Log In | Register
On the 100th anniversary of Marie Skłodowska-Curie’s record-setting second Nobel Prize, no women are among the nine Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry, medicine and economics. (On a positive note, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman will share the Peace Prize for their work on behalf of women and women’s rights.) Skłodowska-Curie remains one of only two women to have been awarded the Prize in Physics and one of four to have earned the Prize in Chemistry. Another of the Chemistry prizes was won by her daughter, Iréne Joliot-Curie.
...
Women scientists continue to be underrepresented in today’s American science “academy.” Even as more and more American women enter fields that had been historically dominated by men such as business, medicine and law, there are strikingly few women in the “STEM” professions (science, technology, engineering and math). A 2010 report [PDF] by the American Association of University Women and the National Science Foundation, “Why So Few?,” synthesized decades of research to conclude that bias and stereotypes still impede the progress of many female scientists and mathematicians from grade school through academia.The report also suggests that social and learning environments–that is, nurture rather than nature–dramatically shape girls’ interests and achievements in science and math...
100 Years After Marie Curie Set Nobel Record, Why So Few Women in Science?
Article Source: Ms.
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (28)
One hopes that learning institutions will follow the recommendations of “Why So Few?” Women scientists need institutional and cultural support as they tread in Marie Skłodowska-Curie’s giant footsteps and blaze their own new trails.
- 3 votes
#1 - Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:42 AM ESTRealize that M. Curie gave up everything in her life for science including life itself .
- 2 votes
#2 - Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:44 PM ESTRealize that she did what she loved to do and that your argument that she gave everything up including her life is nonsense. She at least lived and contributed to society unlike many intellectually lazy segments of society.
- 4 votes
Marie had a perfectly well-rounded life. She married and had children, who grew up to be scientists themselves. She was a governess and tutored before starting college. She shared two hobbies -- long bicycle trips and journeys abroad -- with Pierre. The only really bad thing about her career was that the continual exposure to radiation cost her her health. They did not know at the time how deadly it was.
- 4 votes
the continual exposure to radiation cost her her health.
It cost her not just her health but her life .
- 3 votes
It cost her not just her health but her life .
She did what she loved to do, and thus actually lived... And btw, your life will end regardless of what you do in life. Some people die from snowboarding, ice skating, playing football, or just taking a walk.. I suppose your argument would be the same then eh? People wasting their lives doing what they loved to do?
- 4 votes
Not being familiar with the details of her life the following may not apply :
A female of child bearing years working around radiation is vulnerable to having her reproductive system suffer permanent damage . If she had her children before she was exposed to radium then things worked out well .
If not , them her children might have been damaged in utero .
- 2 votes
It's her choice what she wants to do with her life regardless what you think about child bearing years. You are also talking about a time period where much of this was unknown. Regardless, people should have the freedom to weigh the risks of their choices. I could die this winter snowboarding at Wild Cat Mountain, it's a risk I take because I love snowboarding. That risk could involve my mother and father losing their only son. But if I do die, I would have died doing what I loved to do. And well, I couldn't ask for a better death. Welcome to life, and the purpose of life. That being of self-attaining purpose.
Risk is in everything you do, just keep that in mind.
- 4 votes
The point I had in bringing that up was to dispel the misinformation which many have about women which is that they are 100 % equal to men . This one particular is something that can affect not just the women who are
ignorant about it but future generations who could end up with birth defects or dying in utero .
- 2 votes
Women are equal to men intellectually, and many physically.
could end up with birth defects
The same effects can occur in the male sperm btw. Also, normal healthy people also produce children with birth defects. And sorry, birth defects are not solely reliant on the woman.
- 5 votes
The same effects can occur in the male sperm btw
Yup. And as soon as he shoots his load the next batch will be unaffected .
Also, normal healthy people also produce children with birth defects.
Your quantitative reasoning processes are lacking here . I'm speaking of a large increase in danger above what you're speaking about , the low level that occurs naturally .
And sorry, birth defects are not solely reliant on the woman.
