, and had been asked by Maurice Wilkins to try his hand in building a DNA model.

Annual Physics Cricket Match: pictured (left-right) unknown, Margaret M'Ewen, Maurice Wilkins,
Bill Seeds, Bruce Fraser, Mary Fraser,
Raymond Gosling (standing) and Geoffrey
Brown, 1951.(KDBP/PH/1-311)

Maurice Wilkins recalls in his autobiography being beckoned by Fraser to view his helical model of DNA:

"Bruce had done a good job: the model was very interesting. The three helical chains had the right pitch, diameter and angle, and were linked together by hydrogen bonds between the flat bases which were stacked on each other in the middle of the model".

The model illustrated well the general understanding of DNA in the lab: the structure was helical based on the work of Wilkins and Alex Stokes; the phosphates were on the outside as indicated by Rosalind Franklin; the stacked central core of bases, or "pile of pennies" as shown by the x-ray diffraction photographs first achieved by William Astbury. However, whilst the model showed many of the correct characteristics in retrospect, it also reflected certain errors current at the time. A three chain structure was based on the water content and density data for DNA.Whilst both Wilkins and Franklin could not envisage anything less than three with that information (and had both separately told Fraser that the model had to be three chained) the Fraser model contradicted the X-ray diffraction data by showing the three chains to be equally spaced. The hydrogen bonding between the bases was also incorrect and the structure did not fit with Chargaff's 1:1 base ratios. The end result of the model was one of collective frustration as it summed up how the King's group had become trapped in the belief of a three chain structure and with no guidance as to how to construct it.

 The model was never published, Bruce and Mary Fraser left the lab shortly afterwards and moved to Australia in 1952. There was a final act of drama as Maurice Wilkins urgently cabled Fraser in 1953 asking him to write up his model asap for publication in Nature.

Telegram received by Maurice Wilkins from Bruce Fraser regarding publication of note on DNA model ( annotation by Maurice Wilkins)

 

Fraser worked throughout the night to finish his note on the model, but Maurice Wilkins decided in the end not to submit it for publication alongside the other papers for Nature in March 1953 as it compared unfavourably with the Watson-Crick model. Maurice Wilkins later regretted his decision as the Fraser model showed for the historical record how advanced the thinking was at King's. Below are copies of the original note:

To read more about Bruce Fraser and his DNA model there is an excellent interview with him on the Australian Academy of Science website: http://www.science.org.au/scientists/interviews/f/bf.html

An earlier and more comprehensive blog on Bruce Fraser and his model is also available on the Linus Pauling blog: http://paulingblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/the-fraser-structure-of-dna/

Maurice Wilkins accused of spying by MI5

  In a case of unusual coincidence, Maurice Wilkins has just today hit the headlines thanks to the publication by the National Archives of Security Service files on his activities. Wilkins was investigated between 1951-1954 by MI5 having been tipped off by the FBI that an Antipodean scientist, working on the Manhattan Project, had revealed information to American communist party members, including the "New Mexico set up". What is fascinating about these documents is that they both reveal aspects of Maurice's post-war lifestyle and the remarkable paucity of evidence that Wilkins could have been a spy. 

The investigation against Wilkins began from a tip-off by the FBI that an Antipodean scientist had been informing Communists Party members from Brooklyn, New York and they transferred this scientific material to the USSR. Of the nine antipodeans involved only a few were believed to be possible candidates: Eric Burhop and Maurice Wilkins. Burhop was the strongest candidate due to communist political sympathies and was subject to a much longer investigation. The consideration of Wilkins only became an issue due to the inconclusiveness of the Burhop investigation and also prompted by a report by an informant from St Andrews University. Wilkins returned from the United States soon after the war to a biophysics position at St Andrews University, it was here that the informant met Wilkins and reported his "strong left leaning tendencies". It was his vehement defence of the British physicist, Alan Nunn May who had been accused of passing on nuclear secrets that caused the most alarm. Wilkins believed that passing on secrets connected to atomic energy was justifiable and that scientists were free to use their own knowledge how they wanted. Whilst, this opinion was seen by the informant as a potentially treasonous remark it should be noted that there was an opinion with a number of other atomic scientists, such as the famous Danish scientist, Niels Bohr, that the atomic secrets should be shared with the international community.

A group photograph at a nucleic acid meeting in the United States (c.1955) with Wilkins standing on the left hand front row.

The investigation seems fairly low-key on the whole as the MI5 did not want to alert Maurice Wilkins of their activities. Instead, they began monitoring his movements and communications. The bulk of the documentation in the files are collected copies of received post, e.g. letters to estate agents, passport renewals and bank statements and letters from his family. The authorities did however approach Sir Harold Himsworth, the Secretary of the Medical Research Council, for an assessment of Wilkins and were provided with a written report on him by an anonymous informant who was at contact with him at King's. A previous report from an MI5 informant who met him at Birmingham before the war, described him as a "very queer fish" but whose associations were broadly left wing socialist rather than communist. The latter report described how his politics had mellowed and he now "come into College every morning with a copy of the Times, which he had apparently read on the journey". It goes on to describe him as a "caricature of a scientist" but "who recognises his own failings and tries to get over the difficulty with consultations with psychoanalysts".

The impression of Wilkins in the paper are of a high principled, left-leaning shy young scientist who was dedicated to his work and friends. That he was seen as a "caricature of a scientist" was not lost on Wilkins reflecting in a later talk on the perception of science at Goldsmith's College in 1980 on how his outside appearance embodied the stereotypical scientist. Yet, such an assessment would be a gross disservice to him as he above all believed that the boundaries of a scientist were artificial and its relationship to art and spirituality should be encouraged.What is ironic about this assessment of Wilkins are in relation to his politic sympathies- from the sixties onwards Wilkins become as active politically as his scientific career, mainly in the form as President of the British Society for the Social Responsibility in Science (BSSRS) which was regarded as radical left wing organisation in the seventies.Wilkins's political activism saw his personal participation in the campaign to get the biological research work at Porton Down declassified and gave evidence to the Himsworth enquiry on the detrimental effects of CS gas in Northern Ireland. His advocating for nuclear disarmament in the seventies and eighties led to a number of high profile public appearances lobbying for their discontinuation, most famously of all meeting Pope John Paul II in December 1980 on the subject.

Postscript:

In an earlier draft section of Maurice Wilkins's autobiography discussed the Nunn May and Klaus Fuchs espionage cases. He points out that although having never met Nunn May their paths had crossed- both had been educated in Birmingham; studied Physics at Cambridge University and during the war he was invited, as a war worker, to stay at the Nunn May residence, south of Birmingham to avoid the heavy bombing. Wilkins sympathised with Nunn May as  he "like other high principled and independently minded young men I knew, he would have been indignant with Churchill for not keeping his promise and for having concealed from the Russian the very existence of the Atom Bomb Project". Yet the most interesting passage is Maurice reflecting on his own prospects as a spy:

"Looking back to the time I worked on the Manhattan Project in Berkeley during the war I am glad to say that no one ever approached me for secret information. It would have been foolish if they had, because I was one of the least experienced scientists and had no detailed knowledge except in relation to my particular problem. In any case, to have worked as a secret agent like Nunn May or Fuchs would not have appealed to me at all. It would have been better to have openly discussed with colleagues the need for the Allies to share information with the Soviet Union".