4. Women in Science – Caroline

I had really enjoyed today’s lecture, especially since I am a woman pursing a career in the sciences in this modern day. Today was eye opening to the fact that I had never heard of a lot of the women mentioned, like Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin or Caroline Herschel. With the large push for gender equality in this day and age, it is interesting to look at the past to realize how far we have come despite the work that still needs to be done. It also intriguing to learn that a large reason that women in the past were able to pursue a career in the sciences was because of them having unique situations, which in term yielded them opportunities not usually available to women. One such example includes Caroline Herschel. Because her height was stunted from being affected by typhus at a young age, her parents believed that she was destined to be a spinster. By not being raised to be married off, she was given education opportunities not usually afforded to women. Without this education, she would not have been able to create mathematical methods for astronomy. If she was raised as a “typical” girl in that time period, she would have never had discovered what she did and the astronomy field would have progressed much slower than it has or maybe differently altogether. Additionally, it was fascinating to learn that the reason that not many girls were able to go into such abstract science fields was because the opportunities for them to enter such areas did not exist. The only reason that women could get into science fields in the past was through related jobs that required data collection. Since collecting data was not always a skill required job, women were able to enter these roles and if they were lucky, progress in such fields. This all makes me feel very lucky to have been born in a society where not only is the entrance to the science fields allowed for women, but encouraged.

I think that this presentation for women in science was interesting and more eye opening for me at the same time. I liked learning about the various contributions that different women made in England and France. Elise Widdowson was a particular one  that stood out to me because I like food and hearing about how she self experimented by only eating cabbage and potatoes was very interesting to me. I really like those type of involved experiments. I really do respect the barriers that these women broke in science but I really would have liked to see more scientists who are women of color, especially black women because in the STEM field especially, they are very overlooked. I just think more representation matters and it helps for other minorities to see that as well.

Noting that these women were in an era of time were women had no other role in life other than to converge families by marriage and bear children, they accomplished a great deal. One of my favorite women scientists that we discussed today was Mary Anning because of how she not only was the primary income for her household at age ten, but she discovered multiple species and she still barely made ends meet. Although not intended to be a feministic approach but more of a defense of self-pride, Marie Curie’s statement on how her personal life does not affect her intelligence really inspires me. I know it is more based on the fact that she was not French but I feel that it was and still is to an extent today an attack on her gender because of the false pretense in society that men are superior. The fact that some people believe that the one chromosome that is different changes the efficiency and capability of a person is absolutely ludicrous. I am appalled by the notion of how women, in general, were treated lesser than men. I am unsure if I would react the same way for gender equality in the same time period as her and all the other women if it was not considered a social norm. I feel if these women knew what we did now, they would have been more defiant in their time and history would have been altered to women making many of the world’s famous discoveries before man ever could. Still today, women are not given the same equal rights as men and it is especially hard for women in science because science is considered a man’s occupation–although history likes to disprove that. Although it is impossible to prove, I believe that if women were given the same standards as men from birth, we would be milestones ahead of were we currently are in our progress to upgrade our societies.

This was a very intriguing topic for me. Now more than ever, women are starting to be recognized for work they put into scientific fields in the past as opposed to some of their male colleagues who got the credit. When I was going through middle school and high school there would be the occasional teacher who would mention females in science but overall not many were mentioned. Before today, and Tuesday, I had only heard of two of the women mentioned: Rosalind Franklin and Marie Curie. I had never even known that Marie Curie had a daughter who also won the Nobel prize. In general chemistry I remember a couple father-son Nobel prizes being mentioned, but never the mother-daughter. It is very intriguing how these contributions are being recognized now, but you can wonder how many of them will never be recognized at all and were lost in history. Overall, this was a very educational and enjoyable presentation.

