[HN Gopher] "The Matilda Effect": Pioneering Women Scientists Wr...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       "The Matilda Effect": Pioneering Women Scientists Written Out of
       Science History
        
       Author : binning
       Score  : 86 points
       Date   : 2025-12-09 17:57 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.openculture.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.openculture.com)
        
       | thayne wrote:
       | Jocelyn Bell Burnell is an interesting case. She didn't get the
       | nobel prize, but today she is generally the one given credit for
       | discovering pulsars in astronomy textbooks.
        
         | nearbuy wrote:
         | Funny that Jocelyn Bell Burnell herself argued that she
         | shouldn't have received the Nobel prize (I think she should
         | have):
         | 
         | > It has been suggested that I should have had a part in the
         | Nobel Prize awarded to Tony Hewish for the discovery of
         | pulsars. There are several comments that I would like to make
         | on this: First, demarcation disputes between supervisor and
         | student are always difficult, probably impossible to resolve.
         | Secondly, it is the supervisor who has the final responsibility
         | for the success or failure of the project. We hear of cases
         | where a supervisor blames his student for a failure, but we
         | know that it is largely the fault of the supervisor. It seems
         | only fair to me that he should benefit from the successes, too.
         | Thirdly, I believe it would demean Nobel Prizes if they were
         | awarded to research students, except in very exceptional cases,
         | and I do not believe this is one of them. Finally, I am not
         | myself upset about it - after all, I am in good company, am I
         | not!
        
       | VinayUPrabhu wrote:
       | https://vinayprabhu.substack.com/p/matilda-mars-and-markup-t... I
       | had authored this last month
        
       | IAmBroom wrote:
       | Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46195205
        
         | tptacek wrote:
         | Not really; different submitter, almost no discussion.
        
       | coredog64 wrote:
       | > A similar fate befell Dr. Rosalind Franklin, the chemist
       | excluded from the Nobel awarded to her colleagues James Watson,
       | Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins for the discovery of DNA.
       | 
       | Franklin's name is a link to a paywalled Medium article. Found a
       | copy expecting to see some nuanced discussion about the specific
       | contributions she made, only to find that the missing bits were
       | that they were mean to her about her lipstick and dress
       | selection.
       | 
       | Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but making the entire debate
       | about her looks isn't doing anyone any favors.
        
         | mandevil wrote:
         | Rosalind Franklin would never have gotten a Nobel Prize. She
         | died from cancer in 1958, three years before the Watson, Crick
         | and Wilkins were awarded their prize, and Nobel was very clear
         | that his award could not be awarded posthumously. Only ~three
         | people have gotten posthumous awards, and all of them were
         | alive on February 1st of the year they got the award.
         | 
         | Wilkins (Franklin's boss) taking her data without her
         | permission and sharing it with Watson and Crick so they could
         | jump in at the end and analyze it faster than she did- and then
         | not even put her name on the paper but Wilkins instead!- is
         | truly classic academic evil. However, even if they had actually
         | collaborated and Franklin's name had been on the paper, she
         | would not have gotten a Nobel, due to the ovarian cancer that
         | killed her at age 37.
        
           | dekhn wrote:
           | Her name is listed in the acknowledgements and she has a
           | paper in the same issue as Watson&Crick. Also, there's
           | evidence now that her data had already been shared in a
           | departmental seminar when Wilkins shared it with Watson &
           | Crick (I believe this is explained in detail in the Eighth
           | Day of Creation, where the author did deep historical
           | digging).
           | 
           | I don't think she would have concluded that the structure of
           | DNA was a double helix with antiparallel strands (that's the
           | important bit).
        
         | jrflowers wrote:
         | > Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but making the entire debate
         | about her looks isn't doing anyone any favors.
         | 
         | There isn't really much modern "debate" about Franklin's work,
         | though her Wikipedia entry is much better than that particular
         | article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin
        
         | dwa3592 wrote:
         | "In a full description of the structure in a paper submitted in
         | August 1953 and published in 1954, Crick and Watson did attempt
         | to set the record straight17. They acknowledged that, without
         | Franklin's data, "the formulation of our structure would have
         | been most unlikely, if not impossible", and implicitly referred
         | to the MRC report as a "preliminary report" in which Franklin
         | and Wilkins had "independently suggested that the basic
         | structure of the paracrystalline [B] form is helical and
         | contains two intertwined chains"."
         | 
         | What Rosalind Franklin truly contributed to the discovery of
         | DNA's structure -
         | https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01313-5
        
         | fn-mote wrote:
         | > Franklin's name is a link to a paywalled Medium article.
         | 
         | I'm frustrated that in 2025, I am reading a dismissal of
         | Franklin's contributions because someone has never heard of her
         | and clicks on a link to Medium article to draw their
         | conclusions. Wikipedia would be better. The 1950's was so long
         | ago that there are (gasp) actual paper books on this history of
         | the discovery of the double helix.
        
       | tetris11 wrote:
       | Emmy Noether is a good one
       | 
       | > In April 1933, Noether received a notice from the Prussian
       | Ministry for Sciences, Art, and Public Education which read: "On
       | the basis of paragraph 3 of the Civil Service Code of 7 April
       | 1933, I hereby withdraw from you the right to teach at the
       | University of Gottingen."
       | 
       | > Noether accepted the decision calmly, providing support for
       | others during this difficult time. Hermann Weyl later wrote that
       | "Emmy Noether - her courage, her frankness, her unconcern about
       | her own fate, her conciliatory spirit - was in the midst of all
       | the hatred and meanness, despair and sorrow surrounding us, a
       | moral solace."
       | 
       | > Typically, Noether remained focused on mathematics, gathering
       | students in her apartment to discuss class field theory. When one
       | of her students appeared in the uniform of the Nazi paramilitary
       | organization Sturmabteilung (SA), she showed no sign of agitation
       | and, reportedly, even laughed about it later.
        
       | TitaRusell wrote:
       | How much human resources have been lost because women were seen
       | as stupid and intellectually inferior? How did people even come
       | to this bizarre conclusion?
       | 
       | Over the millennia many fathers secretly taught their little
       | princesses to read and write. But apparently none of them wanted
       | to upset the status quo.
        
         | 6510 wrote:
         | Normal people enforce things not one of them thinks about.
         | There is nothing absurd enough for them to do. If you question
         | it they revoke your membership.
        
         | Jensson wrote:
         | > Over the millennia many fathers secretly taught their little
         | princesses to read and write. But apparently none of them
         | wanted to upset the status quo.
         | 
         | Apparently many of them did want to upset the status quo, or we
         | wouldn't have the situation we are in now. Men gave women their
         | rights and powers, without men deciding that nothing would
         | change. Women pleaded men to make this change, but it was
         | ultimately men who decided to give women these rights and that
         | it is the right thing to do.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-12-09 23:00 UTC)