Unknown and invisible: Why women are overlooked so often in science-this is behind the Matilda effect

It is 1962. The scientists Maurice Wilkins, Francis Crick and James Watson are awarded the Nobel Prize of Medicine for the discovery of the DNA double helix. Who is not mentioned in any word? Biochemist Rosalind Franklin. It is that originally provided both the X-rays and the correct interpretation of the DNA structure.

The men had received the unpublished data from Rosalind Franklin without their knowledge and used them for their own work. So it isNot alone - there are numerous examples that show that the success of women in research have been overlooked in the past, forgotten, minimized. There is even a term for this phenomenon: the Matilda effect.

The Matilda effect goes back to the women's rights activist and sociologist Matilda Joslyn Gage. As early as 1870, she wrote the document "Woman as Inventor" ("The woman as an inventor")-a 32-page pamphlet that she is unknown with the words "It may be unknown to many that the invention of the cotton spinning machine, one of the largest mechanical Services of modern times to be owed to a woman, ”begins. The activist is against the prevailing opinion that women were not gifted enough for science and did not have an inventive urge. Instead, she explains by presenting inventions and breakthroughs from women.

Later, the science historian Margaret W. Rossiter became aware of this text and wrote the essay "The Matilda Effect in Science" ("The Matilda effect in science"). In it she addresses the systematic non-observance ofAnd analyzes them using numerous examples. “If science wants to be meritocratic and the history of science is supposed to reflect on this, similar or equal services should also be recognized and rewarded in a similar way. But this is rarely the case in the history of women, ”she writes. And because it comes to the conclusion that this phenomenon needs a name, it refers to Matilda Joslyn Gage and names the effect according to her.

The list of examples of the Matilda effect is long. In addition to Rosalind Franklin, one of the best -known examples is probably the discovery of the nuclear fission - because the chemist Otto Hahn and physicist Lise Meitner researched this in cooperation. But only Otto Hahn was honored for the joint performance with the Nobel Prize. Lise Meitner was suggested 48 times (!) For the award - and ended up empty.

Or the case of the moon landing in 1969: The astronaut Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are known to most. A third person was decisive for the success of the mission: the mathematician Margaret Hamilton. As an employee at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (with), she developed the navigation software for the on -board computer of Apollo 11. The computer code included 40,000 command lines that made it possible to steer the rocket to the moon and back again. Revolutionary! Nevertheless, this success remained unknown for decades.

That women in theSo often remained invisible, has system - where does that come from? On the one hand, women had no access to education and universities for a long time. They were usually neither able to work as authors for studies nor as professors or chairs. On the other hand, it was a structural problem that actively excluded women. In studies, books and research, the names of employees were less often mentioned. An example of this is the first edition of "American Men of Science" from 1906. The book also contained the names of many women - but this was deliberately downplayed with the chosen title. Until 1971 the title of the book series remained so, only then was it changed to "American Men and Women of Science".

In addition, there were often science couples who worked but were not recognized together. This happened, for example, with Ruth Hubbard and George Wald: The researcher had independently researched the biochemistry of eyesight in the 1950s. But after their marriage, these former work George Wald were counted. Later he was even awarded the Nobel Prize.

The crystal researcher Isabella Karle also experienced something similar: Although she had researched Jerome in collaboration with her husband for almost 50 years, they were not awarded the Nobel Prize together. Instead, her husband was honored with another colleague.

Although women have easier access to natural sciences today, the Matilda effect is still noticeable. A study byStatesmanthe distribution of Nobel prices analyanized according to gender between 1901 and 2024. Accordingly, only 6.5 percent of the winners are women. The proportion of women is even lower in the scientific categories. And the Nobel Prize ceremony 2024 also confirms this: among the 11 award winners, the writer Han Kang was the only woman. Even at the universities, the gender GAP is still an issue. Because only around 35 percent of the MINT students in 2022 in Germany were women. In 2023, the professors were only 29 percent.

In order to alleviate and compensate for this inequality in the long term, women need a larger platform - whether in studies, in specialist interviews or documentation. Because visibility allows horror. Ensures that science is not perceived for longer than supposedly "male" field. And maybe inspires girls and young women to strive for a scientific career.

Or - to put it with the words of Margaret W. Rossiter: “If we manage to make [...] known this centuries -old phenomenon, this may help to ensure that current and future scientists are more balanced) and sociology of science, which not only neglects the "Matildas", but also recalls us more of them. "