Marie Curie is undeniably one of the greatest female role-figures in science of the last century. I don't know why she isn't more revered, although perhaps are here are a few reasons why: (Note: I bring them up mostly in hopes of pointing out how silly they are)
1. Her work eventually killed her. There was no way for the Curies to know what effect long-term radiation exposure would have, but it's still not a huge image booster for her to have died from material handling practices that would be considered idiotic today.
2. She wasn't a "lone wolf". i.e. She did much of her work with her husband Pierre, who shared the Nobel Prize for physics with her. Pierre was an instructor when they met and undoubtedly gave her a huge helping hand right when she needed it. Never mind that she came from a poor background and showed remarkable determination just getting into college in the first place, or that she would later be the sole recipient of a Nobel prize for chemistry!
3. People are still scared of words like "radioactive" and "radiation". Just look at how comfortable people are with coal power that kills thousands every year as a part of normal operation. Then note how those same people freak out when a nuclear plant threatens to give a handful of people cancer, but only after being horribly mismanaged and then hit by an improbable sequence of natural disasters! Arguably, Curie is scary by her association with something people are unreasonably paranoid about.
4. Let's face it, Ada Lovelace was a bit of a looker, or at least she was painted that way. She even had a sexy sounding name. We have real, unromantic photographs of Curie on the other hand the reveal her to be rather plain by comparison, plus her name is now linked with a scary unit of radioactive decay! It's a case of the Belle vs the school-marm.
My 7th-grade daughter just did a report on Marie Curie for school. She was fascinated by the subject, and amazed to find how useful and important her research was. I wanted to go to her laboratory/museum in Paris when we were there several summers ago, but it was unfortunately closed.
Bottom line, Marie Curie is a great role model, and while I don't think that my daughter is headed for a career in science or engineering, at least she now sees that there are women who did it, and did amazing things in the field.
I also posit that, were it not for the "rockstar" image that computing has acquired in the last 30 years or so, this Ada Lovelace thing wouldn't have catapulted like this as well.
4. Let's face it, Ada Lovelace was a bit of a looker, or at least she was painted that way. She even had a sexy sounding name. We have real, unromantic photographs of Curie on the other hand the reveal her to be rather plain by comparison, plus her name is now linked with a scary unit of radioactive decay! It's a case of the Belle vs the school-marm.
We should fight this attitude. Women have a history of being judged solely on their looks, and that is wrong. Everyone should be judged on their merits.
Everybody is judged by their looks. Einstein is famously nerdy-looking - we celebrate that. I enjoy the photographs of Curie - words like formidable, determined spring to mind.
By the way, Einstein as a absent-minded scientist is a misconception and a product of FBI propaganda. He lived in the era of McCarthy. There were hotels with signs "Dogs and Jews not allowed". Einstein's file in FBI was over 800 pages, they were trying so hard to find an excuse to bust him. Einstein was active in politics and even believed it is his duty as a famous person to promote humanitarian ideas like racial equality. He was painted as a reclusive, harmless nerd by FBI in an attempt to reduce his influence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_political_v...
"When I was young, I found out that the big toe always ends up making a hole in the sock," he once said. "So I stopped wearing socks."
He was very bright in many ways, but wasn't perfect. For example he didn't care much for gender equality. Women could just stay in the kitchen as far as he was concerned.
I don't think your conclusion follows. An analogous proposition would be "Steve Jobs was a careless slob with no sense of style because he wore jeans to his presentations". It's possible that Einstein chose to look exactly the way he did. Or he just didn't care. Not knowing more about Einstein, I couldn't say.
(a) Just because a thing happens doesn't mean that it's right that a thing happens. "Hey murder happens" is not a acceptable response when someone points out that murder is wrong.
(b) Women are often judged much more on their sexual/beauty looks, compared to men. Can you find an instance of a beauty/sexual attractiveness of a male scientist being mentioned?
Curie is a figurehead of the nuclear era, while Lovelace's importance is seen to be in the genesis of the computer era. Even ignoring the "nuclear == icky" aspect, people (likely rightly) associate computers with something that is more important in their own lives.
