Women Members of the Academies of Science - A comparative study with special consideration of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society from 1912 until 1945.

Annette Vogt (Berlin)1

On June 20, 1948 the physicist Lise Meitner (1878-1968) wrote to her younger colleague Berta Karlik (1904-1990) in Vienna after her election - as its first woman - to the Austrian Academy of Science: "Liebe Kollegin Karlik, ... Wenn meine Wahl zum korrespondierenden Mitglied der Wienerakademie diese Möglichkeit auch für andere Frauen eröffnet, so macht sie mich doppelt froh. Ich habe mich über diese Auszeichnung aufrichtig gefreut, alles was ein Band mit Österreich knüpft, gibt mir ein inneres Heimatgefühl, das ich trotz aller Freundlichkeit der Schweden (ich bin z. B. Mitglied aller 4 skandinavischen Akademien) hier nicht bekommen kann, weil ich zu alt war, als ich hierher kam, um mich ganz einzuleben."2

Lise Meitner was one of the most exceptional women scientists in the 20th century and belonged - mostly as their first woman member - (as Scientific

1 Lecture (17.6.00) on the International conference "The work of science", Berlin- Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (BBAW), Berlin, 15.-17.6.2000. Thanks to Emma Spary (Cambridge) from the MPI for History of Science for her kindness to correcting my English.

2 Lise Meitner to Berta Karlik, 20.6.1948, in: Cambridge, Churchill College Archives, Meitner-Papers, MTNR 5/10, folder 2, Bl.11. ("Dear colleague Karlik, ... If my election as a corresponding member of the Academie in Vienna will open this possibility for other women scientists too then I would be doubly happy. I was delighted with this honor, every relation to Austria gives me a home feeling which I haven't here in spite of the kindness of the Swedes (for example I'm a member of all 4 Scandinavian Academies of Science), because I was too old when I came here to settle down completely.")

Berta Karlik followed Lise Meitner indeed, becoming a corresponding member in 1954 and a full member in 1973 at the ÖAW in Vienna. On Karlik see Lintner (1990). member) to the Kaiser Wilhelm Society as well as to most Academies of Science, in Germany and Austria, Scandinavia and Great Britain.3

Introduction

The paper discusses the working conditions for women scientists up to 1945 in the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, established in 1912, and compares them to those at the Berlin Academy of Sciences, founded in 1700, and the Berlin University, created in 1810. Furthermore, the paper offers a comparison concerning the question of women scientific members at the four most important Academies of Sciences in Europe, namely London, Paris, Berlin and St. Petersburg.4

In Germany, the Academies of Sciences, the Universities and the Kaiser Wilhelm Society were three scientific institutions with varying degrees of openness to women scientists. As in London and Paris, the German Academies of Science excluded women scientists as members up to 1945, with the exception of the Leopoldina Academy in Halle and the Academy in Göttingen. The Universities excluded women before 1895, the "Habilitation" of women scientists was forbidden up to 1919/20, and a full professorship was impossible for a woman before the late 50's. Only in the Kaiser Wilhelm Society were there no rules excluding women scientists.

1. The situation in 1912

What was the situation for women scientists in 1912, when the Kaiser Wilhelm Society was established and the first Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes were opened in Berlin-Dahlem? In which countries or fields could women scientists be active?

First, we'll consider the four most important European Academies of Science, in London, Paris, Berlin and St. Petersburg (table 1).

3 On Lise Meitner, see Ruth Lewin Sime (1996).

4 For the development of, and the competition between, these four Academies, see Conrad Grau (1988). Only in the Academy of Science in St. Petersburg were women scientists elected as - corresponding - members: In 1889 the Russian mathematician and first professor at the University of Stockholm, Sof'ja Vasil'evna Kovalevskaja (1850- 1891)5 was elected, but she died just two years later, in 1891. In 1907 the French physicist Marie Curie (1867-1934)6 was elected, a Polish native who received her first Nobel Prize in 1903, together with her husband and colleague Pierre Curie (1859-1906) and Henri Becquerel (1852-1908). In her homeland, the famous Marie Curie lost the election campaign in 1911 to enter the Parisian Académie des Sciences, and a harmful campaign was organized against her. Curie lost the election by 28 votes to 30, but her competitor Édouard Branly is completely forgotten. The terrible alliance against her even harmed her daughter, the scientist Irène Joliot-Curie (1897-1956).7 Therefore it was a particular satisfaction when in the same year, 1911, Marie Curie won her second Nobel Prize.

In the Berlin Academy of Science there was the amusing situation that one woman had been an honorary member of the Academy since 1899, the widow Marie Elisabeth (Elise) Wentzel, b. Heckmann (1833-1914), widow of the Royal architect (Kgl. Baurat) Wentzel (+1889). She received this honour because of the foundation which she established, and the sum of 1,5 million Goldmark which she donated to the Berlin Academy of Science.8 In 1912 another woman was paid homage. The Leibniz Medal in Gold was awarded to the Berlin maecenas Elise Koenigs (1848-1932), for her great support for various scientific projects of the Academy. For years she contributed enormous sums to different academic projects, some of these under the direction of Adolf von Harnack. He arranged behind the scenes for Elise Koenigs to get this

5 On Kovalevskaja, see Kowalewsky (1961); Koc*ina (1973, 1981); Koblitz-Hibner (1983, 1987); Bölling (1993); Tollmien (1995, 1997); Vogt (1988, 2000b).

6 On Marie Curie, see Abir-Am et al (1987), Boudia (1997), Eve Curie (1994), Roqué (1997), Vögtle (1988).

7 See Loriot (1991), p.51-52.

8 On Marie Elisabeth (Elise) Wentzel-Heckmann (20.3.1833 - 4./5.2.1914), see Hartkopf (1992) and Hartkopf (1991). honour9, and she was the first and last woman be recognised in this way by the Berlin Academy between 1900 (when the medal was founded) and 1945.

Although all Berlin newspapers reported the Academy's Leibniz Day (Leibniz- Tag), on July 4th,10 nothing was told about Koenigs. To this day we know only the dates of her birth and death11, but nothing about her life, her origins or her fate. Thanks to the proposal of von Harnack we know about her support for the projects of the Berlin Academy of Science, including the editions of the Bible under von Harnack, and her support for the Berlin Museum, for instance the collection of ancient coins. Furthermore she was a Member of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society from its origins in 1911 up to 1920.12 In contrast to the scientific members, she was a member who regularly paid a certain annual sum, but when she could no longer pay because of her financial situation after World War I, she had to cancel her membership.

