Women: Women In Science - More Complex Than Men Think

Of the 900 Nobel Prizes since 1901, only about 50 have gone to women. This has nothing to do with women's abilities as scientists. The problem is, there are still far too few women doing science.

If there were awards for the best news alerts, my vote would go to "The Economist" for this from June 20: "The first woman to rule Rome in 3,000 years." Wow, I thought. The first woman in 3,000 years!

It got my attention for the sheer scale of it. But if it hadn't been for the 3,000 years, I would probably have overlooked the alert. The phrase "the first woman" has become as much a cliché in journalism as it is a sad truth in society. There are so few "first women" we still feel the need to celebrate each and every one. And so we should. But why, in 2016, aren't we celebrating "The hundredth woman to head the [...enter your institute of choice…]"?

Whether it's Hillary Clinton as the first woman presidential nominee for a major US political party or Pascale Ehrenfreund as the first woman to head the German Aerospace Center, our celebration should be muted. We have hardly taken our first steps.

This is especially true in the sciences.

And, yet, getting women to talk about "women in science" is not as easy as you may think.

Some women - scientists and non-scientists - and men, feel it is important to keep pushing the issue in mainstream debate to remind us just how bad the situation is for women pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), or computing.

But there are others who say the debate distracts us from the actual science women do. So they tend to stay away. DW asked a range of top female scientists to join a panel discussion on the subject on Tuesday (28.06.2016) at the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting. One Nobel Laureate who declined said she preferred to inspire young scientists by talking to them about the science itself - the process and the results.

-Agencies