Epilogue: Collaborative Couples – Past, Present and Future

Nancy G. Slack

This new book explores many themes in the lives of collaborative couples in the sciences from the early 1800s through most of the twentieth century. A great deal has been written about women in science since Margaret Rossiter’s seminal book about American women scientists before 1940.1 Other more recent books explore the relationships between couples in literature and art, but For Better or For Worse? Collaborative Couples in the Sciences is the first comprehensive collection to take up the themes explored in Creative Couples in the Sciences (1996) and to elucidate more fully the nature of collaboration.2 The authors who wrote about the couples in both books considered the man’s scientific work and his part in the collaboration as well as the woman’s. Homosexual scientific couples, about which there is little previous study, are considered in the present book as well. Whether these collaborations were for “better or worse” – and for whom – has been pondered by many of the authors. In my view this question deserves special consideration in relation to changes both in societal attitudes and in the way science is done. A number of themes emerged from Creative Couples and from other accounts of scientific couples. In the present book, we can see how the more detailed and perhaps deeper look at collaboration accords with these themes. Several of the authors make excellent use of primary sources to elucidate the nature of collabora- tion between the husband and wife. In the case of Ida and Walter Noddack for example, laboratory notebooks and publications have been carefully analyzed (see Chapter 6, this volume). Both Creative Couples and the present book are limited to couples who are no longer alive; we need to look as well at more contemporary couples. Both society and the ways of doing science have changed greatly over time, changes worth exploring in the lives of collaborative couples. In this epilogue, I will review what I consider to be some of the major themes from previous research on collaborating scientific couples of the past and show how the present book expands the study of collaboration and elucidates these themes. I will then discuss living collaborative couples in science and how they have been affected by the problems of the past and by societal changes during the last 50 years. Finally, I will consider what the future may hold. Here I consider

A. Lykknes et al. (eds.), For Better or For Worse? Collaborative 271 Couples in the Sciences, Science Networks. Historical Studies 44, DOI 10.1007/978-3-0348-0286-4, # Springer Basel AG 2012 272 Epilogue

– and reconsider – a range of social factors and changes in respect to societal attitudes, anti-nepotism rules, affirmative action, spousal intimacy, divorce, commut- ing and telecommuting, as well as housekeeping and childcare assistance. In addi- tion I will consider new and future research on collaboration among same-sex couples, class dynamics, and the way science is now done and how this may affect future collaborating couples.

The Past

One might hope to find collaborative couples in which both partners, in most cases male and female, had equal opportunities, positions, scientific success and recogni- tion. This has rarely been the case. It is usually the male partner who has had, in the past, more of each of these, although this was not true for three of the couples discussed in Creative Couples (the Berkeleys, Lonsdales and Brandegees). In these it was the wife who had the better position and the greater recognition. Three of the collaborative Nobelist couples – the Curies, Joliot-Curies, and Coris – can be considered as nearly egalitarian as possible for their periods. But for almost all of the other couples who appear in that book, it was the husband who had the greater share of scientific success.3 As the editors of the current volume record in the Introduction, “collaboration” was consciously broadly defined in Creative Couples. The editors of that book, including myself, looked for collaboration in the sense of each scientist-spouse creating a nurturing environment for the other’s scientific work, even if the scien- tific work itself did not involve joint research and publications. I wish to highlight some of the themes that emerged in the earlier book as a means for considering what we can learn from these new and varied cases of collaborative couples presented in the current book.

Patterns of Collaboration

Among the couples studied, historians have found a number of different patterns. We can build on these here to advance the field. Many of the present volume’s contributors have delved into primary sources such as laboratory notebooks and correspondence to discover the true aspects of scientific collaboration among the couples they wrote about, from the Marcets in the eighteenth century to the Lwoffs in more modern times. Eighteenth century wives with an interest in science either before, or in some cases after, marriage to a scientist became members of the “family firm” as so ably told by Ann Shteir for English botanical couples.4 Another early example is that of the Sullivants, in which the established scientist, William Starling Sullivant (1803–1873) trained his wife to be an excellent scientific assistant, and to illustrate Epilogue 273 his publications.5 She earned praise but not scientific recognition. Thus, marriage could begin a life in science for a woman like Eliza Wheeler Sullivant (1817–1850), or could end it abruptly, as in the case of the eighteenth century Jane Colden (1724–1766), a botanist who was taught by and collaborated with her father.6 In these early eras, professional positions for women as scientists were essentially lacking on both sides of the Atlantic. What of the husband-creator/wife-assistant pattern? This was the well- documented relationship of Edith Schwartz Clements (1874–1971) and her cele- brated American ecologist husband Frederic Clements (1874–1945).7 They married in 1899; he had already published a book on ecology. Edith Clements was Frederic’s Ph.D. student; this relationship rarely led to egalitarian collaborations. Edith became his assistant in everything from photography to car repair during their many botanical travels in the western U.S., but the theoretical ideas, publications, and renown were all his. Other wives who were taught by their husbands, in addition to Edith Clements and Eliza Sullivant, were Elizabeth Coxen Gould (1803–1840) and Margaret Lindsay Huggins (1848–1915). All did good scientific work – with varying degrees of recognition. Eliza Sullivant received high praise from her husband for her (published) scientific drawings of mosses – but only after she died of cholera in 1850.8 Elizabeth Gould’s bird paintings often appeared under John Gould’s (1804–1881) name, but eventually she was “discovered” and her paintings exhibited in London museums – but long after she died of puerperal fever after childbirth in 1841.9 Margaret Huggins’s story is somewhat different. Born in 1848, she married a well-known scientist, William Huggins (1824–1910), one of the founding fathers of stellar spectroscopy. Margaret was 24 years younger than her husband, and knew nothing of astronomy; he taught her. They did collaborative research for 35 years in their garden observatory at Tulse Hill, London. Their letters and notebooks, exam- ined by Barbara Becker, make clear her own important contributions to science. But the Huggins’ presented themselves as the ideal Victorian couple: he the creator, she the able assistant. She herself wrote, “None of you know how hard we worked here, just our two unaided selves.” However, her scientific work was recognized with a government pension “for services to Science.”10 For better or worse? In that era, I would suggest “for better” both for the husband and the wife. This pattern has received further needed scrutiny in the present book in a study of the Rayleighs’ collaboration. As Donald Opitz relates (Chapter 3, this volume), Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919), winner of a Nobel Prize in physics for the discovery of argon, and Lady Rayleigh (1846–1934) were part of an older tradition of science carried out in a country house, in this case with a very well equipped laboratory. Lady Rayleigh’s scientific role however was more of the husband-creator/wife- assistant pattern – at least according to her husband. But Opitz has found, using primary sources, that she had a wider role than the more usual wife/household manager. She did both computations and experiments, and she even looked for mistakes in his work. Her help was acknowledged in a few of Lord Rayleigh’s 446 papers. 274 Epilogue

Rossiter pointed out that male zoologists married to women zoologists benefited because these women were probably not able to find paid positions and were thus free (and often trained) to assist in their husbands’ research.11 In some cases their names appeared on their husbands’ papers; in most cases they did not. This pattern, however, continued throughout the twentieth century. Some wives I interviewed on this point were content with their role, especially if they had children. In addition, those whose husbands traveled for their research, whether in zoology or astronomy or other sciences, were able to travel with them and assist in the field, unencum- bered by academic positions they did not themselves possess.

