Marginalization & Moving Forward

The Carnegie Institution of Washington (Wikimedia Commons [accessed 2021 April 18])

Dr. Stevens' Marginalization

The Carnegie Institution of Washington

During the time of her work, Dr. Nettie Maria Stevens was quite celebrated by Dr. Thomas Hunt Morgan and Dr. Edmund Beecher Wilson; however, these men tend to receive the modern-day recognition for her work (Ogilvie and Choquette 1981). When Dr. Stevens was alive, she received much encouragement from her peers, demonstrated in letters of recommendation that were sent to the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Key male scientists such as Dr. Morgan, Joseph W. Warren, and Dr. Wilson claimed in these letters that Dr. Stevens was capable of great work. An underlying message that was emphasized especially in Warren’s letter is how Dr. Stevens’ work was “rather uncommon in women,” which acts as evidence of the perception that women possessed lesser abilities in scientific engagement than men in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This comment additionally highlights that, even though Dr. Stevens faced the difficulties of being a woman in biology, she was awarded the privilege of recognition rarely presented to her female colleagues. Although Dr. Stevens was obviously a competitive candidate for the program, the Carnegie Institution was not eager to take her on. Furthermore, Dr. Stevens was only accepted after subsequent efforts by herself as well as Dr. Morgan and Dr. M. Carey Thomas, and her letter of acceptance was sent to Dr. Morgan rather than herself (Ogilvie and Choquette 1981).

Socioeconomic Status

Notably, the time that Dr. Stevens spent waiting for her correspondence and later acceptance to the Carnegie Institution was made difficult due to her status as an unmarried woman in science (Ogilvie and Choquette 1981). Dr. Stevens was the sole person responsible for her financial situation, which made supporting her research incredibly difficult. As an unmarried woman with limited financial means, Dr. Stevens was forced to make a decision between accepting a job that would support her financially and waiting for what could be a long time for the possibility of a research grant. Additionally, Dr. Stevens' possible acceptance into biological programs was complicated by the availability of positions that women were allowed to take; thus, her status as an unmarried woman in biology led to notable difficulties that her male colleagues do not appear to have faced (Ogilvie and Choquette 1981).

Accreditation

Even though Dr. Morgan and Dr. Wilson specifically supported Dr. Stevens in their letters to the Carnegie Institution, both men did not initially agree with Dr. Stevens’ theory on sex determination because they preferred an environmental stance on the matter (Gilgenkrantz 2008). Interestingly, this disagreement is what allowed Dr. Stevens’ to publish her work as a sole author, as Dr. Morgan did not want to be associated with the theory (Brush 1978). Moreover, despite their initial skepticism, Dr. Morgan and Dr. Wilson are the scientists who are most often credited with modern theories of sex determination (Brush 1978). The continued referencing of Dr. Morgan and Dr. Wilson in modern day publications is a concerning example of how internal biases are able to propagate in science despite perceived social change. One example of this occurs in Allen (2015) in which Dr. Stevens is referenced as a student of Morgan instead of a colleague or independent researcher, as well as only having her name cited after Dr. Wilson.

In general Dr. Stevens is not recognized in modern textbooks for her discoveries (Brush 1978), with few exceptions in very recent publications. Quite often recognition for the sex determination of chromosomes goes to Dr. Wilson or even Dr. Morgan as a result of what is hypothesized to be the “Matthew effect." The Matthew effect, the association of discoveries with peripherally associated researchers because they have more published work or are more widely known, can be applied in this case because Dr. Stevens’ discoveries are often more associated with Dr. Wilson or Dr. Morgan, perhaps because they had a greater abundance of discoveries (Brush 1978). When considering the bias and prejudice that Dr. Stevens faced as a woman in science, this accreditation additionally acts as an example of the continued influence of bias against women in science. Notably, when Dr. Stevens is mentioned in textbooks, most refer to her as N. M. Stevens, effectively negating her gender (Brush 1978). Even colleagues who worked directly with Dr. Stevens often referred to her as Miss N. M. Stevens, despite her having the same academic accreditations as them (Morgan 1912).