When she died on February 13th, 1932 in Berlin, only one Berlin newspaper indicated her death. In this obituary notice was mentioned - for the last time - that she received the Leibniz Medal in Gold from the Prussian Academy of Science.13

9 See manuscript proposal for the election of Elise Koenigs by Adolf von Harnack, 7.2.1912, in: Archive BBAW, II-X,4, Bl.183 + 184R. See further, Archive BBAW: II-X,4, Bl.128 (2.2.1911), Bl.139 (9.2.11), Bl.163 (11.1.1912), Bl.165 (1.2.12), Bl.166 (8.2.12 und 22.2.12).

10 See "Vossische Zeitung", "Berliner Tageblatt", "Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger" and "Der Tag", all from July, 5th - with more or less the same little text without any further information.

11 See Amburger (1950), p.180. I thank Peter Th. Walther for this source. Amburger had mentioned Elise Koenigs among the winners of the Leibniz Medal in Silver but had "forgotten" to mention the Golden Medal.

12 She was not mentioned in Vierhaus/vom Brocke (1990), but one can find a brief document about her membership and the sums which she paid to the Society. See Archive MPA: FM 1911-1921, Bd.3/I.

13 See "Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger", 16.2.1932. However, no women scientists were elected to the Berlin Academy of Science before 1949.

In the Royal Society no women scientists were elected up to 1945.14

In Germany, only at the oldest Academy, the Leopoldina, was one woman scientist elected as early as 1902: the biologist Maria Gräfin von Linden (1869- 1936).15 She was elected by the presidium of the Leopoldina, which was constituted by representatives from each scientific section and the president, at that time the scientist Karl Freiherr von Fritsch. Gräfin von Linden received the votes of - among others - the botanist Eduard Strasburger, the physicist Ernst Mach, and the egyptologist Richard Lepsius.16

In 1912 two women provoked the attention of the public in Berlin, the above mentioned Elise Koenigs and the scientist Lydia Rabinowitsch-Kempner (1871-1935). The latter was a physician and bacteriologist who worked at the Institute for bacteriology (later the Robert-Koch-Institute) in Berlin. In 1912 she received the title (!) "professor", and immediately there were antisemitic reactions among the German public.17 Lydia Rabinowitsch-Kempner was an exception among the exceptions: she was a scientist, a wife and a mother of 3 children. From 1902 she was also the president

14 See Mason (1995), for a table of all 52 fellows between 1947 and 1994, pp.130- 131. On the Royal Society Fellows Charlotte Auerbach and Marthe L. Vogt, who were elected after 1945 but linked to the KWG before 1933, the year in which they went into exile to Great Britain, see Vogt (1999c, 1999d).

15 On von Linden, see Flecken (1996) and Flecken (2000). Flecken describes only the scholar Gräfin von Linden, not her membership of the Leopoldina.

16 Archive Leopoldina, thanks to Frau Dell (9.6.00 to AV). The members who voted for Gräfin von Linden were: Karl Freiherr von Fritsch, (the president), Albert von Kölliger, Eduard Strasburger, Benjamin Klunzinger, Ernst Mach, Karl Brandt, Alfred Jentzsch, Guido Stache, Richard Lepsius, and Julius von Hamm.

17 See Robert Kempner (1983), p.125. On Lydia Rabinowitsch-Kempner, see Pross/Winau (1984), S.149-151; Kotzur (1990), S.93-95; Graffmann-Weschke (1994), Vogt (1997c) and Vogt (1999a). of an association to help women students, founded in 1899 by the physicist Elsa Neumann (1872-1902), the "Verein zur Gewährleistung zinsfreier Darlehen an studierende Frauen".18

Whereas in most European countries the universities were opened to women students from the 1860s (Zuerich in 1864, for example), in Germany the universities were only opened to women students after 1900, and in Prussia only in the winter of 1908-1909. Maria Gräfin von Linden was the first woman assistant at a Prussian University, working at the Friedrich Wilhelms University, Bonn, from 1899. And she was the cause of the law against women scientists who wanted to become a "Privatdozent". In 1906 she saught to become a Privatdozent at the University of Bonn; although all her colleagues at the University supported her, the Prussian ministry proclaimed a law against women "Privatdozenten" in May 1908. It is no coincidence that this law was passed in May, while the law which allowed women to study regularly at Prussian Universities was passed at the end of August that same year, 1908.19

In 1912, 8 women students completed a thesis at the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Berlin. 2 worked in the field of sciences (Martha Hoffheinz in chemistry and Elisabeth Schiemann in botany) and 6 in the humanities (among them the economist Marie Elisabeth Lueders, later on one of the leaders of the women's movement in Germany).20

Last but not least, in 1912 Kaiser Wilhelm II. opened the first Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes (KWI) in Berlin-Dahlem, the KWI for physical chemistry and electrochemistry (the Haber Institute) and the KWI for chemistry21 where, very soon after its opening, the first women scientists were working.

18 On the association, see Vogt (1999a), pp.25-30; documents pp.142-150.

19 See Kuhn et al (1996), esp. p. 122, Brinkschulte (1998), pp. 51-70, and Vogt (1999f), pp.28-38.

20 See Vogt (1997a) (Index Book).

21 On the history of the KWG, see Vierhaus/vom Brocke (1990) and vom Brocke/Laitko (1996). On the women scientists in the KWG, see Vogt (1997b, 1997e, 1999e in print). 2. The new institution of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society - generally open to women scientists or a "niche"?

In the Kaiser Wilhelm Society alone were there no rules excluding women scientists. Before 1933 women scientists had almost equal rights. A comparatively large group of women scientists worked here and obtained positions. Women scientists obtained the position of heads of laboratories, and 12 women scientists became head of a department, a position which was comparable with the assistant professorship at Universities. Three women were scientific members of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, which was comparable with membership in the Academies of Science. The Kaiser Wilhelm Society (KWG) was not only a brilliant "niche" (Margaret Rossiter22), there were excellent working conditions up to 1933 and these partly endured from 1933 to 1945.

In about 40 Institutes (28 KWI and 14 research groups ("Forschungsstellen")) of the KWG, the author found 243 women scientists. From 1912 they worked, only in some Institutes, as scientists in different positions. Among the 28 KWI there were only six Institutes where no woman scientist worked between 1912 and 1945: in the KWI for coal research in Mühlheim (established in 1913), in the KWI for German history in Berlin (1914-1944), in the KWI for coal research in Breslau (founded in 1918), in the KWI for foreign private law in Berlin (founded in 1925/26), in the KWI for biophysics in Frankfurt/Main (founded in 1937/38) and in the KWI for viticulture in Müncheberg near Berlin (founded in 1942). There were eight possible positions both for men and women: the doctoral student (Ph.D. student), working with a scholarship (a grant), the scientific guest, the unpaid position, the (scientific) assistant or (scientific) collaborator, the head of a laboratory and last but not least the head of a department and the scientific member.23 The conditions were in principle the same for men as for women, but in

22 See Rossiter (1982), p.259. Margaret Rossiter described a similar phenomena for the USA. See her concept of "niche", Rossiter (1982), p.259. See also Rossiter (1995) and Rossiter (1993).

