"Tom Breton" <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
news:m38z4ck73o.fsf at panix.com...
> 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.
>
You're right, Tom. Just as not a single man was recognized for "inventing
compilers" like Hopper was, no man would have gotten a quarter of a Nobel
Prize just because his wife did (particularly for "artistic" purposes).
John Knight
