Wait, so by that logic all the male colleagues of every Nobel laureate should have also got a prize? Sounds like you're making a logical claim vs an evidence based one, do you have evidence to proof your claim or is it more like a sounds-like-something-that-would-happen-back-in-the-day-so-why-not-just-go-with-it type of argument?
I don't know what you're on about. It's in the article. The two men that won the prize in 1957 also said she should have shared it with them due to how involved she was.
Oppenheimer and others also said she should have been included.
Read the Fine Article, to bring back a Slashdot-ism.