Perception of a Female Colleague

While Dr. Nettie Maria Stevens did receive support, particularly from Dr. Morgan and Dr. Wilson, she also faced the backlash of being a woman in science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Ogilvie and Choquette 1981). Dr. Stevens' treatment is demonstrated specifically from comments that she received from Dr. Boveri, her supervisor at the Naples Zoological Station, who claimed that Dr. Stevens “absorbed benefits from her association without contributing to its achievement." Dr. Boveri additionally spoke unkindly of Dr. Stevens by calling her a “blood-sucker” who did not contribute appropriately to his laboratory achievements (Ogilvie and Choquette 1981). This perspective may be the result of a belief that women of such ambition and academic caliber presented a threatening and unusually assertive presence not viewed as appropriate for the period. Another example that perhaps speaks best to how the scientific community received Dr. Stevens can be found in reviewing how many of her contributions have become neglected archival sources, and more generally the lack of information specific to Dr. Stevens life and work preserved in writing, despite the crucial discoveries she made relative to sex determination (Ogilvie and Choquette 1981).

Chemistry Laboratory at Bryn Mawr College (Ogilvie and Choquette 1981)

Dr. Nettie Maria Stevens (Brush 1978)

External Factors

Evidently, during Dr. Nettie Maria Stevens’ time, she was faced with the difficulties of being a woman in biology and as time passed, her discoveries are often credited as being Dr. Morgan’s or Dr. Wilson's. While Dr. Morgan and Dr. Wilson did supposedly support Dr. Stevens while she was alive, the extent of that support is questionable considering Dr. Wilson's quick publishing of a paper on the same subject as her one month before her publication. This occurred after Dr. Wilson initially disagreed with her theory of sex determination (Ogilvie and Choquette 1981). This is even more controversial bearing in mind that Dr. Wilson held an editorial position for the publishing journal of Dr. Stevens paper (Gilgenkrantz 2008). Additionally, Dr. Wilson's conclusion was not as firm as Dr. Stevens’, especially since he reverted back to semi-environmental hypotheses later in his career (Brush 1978).

Further, after Dr. Stevens death, Dr. Morgan published a eulogy for her in which he acknowledged her discoveries but finished by suggesting that her work bordered on meagerness and that her own qualities were only “part” of what contributed to her accomplishments (Morgan 1912). Thus, Dr. Nettie Maria Stevens is an example of how women were marginalized in biology, specifically demonstrated through the financial issues she faced as an unmarried woman, the resistance she experienced from the Carnegie Institution and other male scientists, and the absence of her modern-day recognition. While this marginalization was real and unacceptable, and the experience that Dr. Stevens' had was difficult, it is crucial to put her marginalization into perspective. Her position as a result of her initial socioeconomic status and early education allowed Dr. Stevens the privilege necessary to study biology during the early 20th century as a woman. Additionally, Dr. Stevens' story is notable because, despite all her privilege, she still faced marginalization, which is a stark reminder of the abundance of individuals in the early 20th century who were not recipients of that privilege and were further not allowed to contribute to science.

Moving forward

Dr. Nettie Maria Stevens died on May 4, 1912 of breast cancer at the age of 50 (Britannica 2020). At the time, she was still working as an associate in experimental morphology at Bryn Mawr College, a low ranking position that did not correspond to the level of success she had attained in the field (Ogilvie and Choquette 1981). Upon her death, the faculty of Bryn Mawr included a statement in the Journal of Science acknowledging her education, faculty experience with the school, and professional success, stating that her success "placed her in the very front rank of students of science and gave her a worldwide reputation among workers in biology” (Science 1912). These statements were matched by Dr. Morgan who wrote for the paper a few months later, stating that “her single-mindedness and devotion, combined with keen powers of observation; her thoughtfulness and patience, united to a well-balanced judgment, accounts, in part, for her remarkable accomplishment.” (Morgan 1912). These statements should be considered skeptically, in the context of Dr. Morgan's other interactions with Dr. Stevens, as presented above. Despite the added challenges of her gender at the time, Dr. Nettie Maria Stevens contributed significantly to work in cytology and early genetics to such a degree that her contributions still stands up to scrutiny today, whether or not she is rightly given credit for that work.

In the present day efforts are being made to correct the misplaced credit often seen in the decades following her death, and Dr. Stevens is being given due credit for her discovery of sex chromosomes in more texts, including some describing the history of sex determination discoveries in biology (Allen 2005). Despite this, history cannot be undone, and Dr. Nettie Maria Stevens' legacy stands to show much of what women in the field of science had to overcome just to be allowed in the classroom and laboratory, let alone to rise above all odds and produce such fruitful discoveries as hers.

Page updated

Report abuse