I too love Marie Curie and the 1927 Solvay Conference's picture (which sits in my living room for the edification of my kids!)
She's a hero here in France but I don't know about her reputation in the English speaking world.
She was a very amazing person. Born in Poland, she studied secretly for years in her native country, because higher education was not opened to females! Then she moved to Paris to join her sister and continued her education during the day, while tutoring in the evenings to pay for it.
- - -
There was a nice play (in French) that I saw in 1989, called "Les Palmes de monsieur Schutz"
A movie was later made from the play. I didn't see the movie but hear it's not too bad for that kind of adaptation from scene to screen (and it has cameos from Pierre-Gilles de Gennes and Georges Charpak).
It was created as communist-approved alternative to KUL(Catholic University of Lublin - the only university independent from communist government in 1944-1989 Poland). Now it's the other way around (KUL is heavily influenced by catholic church, and umcs is more-or-less independent).
BTW - my university uses French order of writting Maria name "Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie". Maria sometimes used French order (with husband surname first), and sometimes used Polish order (with husband surname second), but rarely skipped "Skłodowska" altogether.
Maria Skłodowska-Curie, to be exact. She moved to France and married there, but never rejected her Polish origins. In fact she supported Polish independence, founded a scientific institute in Warsaw and named one of the elements she discovered after Poland.
While she was born Maria Salomea Skłodowska, she studied in Paris and Sorbonne. She was denied higher education in Poland because she was a woman. Later, University of Kraków also rejected her, because she was a woman.
It's not nice, but I think it's OK to call her a French scientist. Poland clearly didn't want her. It is an old tradition that best polish scientists, athletes and inventors go abroad. They're not valued in the country.
So following that reasoning, a chinese scientist who made his/her PhD and research work in the USA should be called "an american researcher"? I think you can understand that that is not only not nice, but just wrong. If you think that not respecting her because she was a woman was a terrible thing (I agree), then we should not do the same, and as a sign of respect, at least, we should call her by her real name
She was technically Polish, but she didn't owe much to Poland. Especially not her successes in science. That's what I mean. For me it's ethically wrong to boast about Maria Skłodowska-Curie as a Polish scientist. And it's not just "not respecting" ! It's likely that she wouldn't achieve anything if she chose to stay in Poland. She was denied higher education !
As I wrote before, Poland didn't exist at the time -- it was occupied by Russians trying hard to wipe or nationality for good, also by attenuating Polish science and culture. Thus many Poles have fled for freedom of not being oppressed for being Polish.
About owning anything; she left Poland being 24, so she get all the basics and conducted here first research in Poland thanks to underground structures -- if born in France, she might end up as a housewife.
Anyway, the only thing that matters is that she always thought of herself as a Pole and done much to prove it.
Please note that we were mostly under Russian or German occupation during the last 200 years, so it is not our fault many bright units have been kicked or run abroad. Skłodowska was rejected by Russians, so blame them for intolerance.
She was denied education in Poland occupied by Russians, and Austrians (never tried in Prussian occupied part, IIRC).
What she learnt in Poland she learnt from Polish teachers that taught Poles secretly in homes (because it was forbidden to teach some subjects - not only to woman, but to anyone - for example Polish history).
And she was always supportive of Polish independence, named Polonium after Poland, kept her name after mariage to associate with Poland. Wouldn't happen if she had problems with Poland, don't you think?
I think you project modern problems on historical situation.
Poland was under Russian and German occupation then. Well, your argument is invalid. If you had read the first three paragraphs of the Wikipedia article, you would have known how wrong you are. Marie Skłodowska-Curie has always acknowledged her Polish origins and supported Poland's struggle for independence.
Why do people always omit the "Skłodowska" part? She has used her maiden name through all her life and always identified with her Polish origins, so it might be a little bit disrespectful. There simply are too many signs that she would want to be remembered as Marie Skłodowska-Curie, not just Marie Curie.
yet you did not fix your mistake in your article title, guess you have a lot of fun
imagine yourself having fun with your ignorance of some jewish scientist,
it's exactly the same problem, even though more Poles died during WWII than jews
There's a simple explanation for that. When I realized that it would be better changed I could not change the submitted title here on Hacker News (they are only editable for a while, an hour I think). So I was stuck with the title I chose; I could have changed the title on my blog but then there would have been a difference between the two. So, I decided to stick with the original title.
