Site Mission
Welcome to 1000 Women of Science!
About me
Hello! My name is Carla, and I am a UK-based science teacher with a background in Genetics and Immunology.
The idea for this site started in 2016, with a simple induction task given to our new students - write 400 words on your favourite scientist. Out of all the entries I received, not a single one was about a non-male, non-white scientist. When I asked the group about this, it wasn't as if they did not know any female scientists (Rosalind Franklin and Murie Curie cropped up here), but they just didn't think to write about them or did not understand the significance of their contributions to science.
Not surprisingly, this got me fuming, and so the 1000 Women of Science lightbulb started to flicker to life.
About the site
This site is dedicated to the documentation and understanding of the role that women have had in the discovery and expansion of scientific ideas throughout our history.
The purpose of this site comes from one simple question - can we document the lives and contributions of 1,000 women who have made significant contributions to science? - The term significant you can debate amongst yourselves
If you feel that women deserve no particular recognition for scientific advances, or that there is not a systemic problem in women receiving recognition for their roles in scientific discoveries, then I encourage you to look into The Matilda Effect.
The Matilda Effect
The term "Matilda Effect" was coined by historian Margaret Rossiter in 1993(1), drawing inspiration from Matilda Joslyn Gage, an American suffragette and activist. Gage wrote a pamphlet in 1870 titled "Woman as Inventor," debunking the prevailing notion that women lacked inventive drive and scientific talent(2). Rossiter, in her extensive research, shed light on the forgotten women scientists and their contributions, highlighting the gender bias that led to their exclusion from scientific recognition.
In the vast realm of scientific discoveries and achievements, women scientists have often been overlooked, side-lined, and forgotten. This systemic discrimination against women in science has had a profound impact on the recognition and visibility of their contributions. Despite their significant contributions, women scientists have been overshadowed by their male counterparts throughout history.
The Matilda Effect is not solely confined to the realm of historical injustice; it continues to impact the way women scientists are perceived in the present day. Numerous studies have shown that the gender of an author and the gendered stereotypes associated with their research area influence the perceived scientific quality of their work. Male scientists and topics traditionally associated with masculinity are often considered to exhibit higher scientific quality, while women scientists and topics associated with femininity face biased evaluations.
In a ground-breaking 2013 experiment conducted by Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, Carroll J. Glynn, and Michael Huge(3), the Matilda Effect was explored in the context of science communication. The study revealed that both the gender of the author and the gender-typing of the research topic significantly influenced the perceived scientific quality of an abstract. Abstracts authored by men were consistently rated higher in scientific quality compared to those authored by women. Furthermore, abstracts that aligned with traditional masculine topics received higher ratings than those associated with feminine or gender-neutral topics.
The Matilda Effect reveals the deeply ingrained gender bias that has plagued the field of science, leading to the erasure of women's contributions. The stories of remarkable women scientists who have been overlooked or forgotten serve as a reminder of the systemic barriers that women face in pursuing careers in science. By acknowledging and celebrating their achievements, we can pave the way for a more equitable and inclusive scientific community (a stark reminder of this can be seen in the gender bias in allocations of Nobel Prizes in scientific fields (4)). It is our collective responsibility to ensure that the Matilda Effect becomes a relic of the past and that the contributions of women in science are recognized, celebrated, and valued.
(1)Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341. http://www.jstor.org/stable/285482
(2)Gage, M. J. (1883). Woman as an Inventor. The North American Review, 136(318), 478–489. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25118273
(3)Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest. Science Communication, 35(5), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684
(4)Nature News. (2018). The Nobel Gender Gap is Worse Than You Think [Online]. Nature. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/the-nobel-gender-gap-is-worse-than-you-think