Apparently I'm talking to myself here . I will have to repeat myself :
"A female of child bearing years working around radiation is vulnerable to having her reproductive system suffer permanent damage ."
Yup. And as soon as he shoots his load the next batch will be unaffected .
Radiation effects the male reproductive system.. Can even make a man sterile. Blanks aren't very helpful.
Your quantitative reasoning processes are lacking here . I'm speaking of a large increase in danger above what you're speaking about , the low level that occurs naturally .
Again you are making a pathetic attempt to rationalize your view that women are not equal to men. It's beyond me how you turn this topic discussion on women in science into a discussion on pregnancy and child baring years. You seem a bit desperate for any angle that is entirely meaningless to the subject.
"A female of child bearing years working around radiation is vulnerable to having her reproductive system suffer permanent damage ."
Apparently I am talking to myself here in stating that is equally true for a male. News flash, males are not immune to radiation! And neither are their reproductive organs. This includes the ability to have healthy children. I suggest you actually do some research on this subject before ignorantly discussing it as you currently are.
- 4 votes
Again you are making a pathetic attempt to rationalize your view
Again you act like a complete @!$%# . Do you think everyone is affected by your transparent attempts to irritate others ? Goodbye . Enjoy talking to yourself .
- 2 votes
You don't need to get so angry, just admit being wrong and show some humility. :/ .. And you don't find it irritating when you post arguments on women's equality in science as being unequal?? Seriously, you made a bad argument. But yes, I admit having been an ass about it. I definitely could have been nicer in addressing you on the issue.
- 4 votes
cultural biases that discourage girls and young women from pursuing careers that aren't "cute"? duh.
change it. encourage your daughter to do something important.
- 5 votes
#4 - Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:30 PM ESTPaul,
I'm pleased to say that I worked with a good number of bright, accomplished female scientists during my career - although they are indeed under-represented. I believe that will change with time, however.
Of my own three daughters, one has a degree in chemistry (which she doesn't use - she's an oenophile, and makes a great living in that field), one is a forensic psychologist, and one is a radiologist.
And all my granddaughters have telescopes ;-)
- 4 votes
Like having children ?
Who says women have to have children?
- 6 votes
Well Jack L ; I see you have started to follow me around and pounce on my comments like a predator . But your arguments are too weak to bother with . As a predator you are more of a shrew than a jackel .
- 2 votes
I didn't follow you around, I came to this post on my own. Little paranoid aren't ya? Say, how about actually making an intelligent argument in response to the article rather than making dumb comments??
- 4 votes
Fine , you got here on your own . But now you are making your usual
crappy retorts without substance . And only to me .
- 2 votes
What, I was defending a woman's choice, or women's choices in regards to your comments. If you don't like that, don't post them. You are responsible for your own posts, and conveying the meaning behind them. Perhaps you would like to start over, and maybe have something better to say to which might be a bit more meaningful :/
- 5 votes
Aside from other cultural issues -- I think the fact that the two high-profile women in the NASA program either died or did not make a larger contribution to the world of science had something to do with it. Christa McAuliffe died in the ill-fated shuttle explosion. Sally Ride got a song named for her but after being on the panel investigating the shuttle disaster, we heard NOTHING about her. It's like she disappeared in the explosion along with McAuliffe.
- 1 vote
#5 - Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:08 PM ESTMaybe the problem is that people tell young children that science is hard. I was told as a child that I wasn't smart enough to become a vet. I was in shock that it was one of my closest friend's mom telling me that I wasn't smart enough. Joke's on her. I've got a shinny new degree in biology to show her and I'm currently working on my masters. Oh and I'm working on getting a senior project patented.
As a society we tell our children at a young age, you can be anything, yet we stop encouraging girls as they get older. No one told my male classmates in college when things got tough, "maybe you should switch to an easier major."
- 3 votes
#6 - Sun Dec 11, 2011 4:41 PM ESTMany of them are not interested in the subject maybe? Especially if they have children I guess?
#7 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:10 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