23 The description of these different positions is given in Vogt (1997e), pp.117- 121; the description of the head of a laboratory is missing because it only became relation to making a career, the men had more opportunities and developed their careers more quickly than their women colleagues. Women scientists were paid equally when they had the same positions as their male colleagues, at least up to 1933. Furthermore, women scientists could lead a department, even without the "Habilitation", and they could be nominated as a scientific member.

The structure of the Institutes and the procedure of appointment (or nomination, but not election) of the scientific members of the KWG was complicated, but in general the position of the director of one Institute and the position of a scientific member in this Institute were equivalent.24 The scientific members of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society were comparable with the members in the Academies of Sciences. In the whole period between 1912 and 1945, there were three women scientific members: the physicist Lise Meitner (1878-1968)25 from 1914 until to her escape in 1938, the brain researcher Cécile Vogt (1875-1962)26 from 1919 until her retirement in 1937 and the physicist Isolde Hausser (1889-1951)27 from May 1938. But only between May and July 1938, the date when Lise Meitner had to emigrate, were there three women members at once.28 These three women members among approximately 60 members in all equated to 5 %.29 As a known later on; in the meantime the author has found 12 heads of department in contrast to the 11 known in 1997.

24 See Friedrich Glum (1891-1974), general secretary of the bureaucracy of the KWG, in his 1928 description, Glum (1928), p.29.

25 On Lise Meitner, see especially Ruth Lewin Sime (1996).

26 On Cécile Vogt, see Richter (1996), Satzinger (1996a, 1996b, 1998a, 1998b, 1999), Satzinger/Vogt (1999), A. Vogt (1997b), S.212-214.

27 On Isolde Hausser, see Fuchs (1993, 1994) and Vogt (1997e), S.134-139.

28 Isolde Hausser was a scientific member on 30.5.1938; Lise Meitner had to leave Germany on 13.7.1938; Cécile Vogt was a fo reign scientific member of the KWI for Brain Research from 1937 until 1945.

29 See the "Handbook of the KWG", 1928. Here a list of all members was published, numbering exactly 64 on April, 1, 1928. In 1928 when there were 64 scientific members, including two women, the percentage was exactly 3,125 %. matter of fact, today, in the Max Planck Society (MPG), the successor of the KWG, there are five women scientific members. But, it should be borne in mind that there are around 270 scientific members, and 5 out of 270 equates to less than 2 %. Moreover, all three women scientific members of the KWG had no "Habilitation" when they were nominated, and only Lise Meitner made her "Habilitation" in 1922, 8 years after her nomination as a scientific member.

Lise Meitner further became a member of the Leopoldina in 1926, and Cécile Vogt30 became a member in the same Academy in February 1932, followed in March 1932 by the physicist Marie Curie (1867-1934) and the Russian-Soviet physiologist - and a friend of the Vogts - Lina Solomonovna S*tern (1878-1968)31. Lina S*tern was the first woman who acquired full membership in the Russian- Soviet Academy of Science in 1939.32

Incidentally, during the Nazi period both Lise Meitner and Lina S*tern were "deleted", S*tern in 1936 and Meitner in 1937, but not excluded like Meitner in Göttingen.33

30 See Präsident Abderhalden to C. Vogt, in: Archiv BBAW, NL Vogt, Nr.14. The date was February, 2, 1932.

31 Archive Leopoldina to Annette Vogt, 16.7.1998.

32 On Lina S. S*tern (Stern) (14.8.1878 - 7.3.1968), see: Stern (1930); BSE 2.ed., p.196 and 3.ed., p.495; Lustiger (1994), pp.1093-1101, Lustiger (1998), p.371-372; Hoffer (1999). BSE, 2oe izd., Moskva 1957, tom 48, p.196 with photo and BSE, 3oe izd., Moskva 1978, tom 29, p.495 (and the same photo p.494). But in the BSE nothing was written about her tragic fate, about her arrest, conviction and rehabilitation. On her arrest in 1948, her secret trial in spring in 1952 and her avoidance of conviction in November 1955 see Izvestija CK KPSS, No. 12/1989, pp.34-40 (in Russian); and Lustiger (1994, 1998).

33 See Leoplodina-Symposium (1995), p.207-208 (H. Bethge) and Gerstengarbe (1995), pp.168-204; list of "deletions" pp.173-176, p.173 (Stern), p.174 (Meitner). Why did the KWG offer obviously better conditions for women scientists - at least in some Institutes - than the universities or Academies? At least, three factors were responsible for this situation. Firstly, they were new institutes, only just founded. Therefore, the hierarchy at these institutes was likewise new and not so well established as at the institutes of the universities in this time. For that reason, it was possible for outsiders like women scientists to get a position in these institutes and, furthermore, to obtain a comparably higher position or to gain a position much earlier than in the other scientific institutions, such as institutes at the universities or Academies. The scientific membership was linked with the Institutes, not with the Society in general. The nomination was discussed in the Senat, a relatively small group of the representatives, not in a plenum as at the Academies. This procedure was comparable with that in the Leopoldina.

Secondly, in most of the cases, all these new institutes were established in comparatively new scientific fields or special fields. This was one of the conditions for creating a new institute. And just as was the case in new institutes, in institutes for a special scientific discipline no strict hierarchy existed. Furthermore, it was precisely these new scientific disciplines which were often chosen by outsiders like women scientists when they began to study and to think about a scientific career; of course, this choice was made more unconsciously than consciously.34

The third and main reason was the so-called "Harnack Principle". This principle was named for the first president of the KWG, the theologian Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930). The principle describes the reasons for the foundation of an institute, the conditions and the main working rationale for its structure, and the conduct of the director of such an institute. It meant that the institutes were created in a new special discipline for one individual. This individual was - in the optimal case - the most important scientist in his field at this time. Because the institute was created around this individual, he could effectively do whatever he wanted. The director of the institute had absolute freedom of choice over the research program, including the choice of scientists to solve the problems of the

34 See Rossiter (1982) and Rossiter (1995). See Michael Engel, who described the same behaviour for German-Jewish biochemists; Engel (1994), pp.pp.296-342. research program. The director could hire and fire the scientific assistants in his institute as he wished.

