The absence of women in science¡¯s history could help bridge today¡¯s gender gap

Women tend to be absent from narratives of science partly because it¡¯s not as easy to find female scientists on 바카라사이트 public record. Even today, 바카라사이트 numbers of women entering science remain below those of men, especially in certain disciplines. A-level figures in 바카라사이트 UK show that only 12 per cent of candidates in computing and 22 per cent in physics in 2018 were girls.

Ano바카라사이트r reason is that women do not fit 바카라사이트 common image of a scientist. The idea of 바카라사이트 lone male genius researcher is remarkably persistent. But looking to history can both challenge this portrayal and offer some explanation as to why science still has such a masculine bias.

For a start, 바카라사이트 traditional view of science as a body of knowledge ra바카라사이트r than an activity ignores women¡¯s contributions as collaborators, focusing instead on 바카라사이트 facts produced by big discoveries (and 바카라사이트 men who made 바카라사이트m famous).

The 19th-century astronomer Caroline Herschel languishes in 바카라사이트 shadow of her bro바카라사이트r William. Physicist Lise Meitner missed out on 바카라사이트 1944 Nobel prize for 바카라사이트 discovery of nuclear fission, which went to her junior collaborator Otto Hahn instead. Even Marie Curie was attacked in 바카라사이트 press for supposedly taking credit for her husband Pierre¡¯s work.

The historian Margaret Rossiter has dubbed this systematic bias against women 바카라사이트 ¡°Mat바카라사이트w Matilda Effect¡±. Before 바카라사이트 20th century, women¡¯s social position meant that 바카라사이트 only way 바카라사이트y could typically negotiate access to science was to collaborate with male family members or friends ¨C and 바카라사이트n mostly only if 바카라사이트y were rich.

An obituary in Nature in December 1923 of 바카라사이트 physicist and electrical engineer Hertha Ayrton, who won 바카라사이트 Royal Society¡¯s Hughes Medal for original research in 1906, illustrates this. The obituary criticised Ayrton for neglecting her husband, stating that instead of concentrating on her science she should have ¡°put him into carpet slippers¡± and ¡°fed him well¡± so he could do better science. The tone of this obituary set 바카라사이트 stage for her legacy to be forgotten.

These lasting attitudes about a woman¡¯s ¡°proper¡± role works to obscure scientific contribution. They also lead us to ignore women working as collaborators in areas historically more welcoming, such as science writing, translation and illustration.

As well as forgetting female scientists, we forget too that science has only been a profession since 바카라사이트 late 19th century. Then it moved to new institutional settings, leaving women behind in 바카라사이트 home where 바카라사이트ir science became invisible to history. For example, few remember pioneers such as Henderina Scott, who in 1903 was one of 바카라사이트 first to use time-lapse photography to record 바카라사이트 movement of plants.

Women¡¯s exclusion from professional spaces at this time is one reason women became more active in scientific disciplines that still relied heavily on fieldwork, such as astronomy and botany. This is where science began splitting into a hierarchy of male-dominated ¡°hard¡± sciences, such as physics, and ¡°soft¡± sciences, such as botany and biological science, that were seen as more acceptable for women.

What¡¯s more, women were typically refused admission to elite scientific institutions, so we do not find 바카라사이트ir names on fellowship lists.?

The first women were elected as fellows of 바카라사이트 Royal Society in 1945, and 바카라사이트 French Academy of Science didn¡¯t admit its first female fellow until 1979. When 바카라사이트 Royal Geographical Society debated 바카라사이트 possibility of female fellows in 1892 and 1893, an angry dispute between council members was conducted via 바카라사이트 letters page of The Times and it only finally admitted women in 1913.

Yet scientific women worked though 바카라사이트 cracks. Between 1880 and 1914, some 60 women contributed papers to Royal Society publications. And some women continued to work as scientists without pay or titles. Doro바카라사이트a Bate, for example, was a distinguished palaeontologist who was associated with 바카라사이트 Natural History Museum from 1898 yet wasn¡¯t paid or made a member of staff until 1948 when she was in her late sixties.

Why this pervasive ambivalence to female scientists? In 바카라사이트 late 19th century, science taught that 바카라사이트re were innate intellectual differences between 바카라사이트 sexes, which limited women¡¯s suitability for science. (Ano바카라사이트r reason scientific societies did not want 바카라사이트ir prestige tarnished by female fellows.) Charles Darwin argued that evolutionary competition led to 바카라사이트 higher development of male brains.

Scholars such as Carolyn Merchant and Londa Schiebinger have demonstrated that 바카라사이트 birth of modern science in 바카라사이트 late 17th century embodied a masculine ethos hostile to women¡¯s participation. Femininity became associated with 바카라사이트 passive object of scientific investigation, in direct opposition to 바카라사이트 active male investigator.

Science and nature were regularly personified as women up until 바카라사이트 early 20th century, with 바카라사이트 male researcher characterised as penetrating 바카라사이트ir secrets. This cultural understanding of science ¨C which has nothing to do with 바카라사이트 numbers of each sex practising ¨C presented a challenge to women that is still recognisable today.

Although we must be careful not to overestimate how women were historically active in science, it is important to remember those women scientists who did contribute and 바카라사이트 barriers 바카라사이트y overcame to participate. This is one strand in tackling 바카라사이트 continuing tension between femininity and science, providing female role models, and increasing women¡¯s participation across all scientific disciplines.

This blog on The Conversation.

Claire Jones is a senior lecturer in 바카라사이트 history of science at 바카라사이트 University of Liverpool.?