Marie Curie was a groundbreaking scientist and an admirable figure.
The need to celebrate the one symbolic "woman of science" is sexist and crude. The idea of one "woman of science" makes the work of other female scientists seem less important. The idea that the "woman of science" be symbolic makes Marie Curie's work seem symbolic and unimportant.
Why can we not just celebrate both Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace as excellent scientists, leaving gender out of the discussion?
I agree. We don't have an Einstein, Tesla, Newton, or Galileo day so why do we need a Marie Curie day? I personally find this idea very sexist. It does nothing to further my appreciation of feminism and their ideals, I would go so far to say as this is base pandering.
Just to be clear: my blog post is not arguing that there should be a Marie Curie Day, it is arguing that if you are going to have a day named after a woman scientist as a celebration of women in science then I think Ada Lovelace is a poor choice.
It seems a bit sad that we apparently only can have one woman in science. Why not have two?
I think it's perfectly legitimate to celebrate Marie Curie but at the same time also celebrate Ada Lovelace, and I don't see how the two are in competition.
If we're going down that route, why are we paying so much attention to Alan Turing, who elected him as the man in science? Aren't there other computer pioneers worth celebrating? Well, yes, but talking about Turing doesn't lessen them.
And, for that matter, why do women have to be their own category at all? Why does "Ada Lovelace Day" automatically mean "Woman Day", does that mean that we should also elect one single man to name a day after?
Precisely. Would anyone argue that instead of Einstein Day, we should have Turing Day? No, the objection to that would be that for one thing they have very little in common, so why would one replace the other, and for the other part, why can't we have both an Einstein Day and a Turing Day? Both valid points. So why are women different, why is it the case that the only way Curie can become more prominent is if Lovelace takes a step back?
The choice of Turing as an example: He was a closer match to Lovelace in being a computer science pioneer.
Hawking would also be recognizable, if not recalled without being prompted, even if only as "smart guy in a wheelchair". (I think Newton might have a shot, and maybe for people 35-55, Carl Sagan?)
I think it comes down to the fact that role models are helpful in some circumstances and so highlighting an individual can be a sort of metaphor. By choosing an example of a successful woman scientist some young women will be better able to identify with the idea of being a scientist. And my blog post argues that Curie is a better choice than Lovelace.
As an example, Sally Ride mattered a lot to me (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4283227) even though I'm a man, as I wrote when she died: "RIP Sally Ride. She was a personal inspiration as a child because I saw a woman going into space as an indication of the opening up of space to 'normal' people. She was also a scientist and not a military person."
>we apparently only can have one woman in science. Why not have two?
I don't accept the premise of the article that Marie Curie isn't celebrated in her own right. I'd say you'd be hard-pressed to find a woman in any science who isn't aware of both of these women's contributions along with Grace Hopper, Rosalind Franklin and others.
>why do women have to be their own category at all?
Well, among the many many reasons that require a large number of comments to annunciate all the possible arguments here's a simple one: when there aren't many of your minority group in any field, celebrating a member of your group enables more members of your group to enter the field because precedence is set.
Yes, I agree with you and I didn't make myself clear enough. I think it is perfectly fine for women to be brought up and given attention, and that them being women in science is highlighted.
What I object to is that apparently women are strictly confined to this particular category, so that 1) there is a ranking of women and only one can be THE woman of science, and 2) women cannot have their own day but have to compete for the "woman day". That is, woman becomes the all-compassing defining trait, and they are only recognized within the constraints of that classification. That, I think, is tragic.
I agree if we are speaking about achievement in general, but Ada is specifically celebrated for her insight into computing, so it's relevant in that context whereas Curie, as far as I know, never had anything to do with the topic.