It is absolutely clear that the "Harnack Principle" played an enormous role for women scientists. In situations where the director favoured women scientists he could engage them. Furthermore, he was able to create a department for a woman scientist. But in the opposite situation, when the director did not favour women scientists (in general or in specific cases35), they had no chance of getting any position in his institute. The "Harnack Principle" had ambiguous effects concerning the employment of women scientists. Thus, in six of the 28 Institutes, no women scientists were employed, and the 12 women heads of department were in just eight of the 28 KWI.

Again we meet Adolf von Harnack, the member of the Berlin Academy of Science who in 1912 proposed awarding the Leibniz Medal in Gold to Elise Koenigs. He numbered among those scientists who favoured women scientists, and in both institutions where he was active, the Academy as well as the KWS (where he was the president), Harnack supported women scientists.

3. Different scientific institutions with varying degrees of openness towards women scientists.

The Universities in Germany excluded women scientists as students up to 1895/1908, as assistants before about 1914, and as members of the Faculty staff up to 192036.During the whole period, these procedures of exclusion were declared by special decrees or laws. A full professorship was impossible for women scientists even up to the late 50s, with the only two exceptions in the Weimar Republic.37

35 For example Elisabeth Schiemann (1881-1972) who, in 1928, was not able to obtain a position at the new KWI for Plant Research in Müncheberg near Berlin because her former dissertation advisor, the institute's head Erwin Baur (1875- 1933), did not want to engage her.

36 On the situation for women scientists at the Berlin University, see Vogt (1999f), pp.28-38.

37 Margarete von Wrangell (1876/77-1932) obtained the first full professorship in Germany at the College in Hohenheim near Stuttgart in 1923; Mathilde Vaerting Most of the European Academies of Sciences excluded women scientists as members before 1945, in Berlin as well as in London and Paris. This exclusion was universal in Germany, with the exceptions of the Leopoldina in Halle and the Academy in Göttingen. In Russia the Academy in St. Petersburg respectively in Moscow was an exception. In Norway the biologist Kristine Bonnevie (1872-1949) was a member of the Academy of Science in Oslo from 1912, and in 1912 she obtained a full professorship at the University in Oslo, at a time when women in Prussia had only been able to study at a university for four years.38

An enquiry into the reasons for this is no trivial matter. How was it possible to exclude women scientists from Academies for such a long time? There was no section in the statutes of Academies which specified this exclusion: women scientists were simply ignored. Similarly, the regulation restricting nominations for elections to persons who had attained a full professorship was not in force before 1914. This regulation automatically entailed the exclusion of women scientists because by law they could not be full professors.

What were the arguments for exclusion? Which scientists, including women scientists, had struggled against this kind of discrimination and at what times? To date we have no information about the situation in the Academies of Sciences concerning this problem. We know nothing about the inside discourses among the academicians, nor even about the existence of such discourses. Did they discuss the problem of women colleagues? Or was it not a theme among them? If they discussed the question, which arguments might they have used? Perhaps, later on, some material on this question will be found, but probably only in the personal papers of academicians, for example in letters.

One could transfer some lines of argument from known discussions about the "danger" of women undergraduates (for example as documented in Kirchhoff's

(1884-1977) became a full professor at the University in Jena; see v. Wrangell (1930), Andronikow (1935) and Fellmeth/Hosseinzadeh (1998) and Wobbe (1994).

38 See Bonnevie in Kern (1928), pp.187-198. The newspaper "Berliner Tageblatt" reported on her professorship ("Berliner Tageblatt", February 1912). book of 189739). Here were advanced three lines of argument: university work is dangerous for the women, therefore they must be excluded - with benefit to themselves; male scientists do not need further competition, and especially not from women; or the view that it would be possible but only for exceptions, for exceptional women. The last argument in particular was (and is) quite ambiguous.40

If one considers the history of women in academic institutions one finds three types of exceptions: the Maecenas, the foreigners and the exceptional women scientists. Sometimes, "outsider" and "exception" were equivalently used, and sometimes "outsiders" or "exceptions" could simultaneously be foreigners.

The role of the Maecenas

In the history of the European Academies we find some examples where the Academies of Science elected women because they were maecenas or patrons: in 1767 Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia, was elected as honorary member to the Berlin Academy, because of her political importance, in 1892 Therese, princess of Bavaria (1850-1925) was elected as honorary member to the Munich (Bavarian) Academy, and in 1897 she received a honorary doctorate from the Bavarian University in Munich,41 in 1899 Elise Wentzel-Heckmann was elected as honorary member to the Berlin Academy (as mentioned above); and the example of Elise Koenigs, in 1912, belongs here too.

The role of foreigners

It is a remarkable fact, but inadequately investigated, that in different countries at different times the "pioneers" among women scientists were foreigners. One might argue that they were the "exceptions squared". For example:

39 Kirchhoff (1897). See Vogt (2000e) (for the case of the astronomers).

40 See Vogt (1997e) (on Max Planck and the double meaning of "exception").

41 See Gesamtverzeichnis (1984), p.20; see also Häntzschel (1997), p.13 with photo. the Pole, Marie Curie, at the Sorbonne University in 1905 and in the Petersburg Academy in 1907, and the Russian "titular Professor" Lydia Rabinowitsch-Kempner in Berlin in 1912. Even in the Kaiser Wilhelm Society we find this phenomenon: the first two women scientific members were the Austrian Lise Meitner in 1914 and the Frenchwoman Cécile Vogt in 1919.

The same situation still appears after 1945 in relation to the first elections of women scientists in the Academy of Science in East Berlin: in 1949 Lise Meitner (1878-1968), holding Austrian and Swedish nationality, was elected as a corresponding member (as the first woman scientist in Berlin), in 1950 the Frenchwoman Irène Joliot-Curie (1897-1956) was elected as corresponding member as well, and in 1950 the Frenchwoman Cécile Vogt (1875-1962) was elected as honorary member, together with her colleague and husband Oskar Vogt (1870-1959).

The role of exceptions

Exceptions existed at three levels - among the women scientists (of course, the "pioneers" are the exceptions par excellence), among the scientists who supported their women colleagues, such as Max Planck or Adolf von Harnack, and among the academic institutions, such as the Leopoldina and the Göttingen Academy in Germany, or the St. Petersburg Academy, and last but not least the Kaiser Wilhelm Society itself.

