Andrew Lias wrote: >This isn't to say that Franklins contributions are unfairly overlooked, >but that is the nature of scientific celebrity. Is that are or aren't? > I would also note that this sort of scientific in-fighting and > backbiting is hardly limited to how male scientists treat female > collegues. Science, in practice, is often like this. I can provide you > plenty of examples at least as egregious where no women were involved. > > If you want a better example of the mistreatment of women, in the > sciences, I would use the example of how Marie Curie was viciously > snubbed by the Academie des Sciences when she applied for membership to > them. I don't think this is about the mistreatment of female scientists - it's more about aknowledging at least a few of the ones who often get lost in the shuffle, especially since there weren't that many around until recently. We don't know whether, had she lived, she would have shared the Nobel prize, made a fuss or said s*d it and gone and worked on something else. That the same would might have happened if she was a guy (again we can't tell if her gender had any bearing on the lack of acknowledgement but given the timeframe it may well have done) doesn't affect the fact that she mostly fell down the back of the great sofa of history. That she was female qualifies her for inclusion in a course on Woman in Science. Whether there should also be other courses on Grad Students in Science or Men in Science or just People who Got Screwed by the System in Science is a whole other question. I think The People that Science Forget would make quite a catchy course title though. ;-) Fides