Favorite NON-fiction

Tue Jan 28 07:34:25 PST 2003

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.