If one considers the Academies, one finds that there were some Academies which did not exclude women scientists from about 1910 onwards - St. Petersburg (which admitted Sof'ja Kovalevskaja in 1889 and Marie Curie in 1907) and Oslo (which admitted Kristine Bonnevie in 1911), for example, or the Leopoldina in Germany (which admitted Maria Gräfin von Linden in 1902). But the most important and acknowledged Academies excluded women colleagues until the 1950s. The most remarkable example - in the negative sense - was Paris, where it was only in 1962 that a woman was elected: the physicist Marguerite Perey (1909-1975).42 (see table 1)

42 See Index (1979). Marguerite Perey (19.10.1909 à Villemomble, Seine - 13.5.1975 à Louveciennes). The same picture emerges if one considers the Academies in Germany and Austria, which were joined together in a "Kartell" from 1893. Only the Göttingen Academy elected a woman, the physicist Lise Meitner, in 1926. If one considers the Academies which are currently united to form the "Konferenz der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften" then one finds that the proportion of women scientists among the members of these Academies is still less than 5 % in most cases.43 (see table 2) Only the Leopoldina and the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, which did not belong to the "Kartell", in other words the oldest and the youngest academic organisations in Germany, had elected a comparatively large number of women scientists, and much earlier than the others. (see table 3)

In the Kaiser Wilhelm Society alone were there no rules excluding women scientists, from its origins in 1912 up to 1933, and even during the Nazi period the policy against women scientists was not so strictly implemented as at the Universities. But as a result, most of these women scientists from the break in 1933 and the Nazi period have been "forgotten"44, and in the Max Planck Society - the successor of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society - the relatively high degree of openness to women scientists was unthinkable before the 1990s, and has only became a subject of discussion in recent years.45

Conclusion

In seeking to summarize the results, one could argue that:

1. Among the academic institutions in Germany, the youngest (the Kaiser Wilhelm Society) and the oldest (the Leopoldina) appointed women scientists much earlier and were "pioneers" where women scientists were concerned. Both

43 Calculation by A. Vogt, source: Akademien (1998).

44 See Vogt (2000c, in press).

45 In MPG there were about 270 Scientific Members in 1998, with among them only 5 women members, i. e. 1,85 %. In that year a record was made of all Scientific Members between 1948 and 1997; there were 13 women scientists among 691 members, i. e. 1,88 %. See MPG (1998). institutions had a similar procedure for nominating (in the case of the KWS) or electing (Leopoldina) their members: it was carried out by a relatively small group of representatives including the president.

2. Academic institutions which were outsiders in their sphere - such as the KWS from the perspective of the "Kartell" of German Academies of Science - could and did choose women scientists (as outsiders or exceptions) much earlier than the others.

3. The women scientists - physicists, biologists, physiologists - who were appointed to these institutions, to the Academies as well as the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, and incidentally also to the Unions of their profession (for instance the Physical Society in Germany), were the first and for a long time the only women scientists who were accepted by their colleagues and treated as equal partners.

One could advance an explanation for the attitudes of male colleagues by appealing to the "invisible" roles existing in their scientific fields or areas, and to the strength of their confidence in "old-fashioned" rules or values such as objectivity, equality (of course only among the accepted elites, including the exceptions), fairness, and sometimes even chivalry.

But given these attitudes there could have been no certainty that women scientists would be treated as equal partners, on every level, at all times. Therefore, up to the present day, women scientists both in the Academies and in the other academic institutions, including the MPG, are still "pioneers", "exceptions" and "outsiders". Literature

Abir-Am et al (1987) Abir-Am, Pnina G., Outram, Dorinda (Ed.s) Uneasy Careers and intimate Lives. Women in Science 1789-1979. New Brunswick, London, Rutgers University Press, 1987.

Akademien (1998) Die Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften. Gesamtverzeichnis ihrer Mitglieder. Hrsg. Clemens Zintzen. Konferenz der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften. 1998.

Amburger (1950) Amburger, Erik. Die Mitglieder der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 1700-1950. Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1950.

Andronikow (1935) Andronikow, Fürst Wladimir (Hrsg.) Margarethe von Wrangell, das Leben einer Frau 1876-1932. München 1935.

Bölling (1993) Bölling, Reinhard. (Hrsg.) Briefwechsel Weierstraß-Kovalevskaja, Berlin 1993. (Die Autorin war mit Zuarbeiten beteiligt gewesen.)

Bonnevie (1928) Bonnevie, Kristine. (Selbstdarstellung). In: Kern, Elga (Hrsg.) Führende Frauen Europas. München, Verlag Ernst Reinhardt, 1928, S.187-198.

Boudia (1997) Boudia, Soraya. The Curie Laboratory: Radioactivity and Metrology. In: History and Technology 13 (1997) No.4, pp.249-265. Brinkschulte (1998) Brinkschulte, Eva. Preußische Wissenschaftsbürokratie im Zugzwang der Geschlechterfrage. Die Umfrage des Ministeriums für die geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medizinal-Angelegenheiten von 1907. In: Bleker, Johanna (Hrsg.) Der Eintritt der Frauen in die Gelehrtenrepublik. Husum, Matthiesen, 1998, S.51-70. (= Abh. zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwiss., H.84)

BSE Bol'saja Sovetskaja Enciklopedija. (Große Sovjet-Enzyklopädie) Moskau, 1945ff (2.Auflage), Moskau 1970ff (3.Auflage).

Eve Curie (1994) Curie, Eve. Madame Curie. Eine Biographie. Frankfurt/M., Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1994.

Engel (1994) Engel, Michael. Paradigmenwechsel und Exodus. Zellbiologie, Zellchemie und Biochemie. In: Fischer, Wolfram et al (Hrsg.) Exodus von Wissenschaften aus Berlin. Berlin, New York, de Gruyter, 1994, S.296-342.

Fellmeth/Hosseinzadeh (1998) Fellmeth, Ulrich und Sonja Hosseinzadeh (Hrsg.) Margarete von Wrangell und andere Pionierinnen. Die ersten Frauen an den Hochschulen in Baden und Württemberg. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung. Hohenheim, Mercator Verlag, 1998.

Flecken (1996) Flecken, Susanne. Maria Gräfin von Linden. In: Kuhn et al (1996), S.117-125.

Flecken (2000) Flecken, Susanne. Maria Gräfin von Linden. Wissenschaftlerin an der Universität Bonn von 1899 bis 1933. In: Barrieren und Karrieren. Die Anfänge des Frauenstudiums in Deutschland. Hrsg. Elisabeth Dickmann und Eva Schöck- Quinteros unter Mitarbeit von Sigrid Dauks. Berlin, trafo verlag, 2000, S.253- 269.