Anti-nepotism Rules

Several of the authors of this book showed how the scientific careers of both American and European wives were circumscribed by the policies of universities or other institutions that hired their husbands. This was true for Ida Noddack (1896–1978), as noted by Brigitte van Tiggelen and Annette Lykknes (chapter 6, this volume). After Ida gave up her own paid position to collaborate on the missing elements 43 and 75 and married Walter (1893–1960), she was an unpaid “guest” collaborator at his institution and later at several universities. This was also true for the Whitings (see Chapter 7) and for the “vanishing wives” of the Nobel laureate husbands in England, Denmark, and France (see Chapter 4). The women may have been able to do research in their husbands’ laboratories but they were not able to obtain faculty appointments or other positions that assured them a rising career path. That path led to higher appointments, capable graduate students with whom to collaborate, and recognition for their research. In the case of the latter three, this was the highest recognition possible, the Nobel Prize. Until quite recently many such wives, often with Ph.D.s, were unable to find academic employment because of specific university anti-nepotism rules. The husband received the academic appointment; the wife could not obtain one at the same university. These women scientists sometimes became research associates or part-time instructors. These rules continued throughout the twentieth century in some American universities and many still continue in other countries. Anti-nepotism rules affected many women scientists who received Ph.D.s in the 1950s and 1960s. Surveys of colleges and universities between 1949 and 1958 showed that 54–62% of these institutions had some kind of anti-nepotism practice, from a total ban on the employment of any relatives, to a ban on permanent hiring of immediate family members, including spouses. On the eighteen campuses of the California state college system, these rules did not permit couples to teach at the same college, much less in the same department. Such rules affected many women. In 1970, 336 faculty members at the University of California, Berkeley were surveyed, and it was found that 58 spouses had been adversely affected by anti-nepotism rules, including 23 with Ph.D.s, 22 of whom were in the same or closely related fields as their husbands. A 1972 survey of married women chemists Epilogue 275 with Ph.D.s found 42% who had been adversely affected by these rules. Ninety-five percent were married to other scientists, and of these 60% were also chemists.12 Unmarried women scientists with tenure could be – and were – removed by this rule if they later married. Pennsylvania State University in the 1950s, and later Oregon State University, notably encouraged the hiring of couples, each member to a faculty position. Other colleges and universities hired couples for one joint position, which worked well for some couples with children, but this practice was considered exploitative by others. Often, each spouse worked considerably more than half time for one salary. Some universities did get around their anti-nepotism rules for exceptional scientific couples, but even then the wife usually had a lower faculty rank. Some new private and state universities, for example Brandeis and the State University of New York at Stony Brook, did hire couples right from the beginning. Couples worked at the Smithsonian Institution from early in this period, but the women were almost all without salary or position. Married women scientists, including minority women, worked in federal agencies as well, often with the same rules for couples as the academic institutions. The U.S. Congress did adopt anti-nepotism rules in federal employment in 1967.13 For some scientific couples nepotism could also work in favor of the woman. Elizabeth Britton (1858–1934) was the only woman botanist to be accepted as a charter member of the American Botanical Society. She did research and published many papers. She had a professional position in the early twentieth century, as a curator at the New York Botanical Garden. She was well qualified for this position but her appointment was made by her husband Nathaniel Britton (1859–1954). He was Director of the Botanical Garden. Her appointment letter, signed by her husband, is still extant.14

The Widowed and Divorced

Couples do not always remain together. Some couples divorce; some wives become widows. A poignant example of the effect of a divorce on a collaborative scientific couple is given in this volume, in the case of Astrid Cleve von Euler (1865–1968) and Hans von Euler-Chelpin (1873–1964) (see Chapter 5). The best chance for a woman to succeed in science at the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century was to marry and to be widowed – with or without children.15 This was not an elected strategy for couples, to be sure, but widows had fulfilled the requirements of society, and were thus “allowed” to work. Several botanists, including Almira Lincoln Phelps (1793–1884), Wanda Kirkebride (1895–1983), Alice Eastwood (1859–1953), Mary Katharine (Kate) Layne Brandegee (1844–1920), and Agnes Chase (1869–1963), all widows, did find paid positions. Some remarried. Lincoln Phelps’s husband, not a scientist, was very supportive of her continued work in science. Kate Layne Brandegee and her husband, Townshend Brandegee (1843–1925), became a collaborative couple, very close to an egalitarian 276 Epilogue one; she actually had the better position. They both did important research in plant taxonomy, although in most cases separately. This was clearly a loving collaborative couple to judge by the many letters they exchanged when she was away in the California Sierra on research trips.16 In more recent years divorce has had similar effects for some women in science. However painful the divorce may have been, it seems to have left these women free to pursue their own paths. This was true, for example, of Grace Pickford (1902–1986), who did published collaborative work in limnology with her husband, G. Evelyn Hutchinson (1903–1991) early in their marriage. He had a faculty position at Yale; she did not. After their divorce she did research in completely different fields and became a very well-known scientist as well as the first woman full professor at Yale.17 Jean Langenheim, in a recent autobiography, described her life in science.18 Born a generation later than Grace Pickford in 1925, she also did collaborative research with her husband early in their marriage. She followed him to two universities where there were no real faculty positions available for her. After their divorce, however, she branched off into different fields in which she did excellent research, became president of two national societies, was a full professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and mentored many graduate students. Neither of these women sought their divorces. More examples have emerged with rising divorce rates. Two couples out of ten in the Cornell study described below divorced; for one couple, this was after the woman had, like Jean Langenheim, twice followed her husband to his positions. After their divorce she was able to complete a Ph.D. and become a well-known innovative scientist, win research prizes, and become a full professor at a major university and the president of her society. Not all divorces had these positive effects, however. Another example comes from For Better or For Worse. As Kristina Epsmark and Christer Nordlund showed, Astrid Cleve von Euler did very successful collaborative research with her husband after they married in 1902; they published nineteen articles together. But both the collaboration and their marriage ended. In this case, although Cleve did continue in science, it was extremely difficult for her and a downward spiral, while her former husband Hans von Euler-Chelpin’s career spiraled continually upward. The authors use much primary material to elucidate the public and private reasons for the failure of both collaboration and marriage, a study that sheds light on gender power imbalances of that era. Divorce may have been less common among scientific couples than in the general public. Among almost 200 “better-known” scientific couples identified by Rossiter who were working between 1950 and 1970, only sixteen had divorced, but among these were notables like Margaret Mead (1901–1978) and Gregory Bateson (1904–1980); G. Evelyn Hutchinson and Grace Pickford; Joshua (1925–2008) and Esther Lederberg (1922–2006), and William Masters (1915–2001) and Virginia Johnson (b. 1925). The great majority of the nearly 200 couples worked in the same sub-fields.19 Some of these sub-fields were broad, however, and many of the Epilogue 277 couples known to this author did not actually collaborate on their research and publications.

The Most Successful Collaborative Couples?

One could argue that it was better for women, including those widowed or divorced, to remain single in order to achieve scientific success, but widows who remarried and other early women scientists who married did succeed, with their husbands, as egalitarian collaborative couples. It was important for these women to have achieved some training and status in science before marrying. This was true for Kate Brandegee’s remarriage and for Edith Bellamy’s (1878–1956) marriage to Forrest Shreve (1878–1950). The Shreves were an early egalitarian botanist couple; Forrest was an exceptionally egalitarian husband: “Mrs. Shreve was [in the labora- tory] trying out the balanced pot method of determining the water movement in her cacti and I was drawing the vegetation map – and doing the cooking,” he wrote in 1915.20 In this case, the marriage can be said to have benefited both partners’ scientific success. Apart from the two generations of Curie couples, about whom much has been written, Carl (1896–1984) and Gerty Radnitz Cori (1896–1957), also joint Nobel Prize winners, both born in Europe, represent the best case that can be made for a highly successful egalitarian collaborative couple in science, as demonstrated by Mildred Cohn in Creative Couples and noted by Joy Harvey in the present vol- ume.21 Here, too, spousal intimacy may well have been the basis for creativity in science that neither could have realized alone. The Coris received M.D.s, wrote their first joint paper and married, all this in 1924, and moved together to the U.S. 2 years later. By that time their interests had changed to medical science, and they both got positions at the future Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. He arrived in the U.S. first. They were separated for some time, she still in Europe, surely unusual for married couples at that time, but a fact of life for many collaborative couples later. When Gerty first arrived in Buffalo there was opposi- tion to their scientific collaboration. According to Mildred Cohn, a distinguished scientist who worked with the Coris at a later time, Gerty was told that she would lose her position in the Pathology Department unless she stayed in her laboratory and stopped working with Carl in biochemistry. They persevered however, and produced joint papers from 1922 to 1931, working on glucose metabolism in relation to diabetes. Thirteen of their joint papers concerned blood glucose level and its regulation by insulin and epinephrine. In another incident, related to a faculty position offered to Carl Cori at a nearby university, Gerty Cori was told that it was “un-American” to collaborate with her husband and that she was standing in the way of his career. Carl had the major position both in Buffalo and afterwards at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. In 1931 he was offered both a professorship and the directorship of the 278 Epilogue

Pharmacology Department at Washington University; Gerty was offered a research position in pharmacology. However, her progress up the academic ladder was slow, to research associate and then to associate professor in 1943; she was not promoted to full professor until just before the Coris won the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1947. The Coris did much collaborative work and publishing, but each also worked with others, as equal scientific partners in both cases.22 Many successful women scientists seem to have been exceptionally, perhaps excessively, dedicated to their work, with Marie Curie (1867–1934), perhaps as the archetype. Gerty Cori, on broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow’s This I Believe radio show said, “The love for and dedication to one’s work seem to me the basis for happiness. For a research worker the unforgotten moments of his [sic] work are ones which come after years of plodding work, when the veil over nature’s secret seems suddenly to lift and when what was dark and chaotic appears in a beautiful light and pattern.” Those words could have been written by Marie Curie – including the “plodding work.” Carl Cori’s autobiographical words include something simi- lar: The “frontiers of physics, astronomy and biology and the instrument of their study, the human mind, fill one with wonder.” But he also had time in his life for the great creations of art and architecture. From all these and from contact with nature, love, and friends, he felt “spring the joy of living.”23 The Coris were a truly successful collaborative couple in which scientific creativity may well have been engendered through living and working together.

