In a follow-up to her review of Motherhood, the Elephant in the Laboratory: Women scientists speak out by Emily Monosson, Alison George decided to investigate how many women who won Nobels also did the motherhood thing:
I started at the first Nobel prize awarded to a woman: Marie Curie, in 1903. To my surprise, she had 2 children (as well as 2 Nobel prizes). Her daughter, Irene, only managed one prize in 1935, but also produced two offspring. And so it went on. Gerty Cori (Nobel prize for in physiology or medicine 1947, 1 kid), Maria Geoppert-Mayer (Nobel prize for physics in 1963, 2 kids) Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin (Nobel prize for chemistry in 1964, 3 kids), Rosalyn Yolow (Nobel prize for physiology or medicine in 1977, 2 kids – Yolow writes in her Nobel autobiography that they had sleep-in help until their youngest child was nine – thanks for the tip!)
After this, something strange seems to happen. Five women were awarded Nobel prizes in the 1980s, 1990s and in 2004, but there is no mention of children in their Nobel biographies. Did these women have kids and just not mention it? Or didn’t they have any? Further research revealed that three certainly didn’t have children, but I still don’t know the answer for the other two (and, frankly, it’s none of my business).
Of course, we’re dealing with small numbers here, but this does look like a trend. I don’t know what underlying forces might be responsible, but here are some hypotheses that might be worth investigating:
- Women who won Nobel Prizes in earlier decades were more peripheral to institutionalized science than women in later decades, leaving them more time to have kids while their male colleagues were ignoring their scientific work.
- Women who won Nobel Prizes in earlier decades were under greater societal pressure to be wives and mothers — opting out was not an option. (Especially to the extent that science used to be more clearly marked as a pursuit of the upper social classes, and a scientist-husband could ease a woman scientist’s entry to a male domain, maintaining a life that was “normal” in other respects may have been really important. Also, women scientists of yore were paid disgracefully low wages relative to their male counterparts — when they weren’t actually unpaid “amateurs” — and so would have had to rely in part on the salary of a husband who might have an interest in having kids. Plus, birth control options were less numerous and available.)
- Women who won Nobel Prizes in earlier decades, especially those in the upper socio-economic classes, had more access to childcare.
- The nature of academic science has changed, especially with respect to the hunt for funding and tenure, making childbearing and childrearing seem like a risky call to women scientists in recent decades.
- Women who won Nobel Prizes in later decades may have felt less pressure to conform to anyone else’s ideal of womanhood by having children.
- In recent decades, the standards for being a “good mother” may have crept upward, making it harder successfully to combine motherhood with any profession, including science.
These are just hypotheses. I haven’t done jack to collect data that might support or contradict any of them. If such data exist, I welcome pointers to them. If you have an additional hypothesis you think merits consideration here, lay it on me.