Fuchs (1993) Fuchs, Margot. Isolde Hausser (1889-1951), Physikerin in Industrie und Forschung. In: Annemarie Haase, Harro Kieser (Hrsg.) Können, Mut und Phantasie. Portraits schöpferischer Frauen aus Mitteldeutschland. Weimar, Köln, Wien, Böhlau-Verlag, 1993, S.149-164. Fuchs (1994) Fuchs, Margot. Isolde Hausser (7.12.1889-5.10.1951), Technische Physikerin und Wissenschaftlerin am Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Institut für Medizinische Forschung, Heidelberg. In: Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Bd. 17, Heft 3, 1994, S.201-215.

Gerstengarbe (1995) Gerstengarbe, Sybille, Heidrun Hallmann und Wieland Berg "Die Leopoldina im Dritten Reich". In: Leoplodina-Symposium (1995), S.168-204.

Gesamtverzeichnis (1984) Gesamtverzeichnis der Mitglieder der Bayerischen AdW, 1759-1984. München, Beck-Verlag, 1984.

Glum (1928) Glum, Friedrich. Die Kaiser Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften. In: Handbuch der KWG, Hrsg. Adolf von Harnack, Berlin, 1928, S.11-37.

Graffmann-Weschke (1994) Graffmann-Weschke, Katharina. Frau Prof. Dr. Lydia Rabinowitsch-Kempner. Die führende Wissenschaftlerin in der Medizin ihrer Zeit. In: Weibliche Ärzte. Hrsg. Eva Brinkschulte. Berlin, Edition Hentrich, 1994, S.93-102.

Grau (1988) Grau, Conrad. Berühmte Wissenschaftsakademien: von ihrem Entstehen und ihrem weltweiten Erfolg. Frankfurt/M. u.a. Verlag Deutsch, 1988.

Häntzschel (1997) Häntzschel, Hiltrud und Bußmann, Hadumod. (Hrsg.) Bedrohlich gescheit. Ein Jahrhundert Frauen und Wissenschaft in Bayern. München, Beck Verlag, 1997.

Handbuch KWG, 1928 Handbuch der Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft, Hrsg. A. v. Harnack, Berlin, Hobbing Verlag, 1928.

Hartkopf (1991) Hartkopf, Werner, Wangermann, Gert. Dokumente zur Geschichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften von 1700 bis 1990. Berlin u.a., Spektrum, Akademie-Verlag, 1991. Hartkopf (1992) Hartkopf, Werner. Die Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften. Ihre Mitglieder und Preisträger. 1700-1990. Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1992.

Hoffer (1999) Hoffer, Gerda. Lina Stern. In: Zeit der Heldinnen. Lebensnilder außergewöhnlicher jüdischer Frauen. München, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1999, S.159-184.

Index (1979) Index Biographique de L'Académie des Sciences, 1666-1978. Paris 1979.

Robert Kempner (1983) Kempner, Robert M. W. Ankläger einer Epoche. Lebenserinnerungen. In Zusammenarbeit mit Jörg Friedrich. Frankfurt/M., Berlin, Wien, Ullstein-Verlag, 1983.

Kirchhoff (1897) Kirchhoff, Arthur (Hrsg.). Die akademische Frau. Gutachten hervorragender Universitätsprofessoren, Frauenlehrer und Schriftsteller über die Befähigung der Frau zum wissenschaftlichen Studium und Berufe. Berlin, 1897 Berlin, Hugo Steinitz Verlag, 1897.

Koblitz-Hibner (1983) Koblitz-Hibner, Ann. A convergence of lives. Sofja Kovalevskaja: scientist, writer, revolutionary. Boston-Basel-Stuttgart. Birkhäuser. 1983.

Koblitz-Hibner (1987) Koblitz, Ann Hibner. Sofia Vasilevna Kovalevskaia (1850-1891). In: Louise S. Grinstein, Paul J. Campbell. (Ed.) Women of Mathematics. A Biobibliographic Sourcebook. Westport, Connecticut, London. Greenwood Press, 1987, p.103-113.

Koc*ina (1973) Koc*ina, P. Ja. (Hrsg.) Briefwechsel Weierstraß-Kovalevskaja, Moskva 1973.

Koc*ina (1981) Koc*ina, P. Ja. Sof'ja Vasil'evna Kovalevskaja (1850-1891). Moskva, Nauka, 1981, 312 S.

Komkov et al (1977/1981) G. D. Komkov, B. V. Levsin, L. K. Semenov. Geschichte der AdW der UdSSR. Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1981 (russisch 1977). Kotzur (1990) Marlene Kotzur. Steglitz - Frauen setzen Zeichen. Berlin 1990.

Kowalewsky (1961) Kowalewsky, Sonja: Erinnerungen an meine Kindheit. Weimar: Gustav Kiepenheuer Verlag, 1961.

Kuhn et al (1996) Kuhn, Annette und Valentine Rothe, Brigitte Mühlenbruch (Hrsg.) 100 Jahre Frauenstudium: Frauen der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. Bonn, edition ebersbach, 1996.

Leoplodina-Symposium (1995) Leoplodina-Symposium: Die Elite der Nation im Dritten Reich. Das Verhältnis von Akademien und ihrem wissenschaftlichen Umfeld zum Nationalsozialismus. In: Acta Historica Leopoldina, Nr.22, Halle 1995.

Lintner (1990) Lintner, Karl. Berta Karlik. Nachruf. In: Almanach der ÖAW, 140, 1990, S.305- 313.

Loriot (1991) Loriot, Noëlle. Irène Joliot-Curie. Paris, Presses de la Renaissance, 1991.

Lustiger (1994) Lustiger, Arno. Die Geschichte des Jüdischen Antifaschistischen Komitees der Sowjetunion. In: Grossman, Wassilie, Ehrenburg, Ilja (Hrsg.) Das Schwarzbuch. Der Genozid an den sowjetischen Juden. Dt. Hrsg. Arno Lustiger. Reinbek, Rowohlt Verlag, 1994, S.1093-1101.

Lustiger (1998) Lustiger, Arno. Rotbuch: Stalin und die Juden. Die tragische Geschichte des Jüdischen Antifaschistischen Komitees und der sowjetischen Juden. Berlin, Aufbau Verlag, 1998 (zu Lina Stern S.371-372).

Mason (1995). Mason, Joan. The Women Fellows' Jubilee. In: Notes and Records Royal Soc. London, 49 (1), 1995, pp.125-140; Tabelle aller 52 fellows von 1947 bis 1994 pp.130-131. MPG (1998) 50 Jahre Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Berlin 1998, Band 2, alphabetisches Mitgliederverzeichnis und Photographien.