Agreed! Our school curriculum covered Marie Curie on multiple subjects: Chemistry and English (her biography made for inspirational reading) and by contrast, Lovelace has had what one would call "honourable mention" ;-)
I had read about Lovelace in Doron Swade's works on Babbage, and for a long time was "that guy" who would come into CS love-ins and attempt to correct what I believed at the time were gross exaggerations of her contributions to the field. Eventually I learned to keep my mouth shut since it was usually met with hostility, and more importantly I'm not arrogant enough to think that what I had read by one author is going to be right.
The summary of Lovelace in the OP brought this back to mind as it is exactly what my stance had been when I'd ditched it for the more conservative "well I guess I don't really know". I never looked into it again until now. Does anyone have a recommendation for a balanced modern summary of her contribution?
I believe most of what I had read by Swade was written before she was as popular in the CS community as she now is, and when I raised his points in discussion I was usually told he was widely regarded to hold a grudge against her for some reason no-one really understood.
> I was usually told he was widely regarded to hold a grudge against her for some reason no-one really understood.
Who told you that?
For an independent (of Swade) analysis you might like to read Bruce Collier's 1970 PhD thesis (http://robroy.dyndns.info/collier/index.html). This was written well before Swade was on the Babbage case and was based on reading of the primary documents. A couple of quotes from it:
"In the summer of 1843, Menabrea's paper was translated by Ada Augusta, Countess of Lovelace, and only legitimate daughter of Lord Bryon; she composed, in extensive consultation with Babbage, a series of long notes to the paper, which together comprised about three times the length of Menabrea's original version. The whole was published in Richard Taylor's Scientific Memoirs for 1843, 92 under the title "Sketch of the Analytical Engine invented by Charles Babbage, Esq;" this was the only extensive paper on the Analytical Engine published in English during Babbage's life, or, indeed, up to the present. Although it is clear that Lady Lovelace was a woman of considerable interest and talent, and it is clear that she understood to a very considerable degree Babbage's ideas about the general character and significance of the Analytical Engine, and expressed them well in her notes to Menabrea's paper, it is equally clear that the ideas were indeed Babbage's and not hers; indeed, she never made any claim to the contrary. She made a considerable contribution to publicizing the Analytical Engine, but there is no evidence that she advanced the design or theory of it in anyway. And she did not even express an interest in learning about the machine until January 5, 1841, 93 even as late as June 30, 1843, she apparently knew quite little about the mechanical details of the Engine"
"All of this is said not to belittle Lady Lovelace, but because a very exaggerated view has been formed by some recent writers of the significance of her contribution to the Engine or of her role in Babbage's life."
The citations for those parts are Babbage's personal correspondence with Lovelace that are held by the British Museum.
I am currently in the middle of reading “The Emperor of All Maladies”, a well written "history" of cancer, that puts what she did for the disease in perspective. Highly recommended: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/books/11book.html
1. Her work eventually killed her. There was no way for the Curies to know what effect long-term radiation exposure would have, but it's still not a huge image booster for her to have died from material handling practices that would be considered idiotic today.
2. She wasn't a "lone wolf". i.e. She did much of her work with her husband Pierre, who shared the Nobel Prize for physics with her. Pierre was an instructor when they met and undoubtedly gave her a huge helping hand right when she needed it. Never mind that she came from a poor background and showed remarkable determination just getting into college in the first place, or that she would later be the sole recipient of a Nobel prize for chemistry!
3. People are still scared of words like "radioactive" and "radiation". Just look at how comfortable people are with coal power that kills thousands every year as a part of normal operation. Then note how those same people freak out when a nuclear plant threatens to give a handful of people cancer, but only after being horribly mismanaged and then hit by an improbable sequence of natural disasters! Arguably, Curie is scary by her association with something people are unreasonably paranoid about.
4. Let's face it, Ada Lovelace was a bit of a looker, or at least she was painted that way. She even had a sexy sounding name. We have real, unromantic photographs of Curie on the other hand the reveal her to be rather plain by comparison, plus her name is now linked with a scary unit of radioactive decay! It's a case of the Belle vs the school-marm.