Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> writes:
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>> >The simple fact that they have to go back a century and dredge up a woman
> >who got a Nobel Prize BECAUSE her husband requested she be added to the list
> >is proof enough of the lack of women Nobel Prize winners, eh?
>>http://www.almaz.com/nobel/women.html>> lists 30 women who won Nobel prizes, many of them in the sciences,
I checked it out, and I wouldn't have characterized the list that way.
Few of them were in the sciences (11 counting Marie Curie and her
daughter 3 times),
Almost all the women's science prizes were shared (always with men),
Both the unshared women's science prizes suggest lowered standards:
"for the development of radioimmunoassays of peptide hormones.", "for
her determinations by X-ray techniques of the structures of important
biochemical substances." Both seem to consist of applying existing
techniques (radioimmunoassays, X-ray techniques) to fresh data. Good
work, and I don't criticize it, but a man wouldn't get a Nobel for it,
I think.
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
