JF Ptak Science Books Overall Post 5143
This is a short note on an interesting series of reports in the venerable journal Nature (1911) regarding the status of women in the sciences. These are three short articles (about 1750 words total) on the recent elections to a seat at the French Academy of Sciences in which Mme. Curie--one of two candidates--was not elected, her candidacy lost by vote to Edouard Branly. (Branly is an important figure in the history of wireless communications and inventor of the Branly coherer, but Curie was, well, far advanced of that.) The editorial staff of Nature took exception, reporting on the issue and the vote's unfortunate outcome. Being fairly familiar and having worked in Nature (for the 1869-1950 period) I was a little surprised by the summation of this short note in the 26 January issue. It is a strong message, at least so far as scientific and other intellectual endeavors are concerned. (Women will not get the full vote in G.B. Until 1928, achieving partial victory in 1918, though the vote was limited then to women 30+ with adequate property.) Still, I take this as a significant statement from Nature, even if it is limited to a short article in the "Notes" section of the weekly. I cannot recall other early pro-equality stances like this outside of a few articles here and there in support of women being able to attend classes at major universities, though not being able to receive academic credit for them. All caveats included, I find the Nature article to be a remarkable statement for the time. Perhaps someone out there with experience in this field will be able say whether these statements are actually as early as I think they are.
Here's the conclusion of the 26 January article:
"As scientific work must ultimately be judged by its merit,
and not by the nationality or sex of its author, we believe
that the opposition to the election of women into scientific
societies will soon be seen to be unjust and detrimental
to the progress of natural knowledge. By no pedantic
reasoning can the rejection of a candidate for member-
ship of a scientific society be justified if the work done
places the candidate in the leading position among other
competitors. Science knows no nationality, and should
recognise no distinction of sex, colour, or creed among
those who are contributing to its advancement. Believing
that this is the conclusion to which consideration of the
question must inevitably lead, we have confidence that the
doors of all scientific societies will eventually be open to
Women on equal terms with men."
By the way, Curie was never elected to the French Academy of Science, though she did receive membership to the Academie Nationale de Medicine...in 1922. She had already received the Nobel Prize in physics in 1903, and would be awarded the prize again in chemistry a few months after she lost this 1911 vote to the Academy. (Perhaps the "creed" part of the "sex. colour, or creed" pronouncement above referenced certain elements circulating the story that Curie was Jewish?)
Notes:
Three issues of Nature, London, Macmillan & Co., 1910, volume 85. Including: "The Admission of Women to the French Academies", pg 342 (full column, about 800 words), 12 January, in the issue #2150, pp 329-362. WITH: "The Admission of Women to the Paris Academy of Sciences", in 19 January, pp 372-373 pp 363-396, issue 2151. AND WITH: [Women's Rights], a 400-word contribution to the "Notes" section of 26 January issue no. 2152 pg 412-413 in the issue of pp 397-430. It is in the third contribution, the "Notes" section, that contains the strongest statement by the editor of Nature on the equality (at least in the sciences and intellectual pursuit) of sex, race, and religion.
Comments