In todays lecture, we learned about various women that had influences in science. The first was Margaret Cavendish who was the first woman to be invited to a Royal Society meeting. We next discussed Caroline Herschel who helped her brother build telescopes and she developed a mathematical approach to astronomy, as well as nebulas, star clusters and comets. Mary Anning discovered various fossils and dinosaur bones. Elise Widdowson helped determine the rations during WWII which is very interesting to me because I took a class about WWII and the Holocaust last semester. Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin pioneered protein crystallography and solved the structures of many common proteins that I have learned about. We also reviewed Rosalind Franklin which I have learned about many times. We learned about Anne McLaren who helped with in vitro fertilization. Then we moved onto French ladies in science. The first we talked about was Emilie du Chatelet  who translated Newtons Principia into french and added her own derivation of the conservation of energy. Next we learned of Marie-Anne Lavoisier who helped her husband Antoine out in the lab. Marie Curie won two Nobel prizes for radioactivity. There are not many famous women in science compared to men because of their social positions and the view that they were “helpers”. We also went over some things to do before we leave for the travel portion of this class. This was a very helpful thing to go over.

As a female seeking a career in the scientific field, I found this discussion topic to be highly relevant and intriguing.  Even though it is 2019, there are still gaps in the presence of women in the STEM community, such as in engineering.  However, fortunately, this gender gap has improved drastically since the time of many of these scientists from England and France.  Reflecting on the work that some of these female scientists have accomplished, such as Margaret Cavendish in the mid-17th century, exposes quite impressive intellect and courage.  I find Cavendish’s outspoken nature and interest in science to be profound for the time.  I strive to have similar confidence.  For anyone to be remembered still today is a feat, but particularly so for these women.

I enjoyed Dr. Breitenberger’s commentary on nearly all of the women, such as Mary Anning, Elise Widdowson, and Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin.  It seems as though the process for giving credit to discoveries is complicated.  Though Anning was not highly regarded during her time, at least her memory survives, even to the extent of the discussion of her in a classroom in Ohio in the United States.  Furthermore, the work that Widdowson completed on nutritional necessities particularly during war, sustainability, and quantification of food value is quite interesting.  Or even the passion that Hodgkin had when researching the structure of insulin.

Additionally, I found Anne McLaren’s work as a developmental biologist to be relevant to my personal life, because my father is an OB/GYN reproductive endocrinologist who performs in vitro fertilization almost every day.  My father’s career would likely not exist, or at least not exist early enough for him to have this career, without the work of McLaren.

I also enjoyed Dr. Breitenberger’s inclusion of quotes from the scientists themselves, such as Marie Curie’ commentary on the separation of scientific work and private life and Emilie Du Chatelet’s opinion on education in that we all should have the right to access to education.  Though the group that is not receiving education may change over time, it is still a tragedy if one is not able to pursue education.  Overall, the presence of particular individuals in the history of accomplishments, such as scientific accomplishments, is often inaccurate and unjust, but it is important to take into consideration the social customs and ways of thinking of the time.  Yet, this makes the contributions from these women even more impressive.  Thank you for the presentation, Dr. Breitenberger!

Margaret Cavendish was a philosopher and writer that wrote about naturalism. She is noted to be the first women to be invited to attend a royal society meeting; which caused a scandal.

Another famous woman was Caroline Herschel. Since she contracted typhus, she was only four feet tall, so her parents assumed she wouldn’t marry, giving her the chance to move to England with her brother. She picked up a casual hobby of building telescopes, developed a mathematical approach to astronomy, and discovering new nebulae, stars clusters, and eight comets.

Mary Anning was a fossil hunter who lived in England. While growing up, her family relied upon selling fossils to be able to support themselves. Anning discovered ichthyosaurs.  Her finding was misattributed to men who bought her finding off her. Seeing pictures of where Anning discovered fossils and where she is buried makes me excited to go see it myself!

Elise Widdowson was a dietitian during WWII. She self-experimented where she ate nothing but bread, cabbage, and potatoes for three months to prove that people can survive on that during the war. She was invited to join the royal society.

Dorothy Hodgkin was an X-ray crystallographer. She solved the structure of penicillin, vitamin B12, and insulin. She won a noble prize and was invited into the royal society. I really enjoyed hearing about her she said that its okay to be frustrated with science. Rosalind Franklin was another X-ray crystallographer who worked on DNA with Crick and Waston.

Anne McLaren was interested in learning how an embryo developed. She was one of the scientists that discovered IVF.

Emilie du Chatelet studied math and physics; she translated Newton’s Principia into French. Voltaire published her translation after her death.