Pross/Winau (1984) Pross, Christian/Winau, Rolf. Nicht mißhandeln. Das Krankenhaus Moabit. Berlin, Edition Hentrich, 1984.

Richter (1996) Richter, Jochen. Das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Hirnforschung und die Topographie der Großhirnhemisphären. Ein Beitrag zur Institutsgeschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft und zur Geschichte der architektonischen Hirnforschung. In: Bernhard vom Brocke, Hubert Laitko (Hrsg.) Die Kaiser- Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft und ihre Institute. Studien zu ihrer Geschichte: Das Harnack-Prinzip. Berlin, New York, Walter de Gruyter, 1996, S.349-408.

Roqué (1997) Roqué, Xavier. Marie Curie and the radium history. In: History and Technology 13 (1997) No.4, pp.267-291.

Rossiter (1982) Rossiter, Margaret W. Women Scientists in America. Struggles and Strategies to 1940. Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1982.

Rossiter (1995) Rossiter, Margaret W. Women Scientists in America. Before Affirmative Action. 1940-1972. Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1995.

Rossiter (1993) Rossiter, Margaret. The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science. In: Social Studies of Science, 23 (1993), pp.325-341.

Satzinger (1996a) Satzinger, Helga. Vom 'Artproblem' zur 'Genoplastik'. Die Entwicklung genetischer Fragestellungen im Werk von Cécile und Oskar Vogt 1909-1925. In: Biologisches Zentralblatt 115 (1996) S. 104-111.

Satzinger (1996b) Satzinger, Helga. Das Gehirn, die Frau und ein Unterschied in den Neurowissenschaften des 20. Jahrhunderts: Cécile Vogt (1875-1962). In: Meinel, Christoph und Renneberg, Monika. (Hrsg.): Geschlechterverhältnisse in Medizin, Naturwissenschaft und Technik. Bassum, Stuttgart: GNT Verlag, 1996, S. 75- 82.

Satzinger (1998a) Satzinger, Helga. Weiblichkeit und Wissenschaft - Das Beispiel der Hirnforscherin Cécile Vogt (1875-1962). In: Bleker, Johanna (Hrsg.): Der Eintritt der Frauen in die Gelehrtenrepublik. Zur Geschlechterfrage im akademischen Selbstverständnis und in der wissenschaftlichen Praxis am Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts. (= Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften, R. Winau und H. M Dietz (Hrsg.), Heft 84) Husum: Matthiesen 1998, S. 75-93.

Satzinger (1998b) Satzinger, Helga.: Die Geschichte der genetisch orientierten Hirnforschung von Cécile und Oskar Vogt in der Zeit von 1895 bis ca. 1927. Stuttgart, Deutscher Apotheker Verlag, 1998. (Braunschweiger Veröffentlichungen zur Geschichte der Pharmazie und der Naturwissenschaften, Bd.41) (Dissertation TU Braunschweig 1996)

Satzinger (1999) Satzinger, Helga. Die blauäugige Drosophila - Ordnung, Zufall und Politik als Faktoren der Evolutionstheorie bei Cécile und Oskar Vogt und Elena und Nikolaj Timoféeff-Ressovsky am Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Hirnforschung Berlin 1925-1945. In: Brömer, Rainer, Hoßfeld, Uwe, Rupke, Nikolas (Hrsg.): Evolutionstheorie von Darwin bis heute. Berlin, Verlag Wissenschaft und Bildung, 1999, S.161-195.

Satzinger/Vogt (1999) Satzinger, Helga und Annette Vogt. Elena Aleksandrovna und Nikolaj Vladimirovic* Timoféeff-Ressovsky (1898-1973; 1900-1981). Berlin, MPI für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 1999, Preprint Nr.112.

Ruth Lewin Sime (1996) Sime, Ruth Lewin . Lise Meitner. A Life in Physics. Berkeley, Univ. of California Press, 1996.

Stern (1930) Lina Stern. (Selbstdarstellung), in: Kern, Elga (Hrsg.) Führende Frauen Europas. Neue Folge. München, Verlag Ernst Reinhardt, 1930, S.137-140. Tollmien (1995) Tollmien, Cordula. Sofja Kovalevskaja. Weinheim und Basel, Verlag Beltz und Gelberg, 1995.

Tollmien (1997) Tollmien, Cordula. Zwei erste Promotionen: Die Mathematikerin Kowalewskaja und die Chemikerin Lermontowa. In: Tobies, Renate (Hrsg.) "Aller Männerkultur zum Trotz". Frankfurt/New York, 1997, S.83-109.

Vierhaus/vom Brocke (1990) Vierhaus, Rudolf, vom Brocke, Bernhard. (Hrsg.) Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft. Geschichte und Struktur der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max- Planck-Gesellschaft. Stuttgart, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1990.

Vogt (1988) Vogt, Annette: Wissenschaft und Persönlichkeit. Karl Weierstraß und Sonja Kovalevskaja. In: Wiss. Zeitschrift der FSU Jena, Naturwiss. Reihe, 37, 1988, H.2, S.271-278.

Vogt (1997a) Vogt, Annette. Findbuch (Index-Book). Die Promotionen von Frauen an der Philosophischen Fakultät von 1898 bis 1936 und an der Mathematisch- Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät von 1936 bis 1945 der Friedrich-Wilhelms- Universität zu Berlin sowie die Habilitationen von Frauen an beiden Fakultäten von 1919 bis 1945. Berlin, Preprint-Nr.57, 1997 (25 + 120 S.) MPI für Wissenschaftsgeschichte.

Vogt (1997b) Vogt, Annette. Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft wagte es: Frauen als Abteilungsleiterinnen. In: "Aller Männerkultur zum Trotz": Frauen in Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften. Hrsg. Renate Tobies. Frankfurt/M. und New York, Campus-Verlag, 1997, S.203-219

Vogt (1997c) Vogt, Annette. Berlins erste Professorin. Der "Milch-Skandal" machte sie berühmt. Lydia Rabinowitsch-Kempner - die erste vom Kaiser ernannte Professorin in Berlin. In: Berlinische Monatsschrift (6) Heft 7 / 1997, S.32-36.

Vogt (1997d) Vogt, Annette. "In Ausnahmefällen ja" - Max Planck als Förderer seiner Kolleginnen. Zum 50. Todestag von Max Planck. In: MPG-Spiegel, Heft 4/1997, S.48-53.

Vogt (1997e) Vogt, Annette. Vom Hintereingang zum Hauptportal - Wissenschaftlerinnen in der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft. In: Dahlemer Archivgespräche, Heft 2/1997, S.115-139.

