Crosswords1 min ago
Are There Only Ten Females Won Nobel Prize In Physics Or Medicine?
17 Answers
I read a blog post(http://www.creative-biolabs.com/blog/index.php/90/) about females wining Nobel Prize in Physics or Medicine. It said that there are only ten females have won a pricze in the whole history. Is that for real?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by candy-swift_1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You can count the numbers of males and females on here
https:/
https:/
yeah looks about right
in schweik's vein Marie Curie mustve had a bright husband and children
she is in a twice winner category ( physics and chem )
and mother and child pair ( Marie C and Irene Joliot-C )
Boobs McClintock ( jumping chromosomes - transposons ) only got because she lived so long
Lise Meisner neva got it
jocelyn Bell Burnell found the first quasar and her supervisor got the Nobel Prize
her modest comment was - I havent had a bad career as the woman who should have got the Nobel Prize
see https:/
in schweik's vein Marie Curie mustve had a bright husband and children
she is in a twice winner category ( physics and chem )
and mother and child pair ( Marie C and Irene Joliot-C )
Boobs McClintock ( jumping chromosomes - transposons ) only got because she lived so long
Lise Meisner neva got it
jocelyn Bell Burnell found the first quasar and her supervisor got the Nobel Prize
her modest comment was - I havent had a bad career as the woman who should have got the Nobel Prize
see https:/
One has to allow for a lot of factors in analysing that massive discrepancy. Firstly, women in Science were very rare for a long time. Secondly, even the ones who did make it were often somewhat looked down on by their colleagues (not always, but certainly officially they would often find it difficult).
A lot of this has changed now, but then thirdly: Nobel prizes tend to have a bit of lag before they are awarded for work from a long time ago, eg Peter Higgs and Francois Englert won their awards for work done during the 1960s. That lag affects everyone but then women in science in the 1960s were also rare. Fourthly, the awards committee has traditionally shown a bias in favour of the people who were officially in charge of the work, even if they didn't actually do the work itself. This hit Jocelyn Bell Burnell, but has affected plenty of other men as well who missed out in favour of their more senior collaborators. There have been various other controversies in the history of the prize, eg the 1923 prize for work on insulin that went to the head of the lab where the work was done, John McLeod, while (some of) the people who did the work were omitted (Charles Best and James Collip).
Essentially Jocelyn Bell was the victim of bias against PhD students, rather than a bias against women necessarily, and the whole picture demonstrates the historical difficulty women have had in being able to progress very far in science. It's unlikely that the balance between male and female winners of the Nobel Prize will ever be perfectly redressed, although in future you'd expect the ratio of men: women winning the prize to tend towards 1:1. But then it shouldn't be artificially redressed. I significant contribution to science should be the only criterion for winning the award.
A lot of this has changed now, but then thirdly: Nobel prizes tend to have a bit of lag before they are awarded for work from a long time ago, eg Peter Higgs and Francois Englert won their awards for work done during the 1960s. That lag affects everyone but then women in science in the 1960s were also rare. Fourthly, the awards committee has traditionally shown a bias in favour of the people who were officially in charge of the work, even if they didn't actually do the work itself. This hit Jocelyn Bell Burnell, but has affected plenty of other men as well who missed out in favour of their more senior collaborators. There have been various other controversies in the history of the prize, eg the 1923 prize for work on insulin that went to the head of the lab where the work was done, John McLeod, while (some of) the people who did the work were omitted (Charles Best and James Collip).
Essentially Jocelyn Bell was the victim of bias against PhD students, rather than a bias against women necessarily, and the whole picture demonstrates the historical difficulty women have had in being able to progress very far in science. It's unlikely that the balance between male and female winners of the Nobel Prize will ever be perfectly redressed, although in future you'd expect the ratio of men: women winning the prize to tend towards 1:1. But then it shouldn't be artificially redressed. I significant contribution to science should be the only criterion for winning the award.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.