Barbara McClintock (1902-1992) shown in her laboratory in 1947  (Smithsonian Institution/Science Service; Restored by Adam Cuerden, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

Scientist is a relatively modern word, dating back to 1834 and first used in a review of  “On the Connextion of the Physical Sciences” a work of popular science written by the Scottish mathematician and astronomer, Mary Somerville. There was much debate about the term ‘scientist’ with many prominent Men of Science (as they were often referred to in the Victorian era) finding the term to lack respectability and gravitas. At the time, science was the domain of gentlemen of independent means, a philanthropic undertaking, driven by an intellectual pursuit of knowledge.¹ Of course, women like Mary Somerville, Ada Lovelace and Mary Anning were scientists in their own right and many other women participated in the science of the time, often assisting their husbands, fathers and brothers, though rarely receiving the credit due to their contributions.²

Over the years the origin of the term scientist has been mythologised, the popular story being that it was a term coined solely to describe Mary Somerville, whose very existence challenged the notion of the ‘Man of Science’. This somewhat flattens the complexity of both the origins of the word ‘scientist’, the brilliance of the women it was applied to, and the rapid changes taking place in society, as the enlightenment gave way to the industrial revolution. But the existence of this narrative points to the fraught nature of women’s place in science.

As science entered the 20^th century, the term ‘scientist’ had gained a level of respectability and was now a career one could aspire to but women were still often at the margins, fighting to be heard. Despite this it was an era during which women’s contributions to science were profound.

In 1903, Marie Skłodowska-Curie became first woman to win a Nobel prize for her research on radiation. A second followed in 1911 for the isolation of radium, making her the first person to win a Nobel prize twice and the only person to have won across two different scientific fields, physics and chemistry respectively.³ Her findings had wide ranging applications, and had a large impact on healthcare and medicine in the form of x-rays and radiation therapy. Despite these incredible achievements, she faced institutionalised sexism and xenophobic discrimination throughout her career. Indeed, though she kept her maiden name and went by Marie Skłodowska-Curie upon her marriage to Pierre Curie, she is often remembered only as Marie Curie.⁴

When asked to name a scientist I admired at the start of my PhD, my mind went direct to Barbara McClintock, an American geneticist. She is most widely known for the discovery of transposable elements (or ‘jumping genes’), made while studying the mosaic colour pattern of maize in the late 1940s. She demonstrated that the genome wasn’t merely static but could be rearranged, with transposable elements moving position in the genome and effecting the regulation of genes.⁵

Her discovery was so novel, in fact, that it wasn’t taken seriously when she first presented her findings but was met with scepticism and hostility for challenging the orthodoxy of the time. Not put off by attitudes towards her research, she withdrew from strenuously presenting and defending her work and instead focused on continuing her research, being certain that the evidence she presented could speak for itself and that science would catch up with her. By the late 1960s, transposable elements had been identified in bacteria, yeast and bacteriophages. In 1983, she was the sole recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for her discovery of transposable elements.⁶

 The implications of her work were far reaching. Transposable elements make up to 50% of the human genome and have been implicated to have roles in gene regulation, disease and evolution.⁷ Transposases are regularly used in molecular cloning and current powerful editing tools such as CRISPR (for which, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2020) wouldn’t exist without the core concepts that McClintock’s research introduced. ^{8, 9}

Women’s participation in science is not just about being awarded prestigious prizes or titles, however. It is about broadening the scope of science, bringing in important perspectives and targeting historically underfunded or misrepresented fields of research.

The lack of women in science has had a material impact on modern scientific research through the underfunding of women’s healthcare, with only 5% of global research and development funds going towards women’s health in 2020.^{10, 11} From experimental design through to clinical trials, the bias towards male participation has resulted in real world consequences for women’s health, with, for example, women being 1.5 times more likely to develop an adverse drug reaction in response to treatments.^{12, 13}

On International Day of Women and Girls in Science it is important to reflect on the past and take stock of the current situation so we can look to a future where science is not the domain of a select few. This is especially critical now as we see a pushback against progress, diversity and inclusion with wide ranging attacks made by people in positions of power.

We have come a long way from the 19^th century, when women, though few, were beginning to enter scientific societies and be deemed as scientists in their own right. At the Institute of Genetics and Cancer there is no lack of brilliant women working in science at all levels and stages of their careers. Community engagement and visibility challenges notions of what a scientist looks or acts like and allows us to build important connections with people outside of our daily sphere, fostering an exchange of ideas. It allows us to counter gender stereotypes and provides examples of role models for young girls.¹⁴

But, we still have a way to go, as participation of women in science is not globally equal, with many girls and women lacking equal access to education.¹⁵ Continuing to champion diversity and equal access to science will allow us to identify gaps and biases in our research and can only serve to strengthen the scientific community, challenge misinformation and benefit the health and wellbeing of society at large.¹⁶

1. https://theconversation.com/how-man-of-science-was-dumped-in-favour-of-scientist-30132
2. https://theconversation.com/women-have-been-written-out-of-science-history-time-to-put-them-back-107752
3. https://awis.org/historical-women/marie-curie/
4. https://www.europeana.eu/en/exhibitions/pioneers/maria-sklodowska-curie
5. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1983/mcclintock/facts/
6. https://www.nobelprize.org/womenwhochangedscience/stories/barbara-mcclintock
7. Gebrie A. (2023). Transposable elements as essential elements in the control of gene expression. Mobile DNA, 14(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13100-023-00297-3
8. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/by-studying-corn-barbara-mcclintock-unlocked-secrets-life-180981555/
9. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2020/press-release/
10. Funding research on women’s health. (2024). Nature Reviews Bioengineering, 2(10), 797–798. doi:10.1038/s44222-024-00253-7
11. Smith K. (2023). Women’s health research lacks funding – in a series of charts. Nature, 617(7959), 28–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01475-2
12. Karp, N. A., & Reavey, N. (2019). Sex bias in preclinical research and an exploration of how to change the status quo. British Journal of Pharmacology, 176(21), 4107–4118. doi:10.1111/bph.14539
13. Rademaker M. (2001). Do women have more adverse drug reactions? American journal of clinical dermatology, 2(6), 349–351. https://doi.org/10.2165/00128071-200102060-00001
14. González-Pérez, S., Mateos de Cabo, R., & Sáinz, M. (2020). Girls in STEM: Is it a female role-model thing? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2204. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02204
15. https://www.unicef.org/education/girls-education
16. Swartz, T. H., Palermo, A. S., Masur, S. K., & Aberg, J. A. (2019). The Science and Value of Diversity: Closing the Gaps in Our Understanding of Inclusion and Diversity. The Journal of infectious diseases, 220(220 Suppl 2), S33–S41. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz174

(Smithsonian Institution/Science Service; Restored by Adam Cuerden, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

(Smithsonian Institution/Science Service; Restored by Adam Cuerden, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

From ‘Man of Science’ to maize: women have come a long way in science but there is still work to be done / Institute of Genetics and Cancer by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0

Share