Marie-Ann Lavoisier was the wife of Antoine Lavoisier. She helped explain all the details of his laboratory work to other. She also translated scientific documents into French. After the death of her husband, she found all of her husband’s work and saved it before it was burned.

Maire Curie was the first women to receive two Nobel prizes and the first women professor at Sorbonne. Curie is credited with explaining radioactivity. Her daughter, Irene, followed her mother’s footsteps and synthesized new radioisotopes; She also won a Nobel prize.

There are so few women in science because they were working under a man, as a translator or “note-taker”.  This wasn’t seen as science so their work was somewhat ignored.  They were also excluded from labs and professional spaces because they weren’t males.

Various women scientists throughout England and France were discussed. Overall, I learned a lot about the important discoveries of the time period. I was surprised by how few their were overall and how many of their contributions were not given credit by their male counterparts.

 

Margaret Cavendish (1623-1673)

Believed that we should exclude spiritual/supernatural beliefs from science.  First woman invited to attend a royal society meeting.  She didn’t get a lot of credit during her life, but now does.

 

Caroline Herschel (1750-1848)

Had typhus at age 10, didn’t grow tall.  Eventually moved to England with her brother and helped make telescopes and observations.  Mathematical approach to astronomy.

 

Mary Anning (1799-1847)

Fossil hunter in England.  Shockingly, men got credit for a lot of her findings.

 

Elise Widdowson (1906-2000)

Dietician. Ate nothing but bread, cabbage, and potatoes for three months to experiment.  Advocate for milk.  Paradigm: you can quantify the nutritional value of different foods.

 

Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin (1910-1994)

X-ray crystallographer, solved the structures of penicillin, vitamin B12, and insulin.  Only British woman to win a Nobel prize so far.

 

Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958)

Made X-ray images that were shown to Watson and Crick.  Died of ovarian cancer before the Nobel prize was given.

 

Anne McLaren (1927-2007)

Studied embryos and how different parts form.  First woman to be an officer of Royal Society.

 

France:

Emile du Chatelet (1706-1749)

Studied math and physics.  Many affairs.  Translated Newton’s Principia into French and added her own commentary (Voltaire had her translation published after her death).  Big on arguing for women’s right to education and inclusion in intellectual discussions.

 

Marie-Anne Lavoisier (1758-1836)

Wife of Anioine Lavo. and helped explain what he was doing so others could understand.  She recovered all of his work and published it so that it wouldn’t be lost.

 

Marie Curie

Nobel prizes for the discovery of radioactivity and purification of radium.  First Nobel to a woman.  Advocate that your private life should not affect the appreciation of your work.

 

Why so few?

The traditional view of women as supporters and helpers obscures women’s contributions.  Women’s social position meant that they were excluded from professional spaces and organizations and had to collaborate with male family members and friends when “field work” was required.  This makes me wonder if we missed out on a lot of knowledge because great women weren’t given the right opportunities.  In many of these cases, they had to rely on their brothers/husbands etc. that were already doing the scientific work.  If they had opportunities of their own, how many more important female scientists would have been able to discover new things?  It’s also interesting to note that there are no women of color listed.  There aren’t many men of color attributed with discoveries either.  It’s another case of social position affecting the opportunities for these people and acceptance of their contributions.

I thought the background on Margaret Cacvendish was very interesting since she was Duchess in the late 1600s-early 1700s, but was a philosopher, writer, and naturalist at the time–even though women weren’t typically ‘allowed’ to be involved in those fields during that time period.

Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin and Rosalind Franklin also particularly interested me because they were X-ray crystallographers, and I have used XRC in my research. Hodgkin solved the structures of penicillin, vitamin B-12 and insulin using XRC; which at the time would have been incredibly difficult because she did so without the technology that we have today. Franklin was a major contributor in the discovery of DNA.

Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, and she won one in both Physics (1903) and Chemistry (1911). She discovered radioactivity and was able to purify radium. Caroline included a piece of Curie’s personal life, and how she received criticism for her second Nobel Prize since she was having an affair with a married man–which seemed to be a double standard in society, most likely due to the fact that she was Polish, not French.