Embedded Files
Marginalization in Science
Marginalization in Science
Historically, there have been many cases of marginalization in science. Those most marginalized are people whose names we likely will never know. The reasoning and agents of effect behind marginalization vary greatly depending on the circumstances and societal context of the time.
The most crucial aspect of the marginalization of Martha Chase was her gender. Being a woman in science in today's society comes with many setbacks and challenges, and in the mid-twentieth century these were magnified due to the societal views on a woman's domesticity (Rossi 1960).
Another source of Chase's marginalization was due to her role as a research assistant on the projects she worked on with Hershey. The role research assistants hold in scientific research has not changed a lot over time and can require making significant contributions to a project while not receiving official accreditation for the work (Nelson and Petrova 2022). As a research assistant, Chase worked alongside Hershey but was not awarded any part of the Nobel Prize Hershey received. Hershey did not mention the work done by Chase in his Nobel lecture in 1969 (Hershey 1969).
It is imperative to acknowledge and appreciate all helping hands in a project or experiment - even any small project in our undergraduate degree must credit external resources used and professors that have provided information to help the project. If not everyone on a project will be given credit for their work - who gets to decide whose name will be included or not?
Example of Rosalind Franklin
Example of Rosalind Franklin
The story of Rosalind Franklin is a classic example of a biologist lacking the credit they deserved when it came to major discoveries - i.e. a marginalized biologist. Called to help determine the structure of DNA alongside Maurice Wilkins at King’s University, Franklin had been working with x-ray diffraction in an attempt to visualize the structure of DNA (DNA...2003). She had succeeded in taking a picture of DNA, exhibiting an ‘x’ formation and was close to discovering the double helix structure of DNA on her own (DNA...2003). However, having taken a visit to Kings to speak with Franklin, James Watson was given a glance at the infamous image and brought back a drawing of it to Francis Crick (DNA...2003). Because of Crick’s work with x-ray crystallography, he was able to determine that DNA was based in a double helix formation (DNA...2003). Watson and Crick published their findings in 1953. Unfortunately, the only credit they had given to Franklin and Wilkins was a single, generalized sentence at the end of their paper (Watson and Crick 1953). Today, it would be considered common courtesy to list such a large contributor as a co-author for the paper. In 1962, Watson, Crick, and Wilkins received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for “their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material” (The Nobel Prize - The Nobel... 2023). During his banquet speech, Watson neglected to recognize Franklin for her contribution to their discovery - in fact, her name was never mentioned (The Nobel Prize - James... 2023). Without Franklin's image of DNA, Watson and Crick may not have been the ones to identify the structure of DNA, and for that, she should have received more credit than she did.
We bring up this example of Rosalind Franklin to depict the connection between the two as they both experienced a lack of recognition by their colleagues on the public stage. This leads us to believe that at the time, it was less important to have a list of contributing authors and colleagues. Unfortunately, if this was the case, this societal norm in the male-dominated world of science was a reason for marginalization for not only Martha Chase, but many other women scientists.
Click here to read about the ending of Chase's scientific career.
Click here to read about the ending of Chase's scientific career.
Click the buttons below to learn more about the suppression of women's scientific contributions and the programs that exist today to help manage gender inequality in the sciences.
Click the buttons below to learn more about the suppression of women's scientific contributions and the programs that exist today to help manage gender inequality in the sciences.
References
References
DNA: the secret of life [video]. 2003 May 1. Windfall Films. 54:50 minutes. [accessed 2023 Nov 7]. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kyjvm.
Hershey AD. 1970. Idiosyncrasies of DNA structure. Science. [accessed 2023 Oct 31];168(3938):1452-1457. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1730435.pdf.
Nelson P, Petrova MG. 2022. Research assistants: Scientific credit and recognized authorship. Learned Publishing. 35(3):423–427. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/share/ZPFUGNPA6ESUB8KCQY8K?target=10.1002/leap.1467.
Rossi AS. 1965. Women in science: Why so few? Science [accessed 2023 Nov 7];148(3674):1196-1202.
The Nobel Prize. 2023. James Watson - Banquet speech. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2023. [accessed 2023 Dec 2]. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1962/watson/speech/.
The Nobel Prize. 2023. The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1962. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2023. [accessed 2023 Dec 2]. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1962/summary/.
Watson J, Crick F. 1953. Molecular structure of nucleic acids: a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature. [accessed 2023 Dec 2];171(n/a):737-738. https://doi.org/10.1038/171737a0.
Page updated
Report abuse