Scientific Scorn Slides
History & Science Intersect
SCIENTIFIC SCORN
Breaking barriers and the 'Matilda Effect' in early 20th-century STEM.
The Great Recall
"History is written by those who show up, but only some stories are kept in the library."
5-Minute Challenge
In your notes, list as many female scientists as you can from memory.
Marie Curie: Two Nobels, One Rejection
The Context
Marie Curie remains the only person to win Nobel Prizes in two different scientific fields (Physics and Chemistry).
Watch For:
- Why were women entering science universities?
- How was her work credited?
- The role of the French Academy of Science.
Embedded media
Clip: 4:22 — 5:36
The Matilda Effect
"A bias against acknowledging the achievements of women scientists, whose work is often attributed to their male colleagues."
Key Causes
- Institutional Exclusion
- Attribution Bias
- Historical Erasure
Coined by historian Margaret W. Rossiter in 1993, named after suffragist Matilda Joslyn Gage, who first observed this phenomenon in the 19th century.
Letter to the Editor
The Scenario
It is January 1911. The French Academy of Sciences has just rejected Marie Curie's application for membership by two votes.
Pick a Perspective:
- • The Supporter: Argue why her exclusion is a loss for science.
- • The Detractor: Defend "tradition" and institutional "purity."
Success Criteria
- Reference her Nobel Prizes
- Use period-appropriate tone
- Address the "Woman Question"
- Minimum 150 words
Is it modern?
In the video, John Green mentions that the myth of women's scientific inferiority remains powerful today.
How do we see the Matilda Effect persisting in the 21st century?
Exit Ticket: Write your response on your activity sheet.
Scientific Scorn Activity Sheet
Scientific Scorn
History & Science Intersect: Case Study of Marie Curie
Name: ___________________________
Date: ___________________________
Period: __________
Part 1: The Great Recall
List as many female scientists as you can from memory. Focus on their names and, if possible, their field of study.
Part 2: Video Insights
What were the "new scientific women" entering universities?
Why did some believe Pierre Curie did the work for Marie?
Define the "Matilda Effect" in your own words:
Primary Source: The Rejection of 1911
CONTEXT: In January 1911, Marie Curie—already a Nobel Laureate—applied for membership in the French Academy of Sciences. She was narrowly rejected (28 votes to 30) in favor of Édouard Branly. The French press was sharply divided.
"Is it not a strange thing that the Academy of Sciences... should be the last to resist the entry of women? We see them in the law courts, we see them at the bedside of the sick, we see them in our schools. Why should they not be in the Academy? ... Madame Curie has discovered a new world. She has given to science a new element, and to the world a new hope." — Le Petit Journal, Supporting Curie's Candidacy (1911)
"Women cannot be members of the Institut de France... The tradition of the Academy is formal. It is a masculine body, and its character must be preserved. To admit a woman would be to admit a foreign element that would disturb the serenity of our discussions and the dignity of our traditions. Science is a task for the male intellect." — Representative Statement from the Anti-Curie Press (1911)
Part 4: Letter to the Editor
Choose a side. Write a Letter to the Editor of a major Parisian newspaper in January 1911. You may write as a fellow scientist, a suffragist, or a concerned citizen. Use the primary source excerpts and video facts to support your argument.
Perspective: [ ] Supporter [ ] Detractor
Dear Editor,
Sincerely, ___________________________
Closure / Exit Ticket
How does the 1911 rejection of Marie Curie illustrate the "Matilda Effect"?
