Esther Conwell, National Medal of Science Winner
During the fall, the President awarded the National Medal of Science to Esther Conwell, who was once denied a position as an engineer because of being female (see University of Rochester story here). Nine other recipients were recognized this year, only one more of whom was a woman (see government announcement here).
Now a professor of Chemistry and Physics at University of Rochester, Conwell provided the explanation for how electrons traveled through semiconductors. This insight was the basis of the computer revolution. Esther Conwell has previously been elected to both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. In a sense this new award is different; although it is for "outstanding contributions to science" it tends to go to those whose efforts have made the USA more visible, more successful in indusry, or more prestigious in an important field. It is also true that very few women have been selected to receive it over the years. We've discussed the distressingly low percentage of women (approximately 8%) in the National Academy of Sciences here. The National Medal of Science was established in 1959 by Congress.
Conwell, who received her PhD in atomic physics in 1948 has written or coauthored several books, written over 270 articles, and holds four patents. At the age of 88, she is still hard at work in her laboratory, producing breakthrough science. She has been recognized with many awards, including one from the American Chemical Society for encouraging women in go into science.
Cheers,
Laura
What do you think?
A I love hearing about successful women in science
B She's so far above what I can hope to achieve, I'm glad for her but it makes me feel small
C I'd rather not see features on individual women on this site
D It's not my favorite kind of posting, but we need to help keep important women in science visible. I would not know about Conwell except by reading such postings.
Hi Scifeminista and Who in Science?,
I think these things grow out of a lack of confidence to a degree, but there is also a lack of interest in doing those things that would make a woman competitive, not by all women but by many. I'm old enough that I remember before science turned entrepreneurial, when pretty much every science person male or female felt that being "objective" and "disinterested" in the monetary sense was good for science. But that's so yesterday that I read in The Scientist recently about PIs who take their groups to Las Vegas with their collaborating groups to build rapport, using venture capital support. That still feels vaguely wrong to me.
cheers,
Laura
Hi Who in Science?,
I suspect it's just diffidence, the same quality that makes us use those discount phrases in front of every paragraph when we talk with other scientists. We don't really enjoy the competitive interactions so we just focus on revealing the mysteries of nature, the part we do enjoy, and leave grabbing the kudos to the men, because that's what they enjoy. I recall someone quoting a statement that the achievements of science were a by product of men's competitions in this area. Well, not to me.
I would pick A but I also want to comment on the patent issue. I've looked haphazardly for women's patents and Rosser is no doubt correct, there are very few with even a woman co-patent holder and almost none with a woman alone holding the patent. Is this a confidence issue or do women see applying for a patent as unwanted competitive behavior? I'm puzzled. Even if she wants to let anyone use her invention, why not claim her just contribution to it, even if only to prevent a man from jumping on it and saying he found it out? I don't really understand.
Hi ExCS,
It is indeed ironic that her work is foundational to a field that has not welcomed women very warmly. I heard Sue Rosser talk last week about problems women have in IT, and one of the things she highlighted is that they are not quick to claim and patent their innovations. Evidently that means others get credit for what they find often.
cheers,
Laura
A for me. I'm amazed that there would probably be no Computer Science without her insights into electrons and holes, and yet the field does not welcome women to this day.
Hi Naveen,
I like the way you put it!
cheers,
Laura
Yes I love hearing about successful women in science but I do not want women in science but science in women.
A, I really enjoy reading these stories of women's success in science. Without this female scientist, we would not be online together discussing women in science! I love it.
A for me. I feel I share, in some small way, the success of every woman in science. We stayed in the field. We found out something important about the natural world. PJRUL
D, or maybe A. I think I should want to know about more important women in science after the trouble I had naming five on this site earlier! But it isn't my favorite topic. FBP
A for me. When one woman does something spectacular, it really reflects on us all. It shows having two X chromosomes is compatible with great science.
