The Matilda Effect and Two of its Victims: Esther Lederberg and Dr. Rosalind Franklin

Historically, the field of science has been overwhelmingly dominated by predominantly white men. However, the absence of women in science is not because there was no interest, but rather an illusion resulting from The Matilda Effect. The Matilda Effect is a term coined in 1993 by Martha Rossiter, a pioneer historian of women in science at Cornell University, first described by Matilda Joslyn Gage’s 1870 essay titled “Woman as Inventor,” which protested against the common notion that women are not fit to be scientists. The Matilda Effect is most simply understood as the bias that prevents the acknowledgement of achievements made by women scientists, instead attributing all credit to their male colleagues.

So rather than a historical “lack” of female scientists, there has instead been a lack of recognition of female scientists. This phenomenon and injustice is still prevalent today. When Rossiter introduced The Matilda Effect, she mentioned numerous examples of women affected by The Matilda Effect, but as time continues, many more women are being ignored for their scientific contributions, including, but not limited to: Trotula (12th century example where her works were attributed to male authors after her death), Nettie Stevens (discoverer of the XY chromosome sex-determination system), Lise Meitner (worked with Otto Hahn and established the basis for and coined the term “nuclear fission,” in which Otto Hahn was the sole recipient of the Nobel Prize and Meitner was not recognized), Jocelyn Bell Burnell (discovered the first radio pulsar as a PhD student in 1967 for which she was not recognized when her male supervisors received the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physics based off of her extensive data), Esther Lederberg, and Rosalind Franklin.

Esther Lederberg’s (1922-2006) story is similar to Lise Meitner’s in the sense that the male colleagues who received credit for her work were awarded a Nobel Prize while the Nobel Prize Committee did not recognize her. However, it becomes more tragic when it is noted that one of the male colleagues was her first husband: Joshua Lederberg. Ester Lederberg was a microbiologist that had numerous high impact discoveries during her career including her work on the F fertility factor, her discovery of the lambda bacteriophage, and her vital contributions to the replica plating method. With her husband, Esther Lederberg developed the replica plating method, a standard method still used today under the current name “The Lederberg Method,” which allowed for the study of antibiotic resistance. Unfortunately, and unjustly, her husband as well as her two other male colleagues were awarded the 1958 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine while Esther Lederberg did not receive any credit. Later in her career, Esther Lederberg had to fight to be treated with respect as a researcher in her academic standing at Stanford, barely being appointed as a research associate professor only after she agreed to accept the position without tenure. To this day, Esther Lederberg is not recognized in a myriad of textbooks despite her crucial contributions to the field of microbiology.

Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958) is perhaps one of the most famous examples of The Matilda Effect, and the injustice inflicted upon her is even mentioned in some biology textbooks today. Franklin graduated from Cambridge University in 1945 with a doctorate in physical chemistry and subsequently learned x-ray diffraction techniques for 3 years. In 1951, she became a research associate at King’s College in London, pursuing her own study regarding the structure of DNA. Also at King’s College was Maurice Wilkins, who was leading his own study regarding the structure of DNA. Meanwhile, at Cambridge University, another study to determine the structure of DNA was being led by James Watson and Francis Crick. Watson and Crick reached out to Wilkins, and at some point during their conversation, Wilkins showed Watson and Crick “Photo 51,” a photo taken by Franklin using her x-ray differentiation skills depicting the pattern of a beam of X-rays scattering off of a pure DNA fiber, without Franklin’s permission or knowledge. Photo 51 became an integral piece of evidence in Watson, Crick, and Wilkin’s deduction of the DNA structure. When Watson, Crick, and Wilkins published their proposal of the DNA structure that we still accept today, there was no credit given to Franklin, despite her picture being perhaps the most important piece of evidence that the three scientists had seen. Without Photo 51, the three men would not have established the double helix shape. Ironically, Franklin also published findings regarding further details of the DNA structure in the same April 1953 Nature issue that the three men had published their proposal in. Watson, Crick, and Wilkins were eventually awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their proposed model of DNA, and Franklin was not cited in their published proposal and did not receive any credit or recognition for her crucial contribution to their work. Tragically, Franklin had died in 1958 at the young age of 37 due to ovarian cancer, four years before Watson, Crick, and Wilkins were awarded the Nobel Prize, and since Nobel Prizes can only be awarded to living nominees, it will never be known if Franklin would have been recognized with a Nobel Prize alongside Watson, Crick, and Wilkins一although unlikely considering The Matilda Effect was still in high effect at the time, as exemplified above by Esther Lederberg’s lack of a Nobel Prize in 1958.

Photo 51: Rosalind Franklin's x-ray differentiation image depicting the pattern of a beam of X-rays scattering off of a pure DNA fiber

To those who believe that The Matilda Effect is no longer relevant, this is simply not true. Women in STEM are consistently undervalued in the STEM community. Neurobiologist Ben Barres works at the Stanford University Medical Center wrote about his experience, published in the July 2006 Nature issue, as a woman in STEM compared to his

experience as a man in STEM after his gender transition in 1997 from female to male. He found that when he was doing work under a female name before his gender transition, his work was not respected and often doubted. After his transition, he observed that when his colleagues did not know he was transgender, he was treated with much more respect, and his work was taken more seriously. Additionally, Nancy Anderson, an established psychiatrist at the University of Iow

a can corroborate Barres’s claim that women are not respected as scientists at the same level as men. When submitting her research to journals, she found that her articles were disproportionately accepted at a higher rate when it was impossible to determine her gender, using her initials (N.C. Anderson) rather than her first name (Nancy Anderson), further exemplifying the lack of respect that women in STEM are given. Constantly, women in STEM are underestimated and undervalued.

Currently, amazing organizations such as American Women in Science, Girls Who Code, and so many more are working to rid society of these misconceptions as well as encouraging more women to pursue STEM一especially since The Matilda Effect has discouraged young girls from being interested in STEM, as there are no examples to look up to as a result of the lack of credit and recognition given to women in STEM. Historically, women in STEM have been hidden, but while history is being made, it is up to the current STEM community to recognize women in STEM and not make the same mistake of hiding the female discoverers, developers, and inventors again.

Works Cited

Jones, Josh. “‘The Matilda Effect’: How Pioneering Women Scientists Have Been Denied Recognition and Written Out of Science History.” Open Culture, 2 Aug. 2018, www.openculture.com/2018/08/the-matilda-effect.html.

Krock, Lexi. “Anatomy of Photo 51.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 3 Apr. 2003, www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/DNA-photograph.html.

Lee, Jane J. “6 Women Scientists Who Were Snubbed Due to Sexism.” National Geographic, 19 May 2013, www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/5/130519-women-scientists-overlooked-dna-history-science/.

“The Matilda Effect.” Medium, Timeline, medium.com/s/the-matilda-effect.

“Matilda Effect.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Nov. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_effect.

Steinmetz, Katy. “Why Don't We Remember More Trailblazing Women Scientists?” Time, Time, 11 Apr. 2019, time.com/longform/esther-lederberg/.

Vedantam, Shankar. “Male Scientist Writes of Life as Female Scientist.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 13 July 2006, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201883.html.