Vogt (1999a) Vogt, Annette. Elsa Neumann - Berlins erstes Fräulein Doktor. Hrsg. der Dokumente und Essay. Berlin, Verlag für Wissenschafts- und Regionalgeschichte, Dr. Michael Engel, 1999.

Vogt (1999b) Vogt, Annette. Naturwissenschaftlerinnen-Portraits. In: Aufbrüche. Frauengeschichte(n) aus Tiergarten. 1850-1950. Ausstellungskatalog. Hrsg. Marlise Hoff. Berlin, Kulturamt Tiergarten, 1999, S.102-107. (Cécile Vogt, S.102-103; Elsa Neumann, S.104; Marthe und Marguerite Vogt, S.105; Elena Timoféeff-Ressovsky, S.106-107)

Vogt (1999c) Vogt, Annette. Die Wissenschaftlerin Charlotte Auerbach. In: Berlinische Monatsschrift 8 (1999) 10, S.54-59.

Vogt (1999d) Vogt, Annette. Fellow of the Royal Society - Die Wissenschaftlerin Marthe Vogt. In: Berlinische Monatsschrift 8 (1999) 11, S.44-49.

Vogt (1999e, in press) Vogt, Annette. Wissenschaftlerinnen der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft. A - Z. Berlin 1999 (in press). (Veröffentlichungen des Archivs der MPG, Band 12)

Vogt (1999f) Vogt, Annette. Aufbruch und Verdrängung. Wissenschaftlerinnen an der Berliner Universität zwischen 1918 und 1945/46. In: Frauen an der Humboldt-Universität 1908-1998. Hrsg. Hans Meyer, Berlin 1999, Humboldt-Universität, Öffentliche Vorlesungen, Heft 99, S.21-48.

Vogt (2000a) Vogt, Annette. Astronominnen in Berlin und Potsdam. In: 300 Jahre Astronomie in Berlin und Potsdam. Hrsg. Wolfgang R. Dick und Klaus Fritze. Frankfurt/M., Harri Deutsch Verlag, 2000, S.121-141. Vogt (2000b) Vogt, Annette. "Unsere Freundin hat eine Lebensaufgabe" (K. Weierstraß) - Zum 150. Geburtstag von Sof'ja Kovalevskaja. (Vortrag) Berlin, Humboldt- Universität, Festkolloquium am 15.1.2000. (Manuskript)

Vogt (2000c, in press) Vogt, Annette. Vertreibung und Verdrängung. Erfahrungen von Wissenschaftlerinnen mit Exil und "Wiedergutmachung" in der Kaiser-Wilhelm- /Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (1933-1955). Forschungsprogramm "Geschichte der KWG im Nationalsozialismus", Ergebnisse 2, 2000 (in press).

Vögtle (1988) Vögtle, Peter, Ksoll, Fritz. Marie Curie, mit Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten. Reinbek, rowohlts monographien, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 1988. vom Brocke/Laitko (1996) vom Brocke, Bernhard, Laitko, Hubert. (Hrsg.) Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck- Gesellschaft und ihre Institute. Studien zu ihrer Geschichte: Das Harnack- Prinzip. Berlin, New York, Walter de Gruyter, 1996.

Wiemers/Fischer (1996) Wiemers, Gerald, Fischer, Eberhard. Sächsische AdW zu Leipzig. Die Mitglieder von 1846 bis 1996. Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1996.

Wobbe (1994) Wobbe, Theresa. Mathilde Vaerting. In: Hahn, Barbara. Frauen in den Kulturwissenschaften. München 1994, S.123-135. von Wrangell (1930) Dr. chem. Fürstin Margarete Andronikow geb. Baronesse Wrangell, o. Professor und Leiterin des Pflanzenernährungsinstitutes, Hohenheim bei Stuttgart, (Selbstdarstellung) in: Führende Frauen Europas. Neue Folge. (25 Selbstschilderungen) Hrsg. und eingeleitet von Elga Kern. Verlag von Ernst Reinhardt München, 1930, S.141-151. 1

Table 11:Comparison: the four Academies of Science

Academy London Paris Berlin Petersburg year of found. 1660/62 1666 1700 1724/25

1912 woman - scientific member no no no S. V. Kovalevskaja 1911: Curie has lost CM 1889 (d. 1891) M. Curie CM since 1907 since 1899 hon. mem. Elise Wentzel-Heckmann

July 1912 - Leibniz Medal Gold Elise Koenigs first woman - scientific member 19451962 1949 1889 , 1907, 1939 Kathleen LonsdaleMarguerite Perey Lise Meitner S. V. Kovalevskaja

1945-1990 1962-78 1949-89 1917/39-1984 ∑ 47 ∑ 3 ∑ 16 ∑ 15

1 Done by A. Vogt, sources: Mason (1995), Index (1979), Hartkopf (1992) und Komkov et al (1981). 2

Table 22: Comparison: Academies of Science in Germany ("Kartell")

Academy Berlin Göttingen München Leipzig Wien Heidelb. year of found. 1700 1751 1759 1846 1847 1909 first women member 1949 1926 1936 1955 1948 L. Meitner L. Meitner Medea Norsa Paula Hertwig L. Meitner (human.)

1949-89 1926- 1936-84 1955-90 1948-96 ∑ 16 ∑ ∑ 8 ∑ 11 ∑ 3 (only in human.) 1997 no one

wom. mem. 1998: ∑ 13 ∑ 12 ∑ 6 ∑ 9 - ∑ 5 ∑ member 1998 ∑ 174 ∑ 293 ∑ 290 ∑ 175 - ∑ 169 in % 7,47 4,09 2,06 5,14 - 2,95

2 Done by A. Vogt, sources: Hartkopf (1992), Gesamtverzeichnis (1984), Wiemers/Fischer (1996) and Akademien (1998). 3

Table 33: not in the "Kartell"

Leopoldina Academy Kaiser Wilhelm Society Max Planck Society 1652 1912-1945 1948-2000 first women member 1789 Katharina von Daskova 1857 Jeanne S. M. Gayette-Georgens 1902 Gräfin Maria von Linden 1914 Lise Meitner 1919 Cécile Vogt 1926 Lise Meitner 1932 C. Vogt, M. Curie, L. S. Stern

1937 Ida Noddack 1938 Isolde Hausser 1940 Lotte Möller 1944 Erna Mohr

1902-1945: ∑ 8 1912-1945: ∑ 3

3 Done by A. Vogt, sources: Archive Leopoldina (List of all women members), Archive of the MPG and MPG (1998). 4

1948/52-90: ∑ 33 1948-1990: ∑ 10 1991-98: ∑ 6 1991-1998: ∑ 3