The Present

In this section I discuss trends which affected scientific couples who are still alive, some of whom are still doing science. This was not true of the couples in either Creative Couples or in the present book. Some of these scientists were trained in the 1950s and 1960s, a few even in the 1940s, but many, both the men and the women, have had long active working years. Many of the women among them did not achieve research awards, presidencies of societies, or full professorships until late in their careers. Many changes have also taken place during these years, both in society and in the way science is done.

Commuting Couples

Some present trends began in the past but changed during the lives of collaborative couples who would otherwise have followed the old pattern in which the wife, although a scientist, was subordinate to the husband. Anna Rachel (1892–1981) and Phineas Whiting’s (1887–1978) collaborative marriage, as analyzed by Marsha Richmond (see Chapter 7, this volume) seemed a classic example of this old pattern. They began their collaboration in the U.S. about the same time as the Epilogue 279

Coris, that most successful of egalitarian American collaborative couples. Anna Rachel Whiting did have success in science, albeit in her husband Phineas’ field and also in his physical territory. But for Anna Rachel, marriage meant an interesting research career, and for a time marriage provided support when she had no position of her own; she was the subordinate partner (“for worse”). But when Phineas lost his job she supported her husband with her own academic position, surely “for better” for both of them. Anna Rachel also supported Phineas psychologically through his political difficulties in academia, irrespective of whether she shared his political beliefs. A critical strategy to their success, as Richmond noted, was to endure periods of commuting, surely unusual and disapproved of in the 1920s. If Anna Rachel had not married Phineas? She would probably have earned a Ph.D. in botany and a position teaching at a woman’s college – which she certainly would have lost if she had later married. Moreover, her opportunities to do research would surely have been fewer. The choices for women scientists were not great in the 1920s. With the choice she made, she had both a research and teaching career until 1968. The commuting strategy she and Phineas used might not have been possible if they had had children. Geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan (1866–1945) and his wife Lillian Vaughan Morgan (1870–1952) were the Whitings’ friends, but Lillian did not follow Anna Rachel’s path. She left her earlier scientific work in her husband’s laboratory while raising their four children. But she returned to the laboratory afterward and made important discoveries in Drosophila genetics. She of course never reached T.H. Morgan’s accomplishments and renown. Whether the Morgans, on closer scrutiny, were actually a collaborating couple in the sense of the present book awaits future research.24 Back to the present. I interviewed several academic couples at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute who were commuting in the 1980s.25 In one case the wife commuted from Troy, in upstate New York, to New York City, where her husband worked. Another wife commuted from Troy to California. These couples had no children and found that commuting worked out well for them. They worked hard during the week and had quality time together on the weekends, though in most cases not every weekend. The cost of the commute and of having two residences, however basic, needed to be factored in. But in all these cases, both halves of the couple wanted to continue her or his work. Another couple, both in engineering, was at Columbia University where the husband had a faculty position but the wife did not. When she was offered a faculty position in the Midwest, she took it even though they had a small baby. The baby went with her and the husband did the commuting. This couple, like the Whitings, commuted several times in their academic and scientific careers. More recently she was offered an excellent position at a distant university, which her husband encouraged her to take. She became a commuter again. Eventually he found a position in the same university and followed her there. For most commuting couples who had children, the children stayed with the wife rather than the husband, and adequate help was hard to find. Naomi Gerstel and Harriet Gross wrote a definitive book about commuter marriage in the mid-1980s.26 Two career-oriented people may choose commuting in order that their marriage does not force them to sacrifice individual advancement 280 Epilogue and success. These two, however, still hope to share a residence in the future. In general, Gerstel and Gross concluded, the woman felt liberated but the man no longer has a wife at home to work for him and may thus feel deprived. In my experience, times have changed since then. In contemporary collaborative scientific couples who spend many hours in the lab, the wife is no longer expected to do the cooking; they are more likely to forage or eat out much of the time – sometimes even with their children. Childcare tends to be the contemporary problem.

The Help

The 1950s have been considered a particularly conservative time in the U.S. and elsewhere, especially in attitudes toward women. Women, many of whom had done important jobs during World War II in the factories and in science as well, lost their jobs when the men returned and encouraged them to have babies and make cakes. The result was today’s “baby boomers” and a great many women whose only career was “homemaker.” A noble career, but not conducive to the increase in the number of women scientists, which had been a trend according to statistics given by Rossiter, in the decades before, and during World War II.27 As a corollary, household appliances replaced household help.28 Before World War II many middle class American families had live-in help or at least regular household help. The women who constituted the help found better jobs during the war and did not want to return to their previous positions. At the same time it became possible for many more young families to have houses of their own and the number of children per family increased for the first time since the pre-Depression years. This was true of families where the women were well educated, some of them trained in science. In one cohort of families in which the husbands worked at the General Electric (GE) Research Laboratory in Schenectady, New York, the mean number of children in the early 1960s was over three; some families had four and others had two; no family in this group had a single child. The men all had Ph.D.s; the majority of the women had graduate training, mostly Master’s degrees; four in science or mathematics. One had a Ph.D. in chemistry. None of these women had full-time jobs, and part-time jobs hardly existed then, at least in science. There was little or no household help; there was essentially no daycare. And because by that time it was a very mobile society, few had mothers or other relatives nearby who could help. All the husbands worked from nine to five and were unavailable on weekdays except for emergencies. Very few women scientists were hired at GE at that time. Of those who were, nearly all were single; collaborative couples were hardly a possibility. In the past, by contrast, scientific couples had live-in help. The Coris had a son, born when Gerty was 40, but they both continued to work; they had a full-time housekeeper. She must have had a variety of skills since they frequently entertained their colleagues, particularly European scientists who came to their laboratory after Epilogue 281

World War II. Gerty was able to continue their research, with Carl’s support, even while suffering for many years from an incurable disease, myelosclerosis.29 As Kristina Espmark and Christer Nordlund noted (see Chapter 5), a collabora- tive couple in Sweden had a live-in nanny who, unlike many, is a known historical person, Valborg Jakobsson (1868–1924). She wrote about Hans von Euler-Chelpin and Astrid Cleve von Euler in their early collaborative days: “They worked alongside one another both morning and night to achieve their goals.”30 This would not have been possible without Jakobsson’s help; there were five children. Servants were also present in many middle-class American homes in the earlier part of the twentieth century but much less so after World War II. Collaborative women scientists in the second half of the twentieth century, especially those with children, did not have the kind of household help their mothers might well have had. There were cooperative nurseries in the 1950s and 1960s, but these required participation, almost always from the mother. There was almost no available daycare except for some factory workers. This situation continued until the advent of daycare in its many forms, including care for children of married graduate students at major universities.31 My generation had none; we improvised as best we could. But my daughter had daycare for her daughter while she was a science graduate student at a university in the western U.S. In Europe daycare was available earlier, in some European countries with government subsidies. Couples with small children in some of these countries were both expected to work. In Sweden by the 1970s there was paid “maternity” leave for five months after the baby was born which either the wife or the husband could take. The government also supported both good daycare and trained “day- mothers” that came to the house at reasonable cost. The latter enabled both husband and wife in one collaborative couple I knew to continue full-time research in physics after their son was born. In another case the father stayed home with the baby and the mother continued to work full time. The length of maternity/paternity leaves is longer now in Sweden. In Norway at present the leave is ten months at full pay or twelve months at 80% pay, and it can be shared by mother and father. Recently, however, the parental leave has been extended, and now twelve weeks are reserved for the father.32 None of these arrangements were present in the past nor are available now in the U.S. In the past women with small children were not supposed to work full time. Women scientists like myself, who wanted to continue to work even part-time had to struggle to find baby-sitters – and against societal mores as well.

Longitudinal Studies: Women in the Ecological Society of America and Cornell Couples

Jean Langenheim, while President of the Ecological Society of America (ESA), gave a lecture and later published an article about women ecologists who 282 Epilogue had successful research careers.33 She divided them into “Late Pioneers” (Ph.D.s between 1940 and 1960) and “The First Modern Wave” (Ph.D.s between 1960 and 1975). Langenheim herself is a member of the Late Pioneers. I am a member of the First Modern Wave (Ph.D. 1971); there are 28 of us in this group in her article. In an ESA survey done in 1962 she found a great many young women members; 42% of society members between 21 and 25 were female. She herself, who has had a very productive research career, at first did collaborative research with her husband. At the end of her article Langenheim wrote that although there were a great many young women ecologists in the 1990s it might still be more difficult for women to find employment because of problems associated with marriage or family. I tabulated the statistics from her article and found that the outlook for married women, including even those with children, greatly improved between the Late Pioneers and the First Modern Wave. Of the fourteen successful women Ph.D.s in the 1940–1960 cohort, half never married and only two had children. In the following cohort of 28, the First Modern Wave, however, only five had never married and 21 had children, including two who never married. Some of these women married scientists, but their collaborations have not yet been studied. In the past historians of science have bemoaned the lack of longitudinal studies of women in science. Nor are there published longitudinal studies for scientific couples. We only know about those women whose discoveries, publications, institutions or even obituaries proclaimed their work in science, or for collaborative couples whose husbands, for example William Sullivant, gave them credit for their aid in their scientific endeavors. What about all those women, particularly in the twentieth century who studied science at colleges and universities but for the most part did not become noted scientists?34 Women students had become a critical mass in some sciences, particularly biology, even by 1940. Rossiter was the first to closely examine women scientists in America, including many who were largely unknown, whom she found in American Men of Science and other sources.35 In the early 1970s I was asked to write something about early botanical explorers in the Adirondacks Mountains in northern New York State. I went to the New York Botanical Garden and looked at the labels on specimens that had been collected in the Adirondacks, and found rather to my surprise, that even in the nineteenth century women were collecting in the wild and quite difficult Adirondack High Peaks, including those mountains with alpine flora. Some of these women were married, but apart from Elizabeth and Nathaniel Britton, probably did not have collaborating husbands. These botanical women reappeared in letters written to Charles Horton Peck, New York’s first State Botanist, and in obituaries from their hometown newspapers – but nearly all of them are largely unknown.36 Nor is it known what influenced them to do this arduous botanical work. In all these cases we have only the end results, visible in collected specimens or their letters discussing botanical science. I conducted a rather serendipitous longitudinal study of ten couples over a 50 year period.37 The women graduated from Cornell between 1952 and 1954 and were all biology majors, although in different areas of biology including zoology, Epilogue 283

Fig. 1 Jordani members in the early 1950s at Cornell University. Two of the three women married two of the men in the photo and became collaborative couples (Courtesy of Nancy Slack) genetics, cytogenetics, and pre-medical studies. I knew them as undergraduates and kept up with them after we graduated. Six of us were zoology majors, and most belonged to Jordani, a zoology club named for David Starr Jordan (1851–1931). Jordani had a long history at Cornell but admitted only male students before 1950. In that year and thereafter it became a minor Wood’s Hole. Four of the women zoology majors in the study (including two pictured in Fig. 1) became members of Jordani and married fellow Jordani members. All ten of us married scientists. Four women zoology majors married male zoology majors. We all became collab- orative scientific couples, at least in the broader sense of the term. Who knew what would become of these ten scientific couples in the succeeding 50 years? Would they remain in science? Would they obtain advanced degrees? Would they have successful marriages? Have children? Be divorced? Would the women follow their husbands to their professional positions or find their own? Would the women biologists collaborate with their husbands, and if so, as helpmeets or as independent scientists? Would the science the women carried out be recognized and rewarded? Would the husbands be more or less successful scientists? The answers to all these questions are known. We must, however, keep in mind that this is not a complete sample of all Cornell biology majors 284 Epilogue from that period; Cornell University was unable to provide that information.38 A brief summation of the study follows. All but one of the women married fellow Cornell science students, three of us while undergraduates, the others shortly after graduation. The exception, the genet- ics major, was turned down for graduate studies at Cornell. She was however accepted by Yale University for her Ph.D. and married a mathematics graduate student there. All of us had children, two, three or four (with a median of three). Two of the women divorced and one was widowed, all fairly early in their careers. All of the women received further degrees. Two became physicians and practiced medicine. Six obtained Ph.D.s., three immediately after undergraduate study (from Harvard University, Yale University, and the University of Wisconsin, Madison). The other three women received doctorates considerably later. All of the husbands went directly from obtaining their undergraduate degrees from Cornell to obtaining Ph.D.s from a variety of institutions. Two couples married soon after their Cornell graduations and attended graduate school together (at Harvard and Wisconsin). Two other women continued their graduate education with Master’s degrees, one in science, one in teaching. The M.D.s became practicing physicians. All the rest continued in science, two of the husbands in physics, one in mathematics, the others in biology. In most cases they did not do strictly collaborative scientific research even when wife and husband were both zoologists. But as can be learned in this volume and in Creative Couples, there are many kinds of collaboration between spousal scientists, not only in terms of managing the household but also in terms of mutual support, discussion of research and scientific ideas, shared meetings and travels, and aid in editing and publishing. What opportunities did the women biologists have after graduate school? Although we were not all collaborative couples in a strict sense, we were all scientific couples in biology, medicine, or other sciences. For better or for worse? The barriers for women in science were not as overwhelming as they were for some of the earlier women in this volume, but there were still many barriers for the women of the 1950s and 1960s, even to getting into graduate and medical schools. There were quotas for women in many American medical schools as well as many male professors who refused to take women graduate students. This discrimination was very overt: they were told they were most likely to marry, have children, and leave science. The woman student turned down by the Cornell professor with whom she wanted to continue her study of genetics was given these reasons. She was accepted by a more open-minded professor at Yale. She did marry and have children, but she went back to biology. I myself was turned down for graduate teaching assistantships by two Cornell botany professors who wanted only male teachers, but I was granted a research assistantship by another professor who also accepted women graduate students.39 Even after finishing our graduate work and with research qualifications, we faced discrimination. Three of these wives faced anti-nepotism rules. There were a great many reasons for not hiring us in academia –if they could find a qualified man. Moreover, and importantly for this particular group of women all of whom had babies and small children in our 20s and 30s, was the prevalent attitude in most of the U.S.: married women with pre-school children Epilogue 285 should not work outside the home. That is still statistically the prevailing attitude in some parts of the U.S. but fortunately not in all. In almost all cases of these couples, even in those in which the woman completed her doctoral work at the same time as her husband, the woman followed the man to his first faculty or other position; in almost all cases there were no faculty or other paid positions available for the wives. As for many women of the couples in For Better or For Worse, some of the husbands negotiated room in their own or another laboratory for their biologist wives. A few of the wives in the Cornell study were able to obtain their own research grants to continue their work, some but not all in their husband’s laboratory. Among the difficulties for many of the women scientists in this volume were the aforementioned anti-nepotism rules at most universities and some other scientific institutes. As discussed above these were rampant in the U.S. before affirmative action. The three women in this study who came up against these regulations were equally well-trained as their husbands, and active in research; it was the husbands for much of their careers who got the academic positions. The widowed biologist, who had moved with her late husband to a second university with anti-nepotism rules, received his position after his early death. Two of the wives who got Master’s degrees collaborated in their husband’s scientific research, one only briefly, the other throughout his career. Theirs was a fruitful collaboration scientifically. She had a paid position for part of that time, but the professorships, the well-regarded books and the honors were his. All of the scientist husbands held academic positions and had successful research careers. Three of them died relatively young. All of the women are still alive, some of them still working in science. Those six of us who obtained Ph.D.s, whether at the same time as our husbands or much later, all did published research, in several cases very well known research. We all eventually found academic or government positions in biology. Four of us, all in different fields of biology, became presidents of our scientific societies. Rossiter tabulated women presidents of national scientific societies between 1940 and 1969.40 Most of the early ones had remained single. A third of all the 60 presidents married. Interestingly, from our viewpoint of collaborative couples, only one of the women, a sociologist, worked in the same specialty as her husband. That has probably changed since 1969; there are more women presidents, and like the Cornell women many probably have scientist husbands.41 None of the four Cornell women became presidents of scientific societies before 1969; that happened late in our careers. As with many of the wives in both Creative Couples and For Better or For Worse, our trajectories were much slower than those of our scientist husbands. This is still true when one compares the rise of male and female scientists up the academic ladder to full professors in major universities. Longitudinal studies of today’s science students, female and male, through the next 50 years are needed. Studies with much larger numbers should be illuminating.42 286 Epilogue

Societal Changes and Their Effects

The couples in this book lived in a variety of countries, over a two century time period, and within a variety of social and spatial living arrangements: with and without children, other relatives, servants, and friends; and within modest and expansive households, in one case a country mansion with a major laboratory, in another a cooperative farm run by collaborating male homosexuals. That was all in the past. In the 50 years since the Cornell women graduated there have been many changes. It is difficult to say which of these changes has been most important in terms of promoting more egalitarian couples in science; the changes have been synergistic. In the U.S. these have included daycare, the women’s movement, affirmative action, and the recognized need by the National Science Foundation and other governmental organizations for programs supporting the advancement of women scientists. And perhaps, above all – but not separate from the above – there have been changes in societal attitudes toward the perceived roles of women with children, and particularly in Europe, the diminishing effects of social class. Some would add the birth control pill to this list, but even in the 1950s there were reliable means of limiting family size, and that seems to have been true for most of the collaborative couples in this book even much earlier. After World War II it was not so difficult for men or women who had shown ability in high school to go to universities. In addition to the Servicemen’s Readjust- ment Act of 1944 (the “G.I. Bill”) in the U.S., there were many good state universities with very low tuition, for example, the College of Agriculture at Cornell, where one could major in biology or pursue pre-medical studies. In 1964 there was also the creation of the College Work-Study Program to provide on-campus jobs through which undergraduate students could earn their tuition, room, and board. In England it was more difficult for a student to be accepted at a university, particularly at Oxford or Cambridge, but he or she received a stipend if accepted. The difficulty for women came afterward. There were no women biology professors at Cornell when I was an undergraduate or a graduate student in the 1950s. There were no women professors at Oxford in the Botany School when I was there in the late 1960s. There were no women professors in the botany department of the University of Gothenburg where I spent my sabbatical in 1980. My experiences were not unique. In Rossiter’s table, “Women Science Faculty at Nineteen Leading Universities, by Field, 1960,” there were no women professors at Cornell, Princeton University, or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and only one at Harvard, astrophysicist Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin (1900–1979). She was the only woman scientist who was a full professor in the School of Arts and Sciences by 1963. Yale had two, one of whom was Grace Pickford. Both of these women and their husbands were collaborative couples at least during part of their careers. A few major universities, Columbia and, farther west, the University of Chicago, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Stanford University, and the University of California, Berkeley had hired more women science professors by the 1960s. Epilogue 287

Widespread change in the number of these women professors did not happen by itself in the U.S.; affirmative action changed all that. Colleges and universities, small and large, were legally required to interview women and minorities; the number or women biology professors (albeit mostly assistant professors) increased greatly.43 Attitudes changed, too, although not equally so in all parts of the U.S. I was chastised for working part-time in biology when I had pre-school children; many of us basically stayed home until our children were in school. That led to problems as well; a Ph.D. in biology becomes out-of-date quite rapidly. Several of us in the Cornell study raised children after our Master’s degrees and before our Ph.D.s. This was not a planned strategy, but it had some advantage over one who had a ten-year-old Ph.D. when she went back to work after raising four children. None of the men in these couples had this problem. Several of the group did manage to continue their research with or without a paid position while raising children. Today most young women go straight through to Ph.D.s sometimes before marriage and often before having children. For them, the difficulties, not entirely resolved, come with the tenure track. But even there, changes have taken place in the attitudes of both husbands and of at least younger male professors. Those of us who were graduate students in the absence of women professors as mentors were dependent on those male professors who believed that women could be good scientists and helped us along our paths, with mentoring, and most important, employment. We did not try to change the world; we “went around left end,” though a football analogy does not now seem very appropriate. In terms of scientific couples and their collaboration, the attitudes of husbands have changed from that of nearly all of those in Creative Couples and For Better or For Worse, as well as in the scientific couples I knew while my children were small. The household jobs and the care of babies are no longer in all cases the responsibil- ity of the wives. Many men are participating in both, especially in couples for whom daycare has made possible full-time jobs in science. It is now expected that women should continue to work through their postdoctoral years, when many have small children, and in their subsequent employment. Several young couples whom my scientist husband has mentored have gone through this process; husbands are involved in transporting pre-school children, grocery shopping, even cooking. None of these couples has live-in or regular household help. The husbands partici- pate in many activities with school-age children as well. In earlier days, my husband was met with surprise if not disapproval when he came to school conferences for our children. My college was 30 miles away; his laboratory was much closer. No one would disapprove today. In summary, in the U.S. changes came with the women’s movement and with affirmative action – both in terms of regulations that opened up academic and other positions for women scientists, and in terms of the attitudes of society and of women themselves. With the latter came childcare arrangements making it possible for both halves of a scientific couple to work full time. This was virtually impossi- ble in the 1950s and 1960s unless a couple was wealthy enough to have live-in help, rarely the case among young scientists. In the past 40 years changes have affected the professional lives of women, including women scientists, and thus of scientific 288 Epilogue couples. These include, as noted above, the women’s movement, government affirmative action, changing societal attitudes, and good affordable daycare. The pill is also often hyped as making it possible for women to marry later and postpone their childbearing. This is partially true; women are marrying later and spacing out their children more often. And some allowances for the woman’s biological clock are currently being made in terms of longer tenure tracks in academia.44 There are still challenges, but as of 2012 there are a great many middle class heterosexual collaborative couples who are doing well in science.

The Future

In some respects, in light of the impact of rapid advances in communications technology on science and society – and thus on collaborative couples – the future is already with us. In other respects, in regard to scientific couples who are working class, minorities, or homosexuals, collaborative scientific couples may become more visible than they have been in the past or are at present. Future research is much needed in these areas. In addition, because of the ways that science itself has changed, future research may look beyond scientific collaborative couples to the ways that research groups interact and how the factors that we have been studying affect the men and women, and their professional and intimate relationships within these groups.

Changes in Communication: The Social Network in Science

One important trend for all collaborative couples in science and in other fields has been connected to the amazing changes in communications. These are continuing to change so fast that it is difficult to study their effects. Scientists on planes almost all have their laptops, tablets, “smart” phones, or other equivalent technology with them. Mobile phones, especially ones equipped with global services, provide constant communication between collaborators, spousal or otherwise, even continents apart. Most important perhaps in recent years, scientific couples who live together but work in different cities are often not limited to constant commut- ing, but can work at home. Telecommuting has been possible for some time and has been a great help to couples with small children. These options will undoubtedly expand with ever-changing technology, and a whole generation that has grown up with it. This phenomenon has also caused lifestyle changes. Not all scientists of either sex wish to take their work with them on vacations, but computers and mobile phones make this possible in all but the most remote places.45 For better or for worse? Epilogue 289

The Problem of Class

In his path-breaking chapter on homosexual couples in the sciences (see Chapter 10), Donald Opitz has raised questions in regard to two areas that, in my view, need further research in relation to collaboration in science. One area is same-sex collab- orative couples; the other is the importance of class, not only in the past but also in the present and future in many countries and societies. If one goes carefully through the chapters in this collection, one finds that in the majority of successful couples in science at least one partner, usually the male, comes from an educated and usually upper middle class family. Almost all of the women have received good educations as well, a few of them from privileged families at home. In recent years, as noted above, especially able students from working class backgrounds are able to go to university and to proceed to a career in science from there. In England, even in the late 1960s a student had to pass the eleven-plus exam (often taken at age ten) in order to go to an academic high school where university entrance courses were taught. A student who did not pass, often due to poor earlier preparation or family situation, had very little chance to change his or her academic course. This was true in nineteenth century America for most students. A farm boy who was not able to attend a good, usually private, high school would not have the academic requirements, for example Latin or Greek, for admission to college or university; poor girls had almost no chance. Historians of science need to look more closely at class as a factor in scientific success; it is still a factor, though largely overlooked, today. It is not surprising that historians have not found working class collaborative couples in science, although working class men who seriously studied groups of organisms such as rotifers and mosses have recently been “discovered.” Much has been written about one working class English woman who succeeded in science against many odds, Mary Anning (1799–1847).46 Even as a child, she collected invertebrate fossil “curios” for her impoverished family to sell. She later found and studied fossil skeletons of yet unknown marine vertebrates such as plesiosaurs. They are now in museums in London and Paris. What is not as well known is that she had a mentor and sometime collaborator who found and studied fossil fishes on the same Devon beaches, an upper middle class woman, Elizabeth Philpot (1780–1857). An odd collaboration but probably neither would have succeeded in science without the other. Future research may illuminate further collaborative couples in science who were not academics. One chapter of this book explores one such group.

Homosexual Collaborative Couples

Opitz discusses the only working class men who appear in For Better or For Worse in his chapter on Edward Carpenter’s (1844–1929) homosexual cooperative 290 Epilogue

(chapter 10, this volume). Carpenter had a series of same-sex relationships, but with one working-class man, George Merrill (1866–1928), he formed a long-time collaborative partnership. In their relationship as a scientific collaborative couple Merrill became essentially a helpmeet, as did the wives in other such couples. He managed the household, including the gardens that supplied them. He discussed science and gave occasional assistance in field observations, but he was not really a trained or working scientist. This was a “marriage” of 30 years, a close collabora- tion and sexual relationship. We did not find any well-documented cases to write about in Creative Couples. Pnina Abir-Am wrote about Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict (1887–1948). Benedict had been both Mead’s lover and mentor, a very important person in her life. They were in some sense a collaborative couple in anthropology, but Mead had three male partners (husbands), two of whom became true collaborators with her in well-known research. There were surely many others that we do not know about because sexual orientation was not openly discussed. Women science professors at women’s colleges lived together, and whether their partnerships were sexual or not, they were certainly collaborative couples in many of the aspects true of the heterosexual couples. They kept a household together, discussed and supported each other’s work, and in some cases actually worked together. Perhaps our definitions are too strict. Opitz, however, has done good service for future researchers of homosexual couples, male or female in science. He has clearly outlined the methodological difficulties for both historical inquiries and current sociological study on same-sex couples. Even finding out how many there might be is challenging. In spite of the formation of a gay and lesbian scientific network in the U.S. in 1980 at an American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in San Francisco and the present National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals (NOGLSTP), there is insufficient demographic information about their members. One useful statistic Opitz was able to find was that only 3% of NOGLSTP members do government-related work; most are in academia or indus- try. The problems are political as well as personal. Most of the knowledge we currently have does not involve a significant sample from any one location, but is mostly anecdotal; serious research is needed. Homo- sexual couples experience many of the same difficulties as the authors of this book have found in the past for heterosexual scientific couples. These include the availability of two suitable positions in the same city, the problems of a better job offer for one member of the couple, but in a different location, the problems of childcare where there are biological or adopted children, and the problem of divorce. Some towns and cities have proven more accepting of homosexual couples, Northampton, Massachusetts for example, as have some universities. Opitz cited the experience of a lesbian couple with a baby, reported in Science, at the University of Colorado. However, in spite of the good offices of the University of Colorado and some other American universities, discrimination against homosexual scientists and scientist-couples is still with us. A more recent Science article suggests that Epilogue 291

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” applied not only to the military but also to what happens in the sciences from academia to industry and to professional societies.47 Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender scientists still feel they need to keep their cover to escape discrimination. Yet a lot has changed. Neena Schwartz, a retired neuroendocrinologist from Northwestern University described in her book, A Lab of My Own, what it was like to start a research lab as a lesbian in the 1970s.48 There was blatant homophobia. Present day discrimination, however, still keeps some scientists closeted. At the University of California, San Diego, sociology students did conduct interviews with gay and lesbian engineering students and found that they had several different strategies to avoid harassment: covering, passing as heterosexuals, and overachieving. There was a continuum of tolerance levels depending on the branch of engineering, with biological and chemical as the most tolerant and civil engineering the least.49 Even the word “tolerant” has negative connotations in my view. It seems obvious that future changes in attitudes and regulations are needed so that these “strategies” are no longer needed.50

Beyond Collaborative Couples

One direction that future research in history of science should explore is to move beyond collaborative couples in the strict sense of those who do research and publish together, a rare phenomenon in recent years. In addition to scientific couples of all races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations, we should also examine research groups, not the “big science” groups like the Manhattan project discussed in the introduction, nor the research schools of the past, some of which were entirely male, but smaller groups in which so much of modern science is now done and has been done in the last few decades. These groups consist of male and female scientists, often working in different laboratories and different countries on particular aspects of research in many fields; they publish joint papers. This became possible with the fax machine and later with many new technologies. The interactions of these groups have received some attention, particularly from journalists, and deserve more from historians of sci- ence. In the January 2011 issues of Science, I tabulated the number of authors per science article. A random sample varied from two to thirteen, with a mean of 7.6. In some of the multi-authored articles, the names are only given with initials, but from those that do include first names it is clear that many women scientists are included in these groups and their publications. At least two women were included in most lists of authors. The geographical distribution of the authors was considerable, in one case Germany, England and Japan, in another Israel, Australia, and the U.S. Collaboration comes in many forms in science. As we read in the Introduction to this volume, science exists among many boundary conditions. Whether discussing couples or small groups of scientists working together, we can see to what extent their science is circumscribed by, or transgresses, conceptual, cultural and geographical boundaries, and examine the 292 Epilogue private and public, the personal and the professional. We can find all of these aspects in the chapters of this book, whether or not the collaborations were successful for each of the partners or not. What “successful” means in these collaborations, in which we are privileged to understand the interactions of the personal and professional through the research, often from primary sources, of the authors, is left for the reader to decide.

Endnotes

1Margaret W. Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982). 2Helena M. Pycior, Nancy G. Slack, and Pnina G. Abir-Am, eds., Creative Couples in the Sciences (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996). 3M. Pycior, “Pierre Curie and ‘His Eminent Collaborator Mme Curie’,” in Pycior, Slack, and Abir-Am, Creative Couples in the Sciences (ref. 2), pp. 39–56; Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, “Star Scientists in a Nobelist Family: Ire`ne and Fre´de´ric Joliot-Curie,” in Pycior, Slack, and Abir-Am, Creative Couples in the Sciences (ref. 2), pp. 57–71; Mildred Cohn, “Carl and Gerty Cori: A Personal Recollection,” in Pycior, Slack, and Abir-Am, Creative Couples in the Sciences (ref. 2), pp. 72–84; Marianne Gosztonyi Ainley, “Marriage and Scientific Work in Twentieth-Century Canada: The Berkeleys in Marine Biology and the Hoggs in Astronomy,” in Pycior, Slack, and Abir-Am, Creative Couples in the Sciences (ref. 2), pp. 143–148; Maureen M. Julian, “Kathleen and Thomas Lonsdale: Forty-Three Years of Spiritual and Scientific Life Together,” in Pycior, Slack, and Abir-Am, Creative Couples in the Sciences (ref. 2), pp. 170–181; and Nancy G. Slack, “Botanical and Ecological Couples: A Continuum of Relationships,” in Pycior, Slack, and Abir-Am, Creative Couples in the Sciences (ref. 2), pp. 244–248. 4Ann B. Shteir, “Botany in the Breakfast Room, Women and Early Nineteenth- Century British Plant Study,” in Pnina G. Abir-Am and Dorinda Outram, eds., Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives: Women in Science, 1789–1979 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987), pp. 31–43. 5Slack, “Botanical and Ecological Couples,” (ref. 3), pp. 237–238; 339, n. 7. 6Ibid., p. 235. 7Ibid., pp. 240–244. 8Ibid., p. 237. 9Janet Bell Garber, John and Elizabeth Gould: Ornithologists and Scientific Illustrators, 1829–1841, in Pycior, Slack, and Abir-Am, Creative Couples in the Sciences (ref. 2), pp. 87–97. 10Barbara J. Becker, Dispelling the Myth of the Able Assistant: Margaret and William Huggins at Work in the Tulse Hill Observatory, in Pycior, Slack, and Abir-Am, Creative Couples in the Science (ref. 2), pp. 98–111. Epilogue 293

11Margaret W. Rossiter, Women Scientists in American: Before Affirmative Action, 1940–1972 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), pp. 122–128. 12Ibid., pp. 140, 282–283, and 487, n. 13. 13Ibid. 14Slack, “Botanical and Ecological Couples” (ref. 3), pp. 235–253. 15Nancy G. Slack, “Nineteenth Century American Women Botanists: Wives, Widows, and Work,” in Abir-Am and Outram, Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives (ref. 4), pp. 77–103. 16Slack, “Botanical and Ecological Couples” (ref. 3), pp. 235–253. 17Nancy G. Slack, G. Evelyn Hutchinson and the Invention of Modern Ecology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), pp. 201–212. 18Jean H. Langenheim, The Odyssey of Woman Field Scientist: A Story of Passion, Persistence, and Patience (Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2010). 19Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action (ref. 11), pp. 115–120. 20Slack, “Botanical and Ecological Couples” (ref. 3), p. 249. 21Cohn, “Carl and Gerty Cori” (ref. 3). 22Ibid. 23Ibid., p. 83. 24But see the special issue, The Place of Thomas Hunt Morgan in American Biography in American Zoologist 23, no. 4 (1983), especially the articles by Isabel Morgan Mountain, “An Introduction to Thomas Hunt Morgan and Lilian Vaughan Morgan,” pp. 825–827, and Katherine Keenan, “Lillian Vaughan Morgan (1870–1952): Her Life and Work,” pp. 867–876. 25Slack, “Nineteenth Century American Women Botanists” (ref. 15), pp. 103 and 310, n. 90. 26Naomi Gerstel and Harriet Gross, Commuter Marriage: A Study of Work and Family (New York: Guilford Press, 1984). 27Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action (ref. 11), pp. 1–49, esp. Tables 1.2, 2.1, and 2.2. 28See Ruth Schwartz Cowan, More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave (New York: Basic Books, 1983), pp. 192–216. 29Cohn, “Carl and Gerty Cori” (ref. 3). 30Quoted in Kristina Espmark and Christer Nordlund, “Married for Science, Divorced for Love: Success and Failure in the Collaboration between Astrid Cleve and Hans von Euler-Chelpin” (Chapter 5, this volume). 31See Elizabeth Rose, A Mother’s Job: The History of Day Care, 1890–1960 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). 32I thank Annette Lykknes for bringing this point to my attention. 33Jean H. Langenheim, “The Early History and Progress of Women Ecologists: Emphasis on Research Contributions,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27 (1996), 1–53. 294 Epilogue

34One recent exception is Judy Green and Jeanne LaDuke, Pioneering Women in American Mathematics: The Pre-1940 PhD’s (Providence, RI: The American Mathematical Society, 2009). 35Rossiter, American Women in Science: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (ref. 1). 36Nancy G. Slack, “Charles Horton Peck: Bryologist and the Legitimation of Botany in New York State,” Memoirs of the New York Botanical Gardens 45 (1987), 28–45. 37Nancy G. Slack, “20th-Century Women Scientists through the Decades: Chang- ing Conscious and Unconscious Strategies,” Presentation at the History of Science Society Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, November 19–22, 2009. 38A student could major in biology in both the College of Agriculture and the College of Arts and Sciences, which perhaps complicated the record-keeping. 39For the sake of the record, these two egalitarian professors who made graduate studies possible for two of us when other male professors turned us down were Harold Hill Smith at Cornell University and Arthur Galston at Yale University. 40Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action (ref. 11), pp. 134–136, Tables 6.3 and 6.4. 41For more recent years, see Margaret W. Rossiter, Women Scientists in America, Volume 3 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming). 42On promising study has been reported by Pamela Davis-Kean, Oksana Malanchuck, and Jacquelynne Eccles, “Constructing the Pipeline: Barriers in the Creation of a STEM Workforce,” Educating a STEM Workforce: New Strategies for U-M and the State of Michigan, Proceedings of the Summit (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2007), pp. 15–21, retrieved February 27, 2011 from http://www.engin.umich.edu/wie/summit/papers/index.html. 43I knew that had happened when as chair of the Biology Department at my college in the early 1980s I got a phone call from the head of the search committee at the nearby state university asking me if we had a biology position for the husband of the woman biologist they wished to hire. Until that time it was always the biologist wife for whom they were seeking a position when they wanted to hire the husband. 44A recent article by a collaborative couple, two professors at Cornell University, discussed their view of the current underrepresentation of women in science, particularly in math-intensive sciences. Many of these women scientists have children; some have husbands in the same field. The authors suggest a number of strategies to accommodate child-rearing, including tenure track changes. The University of California, Berkeley Family Edge program is currently implementing some of these strategies. See Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams, Understanding Current Causes of Women’s Underrepresentation in Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition (February 7, 2011), retrieved February 27, 2011 from http://www.pnas.org/content/early/ 2011/02/02/1014871108. 45Mickey Meece, “Who’s the Boss, You or Your Gadget?” New York Times, New York (February 6, 2011), p. BU1. Epilogue 295

46Hugh Philip Torrens, “Mary Anning (1799–1847) of Lyme: ‘The greatest fossilist the world ever knew’,” British Journal for the History of Science 28 (1995), 257–284. 47Jacqueline Ruttimann Oberst, “Closeted Discoverers: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Scientists,” Science Careers (October 1, 2010), retrieved February 27, 2011 from http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/. 48Neena B. Schwartz, A Lab of My Own (Amsterdam: Editions Rodophi B.V., 2010). 49Oberst, “Closeted Discoverers” (ref. 47). 50Margaret W. Rossiter. Women Scientists in America: Forging a New World since 1972 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012). Contributor Biographies

Jean-Jacques Dreifuss holds both M.D. and Ph.D. degrees and is Professor of Neurosciences, University of Geneva School of Medicine, Switzerland. He completed post-doctoral training at the Montre´al Neurological Institute, McGill University; the Department of Physiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; and the Department of Biophysics, University College London. He also taught the history of medicine at the Universities of Geneva and of Lausanne. He is a member and past President of the Swiss Society for the History of Medicine and Sciences. He has written numerous articles on the modern and contemporary history of the biomedical sciences.

Kristina Espmark is a Ph.D. student in History of Science and Ideas in the Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umea˚ University, Sweden. Her current research is on Astrid Cleve von Euler, Sweden’s first female Ph.D. recipient in science (1898), with a focus on Cleve’s research and how and why it developed over time.

Joy Harvey is an historian of science who has written and edited a number of articles and books on women scientists. Among these are her biography of Darwin’s only woman translator, Cle´mence Royer, Almost a Man of Genius: Clemence Royer, Feminism, and Nineteenth Century Science (Rutgers University Press, 1997). With Marilyn Ogilvie, she edited and wrote significant entries for the two volume Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science (Routledge, 2000). Dr. Harvey received her Ph.D. from Harvard University and has taught at a number of universities. A former Associate Editor of the Correspondence of Charles Darwin Project in Cambridge, England, she has recently published “Darwin’s Angels: The Women Correspondents of Charles Darwin,” Intellectual History Review 19(2) (2009), 197–210. She is currently finishing a biography of the nineteenth century woman physician, Mary Putnam Jacobi.

Sally Gregory Kohlstedt is director of the Program in History of Science and Technology at the University of Minnesota, where she also directed the Center for

A. Lykknes et al. (eds.), For Better or For Worse? Collaborative 297 Couples in the Sciences, Science Networks. Historical Studies 44, DOI 10.1007/978-3-0348-0286-4, # Springer Basel AG 2012 298 Contributor Biographies

Advanced Feminist Studies in the 1990s. She has been named the Ada Comstock Distinguished Woman Scholar for 2011 at UMN and presented an all-university lecture entitled “Uncovering the Past, Charting the Future: The Rise of Women in Science.” She publishes on science in public culture and on issues of women, gender and science. Her most recent book, Teaching Children Science: Hands-On Nature Study, 1890–1930 (University of Chicago Press, 2010) details the role of women teachers, among others, in incorporating science into North American public schools.

Annette Lykknes graduated in chemistry and earned her Ph.D. in the history of chemistry in 2005 with a dissertation on the Norwegian radiochemist Ellen Gleditsch (1879–1968). She is currently Associate Professor of chemistry education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim and teaches general chemistry, chemistry education, and the history of science for teacher trainers. Her research interests include writing as a basic skill in science education, historical experiments in chemistry, chemistry textbooks, women in science, and twentieth century chemistry in Norway. She is secretary of the history of chemistry group of the Norwegian Chemical Society, vice chair of the Working Party for the History of Chemistry of the European Association for Chemical and Molecular Sciences, and member of the Commission of the History of Women in Science, Technology, and Medicine, Division of History of Science and Technology of the International Union for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine.

Christer Nordlund is Professor of History of Science and Ideas at the Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umea˚ University, Sweden, and Torgny Segerstedt Pro Futura Scientia Fellow at the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study (SCAS) in Uppsala. He has been a Visiting Scholar at the Department of History and Philosophy of Science in Cambridge, England, and is currently a Visiting Scholar at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin. His main fields of interest are environmental history and the history of modern life and earth sciences in a Scandinavian context. His most recent book, Hormones of Life: Endocrinology, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Dream of a Remedy for Sterility, 1930–1970, was published by Science History Publications in 2011.

Donald L. Opitz is Assistant Professor in the School for New Learning at DePaul University, in Chicago, Illinois, where he is also an Advisory Board member of DePaul’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Studies Program. He received his Ph.D. in the history of science and technology from the University of Minnesota in 2004, and his research focuses on the intersection between science and culture in nineteenth-century Britain. His recent essays include “‘This house is a temple of research’: Country-House Centres for Late Victorian Science,” in David Clifford, Elisabeth Wadge, Alex Warwick, and Martin Willis, eds., Repositioning Victorian Sciences: Shifting Centres in Nineteenth-Century Scientific Thinking (Anthem, 2006); and “Cultivating Genetics in the Country: Whittingehame Contributor Biographies 299

Lodge, Cambridge,” in David N. Livingstone and Charles W.J. Withers, eds., Geographies of Nineteenth-Century Science (Chicago, 2011). He is currently com- pleting a book manuscript on aristocratic science in Victorian Britain.

Marsha L. Richmond is Associate Professor of History at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. She received her Ph.D. in the history of biology from Indiana University in 1986 and worked as an Editor on the Correspondence of Charles Darwin Project in Cambridge, England, between 1987 and 1993. Her research focuses on theories of heredity since Darwin, and especially on the history of classical genetics in Germany, the United States, and Great Britain. She has also published on the entry of women into academic biology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and is currently working on a National Science Founda- tion funded book project, “Women in the Early History of Genetics,” as well as finishing a book on the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt entitled The Making of a Heretic: Richard Goldschmidt and German Genetics, 1900–1935.

Natalia Tikhonov Sigrist, Ph.D., studied history in Geneva, Oxford and Paris. She also held visiting scholar positions at the University of California, Berkeley; Universite´ Robert-Schumann, Strasbourg; and E´ cole des Hautes E´ tudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris. She is recipient of the “chercheur avance´” fellowship awarded by the Swiss national science foundation. Her research and publications focus on the history of women’s higher education and academic migrations.

Nancy G. Slack is an ecologist and historian of biology. She has two degrees in biology from Cornell University and a Ph.D. in Ecology from the State University of New York, Albany. She is Professor Emerita of the Sage Colleges, Troy, New York, where she was Professor of Biology and of History of Science. She has published extensively on plant ecology and on the history of ecology and botany, as well as on women in science. She is the author of G. Evelyn Hutchinson and the Invention of Modern Ecology, co-editor with Helena M. Pycior and Pnina G. Abir-Am of Creative Couples in the Sciences, and co-editor with Zolta´n Tuba and Lloyd R. Stark of Bryophyte Ecology and Climate Change. She is also the author of three ecological alpine guides to the mountains of New York and New England and recipient of The Nature Conservancy’s Oak Leaf service award. She is married to a scientist (and thus half of a collaborative couple) and has three children.

After graduating both in physics and history, Brigitte Van Tiggelen earned her Ph.D. in the history of chemistry with a dissertation in eighteenth century chemis- try. Since 1998 her research interests have evolved to other periods of the history of chemistry, spanning from the seventeenth to the twentieth century, including topics such as women in science, Belgian chemistry, and philosophy of chemistry. Her last book is a collective volume co-edited with Patrice Bret, Madame d’Arconville (1720–1805), une femme de lettres et de sciences au sie`cle des Lumie`res (Hermann, 2011). She is currently an independent scholar, attached to the Centre de Recherche 300 Contributor Biographies en Histoire des Sciences of the at the Universite´ catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la- neuve, Belgium. She is president of the history of chemistry group of the Belgian Chemical Society and member of the Working Party for the History of Chemistry of the European Association for Chemical and Molecular Sciences. Since 2006, she chairs the Belgian National Center for History of Sciences, located at the Royal Library of Brussels. To promote history of science among the general public and especially among secondary school teachers, she has founded Me´mosciences, a non-profit organization that organizes an annual conference cycle on the history of chemistry, scientific conferences, and teacher workshops.

Per Wisselgren earned his Ph.D. in History of Science and Ideas in 2000 and is currently Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Umea˚ University, Sweden. He has been a visiting scholar at the University of Sussex, the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, Uppsala University, and London South Bank University. He is also Secretary of the Research Committee on the History of Sociology of the International Sociological Association. Among his most recent publications are a guest-edited special issue of Ideas in History on the “History of the Social Sciences” (2009), a co-edited volume, with Anders Ekstrom,€ Solveig Julich€ and Frans Lundgren, History of Participatory Media: Politics and Publics, 1750–2000 (2011), and another co-edited volume, with Annika Berg and Christina Florin, Par i vetenskap och politik: Intellektuella aktenskap€ i moderniteten (Couples in Science and Politics: Intellectual Partnerships in Sweden, c. 1900-c. 1950, Bore´a Bokforlag,€ 2011).

Eileen Janes Yeo is Professor Emeritus of Social and Cultural History at the University of Strathclyde, where she was the Director of the Centre in Gender Studies. She is author of The Contest for Social Science: Relations and Representations of Gender and Class (Rivers Oram, 1996) and has written a number of essays on the history of social science including “Henry Mayhew as a Social Investigator,” in E.P. Thompson and Yeo, eds., The Unknown Mayhew; “Feminising the Citizen: British Sociology’s Sleight of Hand,” in Barbara L. Marshall and Anne Witz, eds., Engendering the Social: Feminist Encounters with Sociological Theory (Open University, 2005), and “Social Surveys in the 18th and 19th Centuries” for The Cambridge History of Science Series, Volume 7 (2003). Select Bibliography

Abir-Am, Pnina G. and Dorinda Outram, eds., Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives: Women in Science 1789–1978 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987). Adam, Barry D., “Care, Intimacy, and Same-Sex Partnerships in the 21st Century,” Current Sociology 52, no. 2 (2004), 265–279. Atkinson, Juliette, Victorian Biography Reconsidered: A Study of Nineteenth-Century ‘Hidden’ Lives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Banner, Lois W., Intertwined Lives: Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Their Circle (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003). Bennis, Warren and Patricia Ward Biedeman, Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration (Reading, MA: Addison-Weseley, 1997). Berg, Annika, Christina Florin, and Per Wisselgren, eds., Par i vetenskap och politik: Intellektuella €aktenskap i moderniteten (Umea˚: Bore´a Bokforlag,€ 2011). Bindman, L.J., A F. Brading, and E.M. Tansey, eds., Women Physiologists: An Anniversary Celebration of their Contributions to British Physiology (London: Portland Press, 1993). Bullough, Vern L., