ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













@ScientificAmerican

@ScientificAmerican


Behind the scenes at Scientific American
@ScientificAmerican HomeAboutContact

Scientific American Defends Marie Curie—and Women Scientists—in 1911


Email   PrintPrint



One of the pleasures of editing a magazine like Scientific American, with its 166-year history as the country’s longest continuously published magazine, is getting a “you are there” view of science as it was whenever I take a spin through our digital archives. The other day, while reading some 100-year-old prose, I was reminded of a famous incident. I was struck by how different the world was a century ago for women in science—and proud of Scientific American’s editorial judgment at the time. Let me explain.

Marie Curie, for those who are unfamiliar, was a pioneering physicist known as the “Mother of Modern Physics.” In her work, she established the nature of radiation and beta rays, and discovered and isolated polonium and radium. She was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize—for Physics in 1902—and then the first person to win two Nobels in different disciplines, when she won a Nobel for Chemistry in 1911.

Early in 1911, however, the French Academy of Sciences turned down Curie’s application. As French physicist Emile Hilaire Amagat said at the time: “Women cannot be part of the Institute of France.” Marie Curie would not allow her name to be resubmitted for nomination and wouldn’t let the Academy publish any of her work for a decade. (More in this Wired article.)

As the first woman editor in chief of Scientific American, I’m keenly aware of the sense of standing on the shoulders of giants—some of them clearly frequented our editorial offices in 1911. I thought you’d enjoy in its entirety an editorial that ran in the January 21, 1911 issue:

Marie Curie (born Maria Salomea Skłodowska), Nobel Prize awardee in Chemistry. Official Nobel Prize photo.{{PD-US}}

Sex and Scientific Recognition

Had the incident occurred a quarter of a century ago we could have understood better the discussion which has been provoked in that august body, the Academy of Sciences, Paris, by the candidature of Madame Curie for membership. Respect for custom and tradition is an admirable attitude if it be judiciously tempered by due considerations of time, place and personality; but we cannot help feeling that in this advanced age, in such a center of enlightenment as Paris, and where a scientist of such brilliant performance as Madame Curie is concerned, this discussion as to whether she is eligible for admission to the Academy of Sciences, is altogether deplorable.

When science comes to the matter of bestowing its rewards it should be blind to the mere accident of sex; and one does not have to be an enthusiast on the subject of the extension of the rights and privileges of her sex, to feel that here is a woman who, by her brilliant achievement, has won the right to take her place with her compeers in the Academy, or any similar institution devoted to the furthering of science. The scientific world will undoubtedly agree with Gaston Darboux, Secretary of the Academy of Sciences, in urging the right of Madame Curie to succeed to the position of which her late husband was next to the last occupant.

As far as the learned societies of other countries are concerned, the election of a woman to the Academy would certainly not be without precedent. Several foreign bodies, indeed, including the Philosophic Society of Philadelphia, have already welcomed her into their membership. Darboux instances the case of the Countess Ersilia Lovatelli, who, as dean of the Archreological section of the Royal Academy of Italy, took a prominent part at a recent meeting of the Academy of Rome, and also that of Elise Wendel, who was a prominent figure at Berlin in 1900 during the centennial celebration of the German Academy of Sciences. To these cases we might add those of Hertha Ayrton, the only woman member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers of Great Britain, who was considered eligible for election to that distinguished body, because of her discovery of the laws governing certain phenomena of the electric arc, and that of Lady Margaret Lindsay Huggins, who, because of her valuable work in astronomy and her contributions to the journals devoted to that branch of science, was elected an honorary member of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Elsewhere in this issue reference is made to the fact that a statistical study of American men of science has led Prof. Cattell to draw attention to the fact that women are contributing but a very small share to productive scientific work. If this be so, it is obvious that to contest the right to recognition of such women is further to discourage the entrance of women into a sphere of work in which their patience, intelligence, and strong intuitive perception render them peculiarly well fitted to labor.

Mariette DiChristina About the Author: Editor in Chief, Mariette DiChristina, oversees Scientific American, ScientificAmerican.com, Scientific American MIND and all newsstand special editions. Follow on Twitter @mdichristina.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 6 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. bigbopper 4:01 pm 12/6/2011

    A laudable editorial, but perhaps less in the vanguard than might at first seem, given that nine years earlier Curie had already been awarded the Nobel Prize, so she had already received the highest possible recognition for her work. It’s not as though Scientific American was coming to the aid of someone whose work had been ignored and neglected, as a number of other prominent women scientists’ work had been. In fact, all the women mentioned in the editorial had already received major recognition. I would have been more impressed if the editorial had mentioned women whose work had NOT been recognized. Also, the last sentence’s reference to a woman’s natural “patience” and “strong intuitive perception” are just nice ways of expressing the typical sexist stereotypes of the time.

    Link to this
  2. 2. mdichristina 4:53 pm 12/6/2011

    Thanks for your comments. I appreciate what you are saying about the value of praising someone who had been honored earlier, and I agree it would have been nice, yes, to recognize previously unrecognized female talent, too. But somehow that doesn’t take away from my admiration of the editors’ support for women in science during an era when even a highly recognized woman clearly could not surmount certain barriers. You note the “sexist stereotypes” of “patience” and “strong intuitive perception” attributed to women scientists in the last paragraph. But in that paragraph, the editors also lauded the “intelligence” of women, and noted that they should not be “discouraged” from pursuing science. You may not have been that impressed, and I respect that. But I am.

    Link to this
  3. 3. QuantumQualifax 12:03 am 12/7/2011

    Today’s Scientific American bears little resemblance to yesterday’s. As recently as 15 years ago, it was a good magazine. During the past decade, Sciam has become so dumbed down and politicized that it cannot be considered seriously. This article is a case in point.

    Link to this
  4. 4. mdichristina 1:51 pm 12/7/2011

    Perhaps this is an obvious point, but wouldn’t this editorial have been considered “political” in 1911? And what in this essay is not perfectly clear to the lay reader–or, as you seem to prefer to deride their understandable needs for clarity and relevance, how is it not “dumbed down”–for a consumer audience?

    Link to this
  5. 5. AWISCEO 10:52 am 12/8/2011

    The 1911 editorial noted “When science comes to the matter of bestowing its rewards it should be blind to the mere accident of sex.” After 100 years, that lofty goal has yet to be accomplished. While the doors of these august bodies may now be open to women, few are elected to enter. For statistics on membership in our National Academies of Science, visit http://awis.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=448. And AWIS has been working with many of our premier scientific societies to improve their recognition of women when conferring scholarly awards; see C&E News, Nov 1, 2010.

    Link to this
  6. 6. bucketofsquid 11:19 am 01/3/2012

    Wow! This is the first time in over 6 months that I’ve been able to log in to the blogs comment section. Glad they finally fixed the bug that kept me out.

    I found this fascinating to read. It was pretty fun to see that “modern thinking” about gender roles is over a century old.

    As for Quantum Qualifax; If you think so then why do you keep showing up on the forums? Perhaps you are a crusty old fart that has trouble dealing with the modern world. If you read the pay to view articles you may find that it isn’t dumbed down at all. If you are just reading the free articles, well then what did you expect for free? I find the indepth articles, which are pay to view, to be just as detailed as they have ever been. They are quite comparable to the magazines and essays that are more specifically targeted to actual researchers.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American MIND iPad

Give a Gift & Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now >>

X

Email this Article

X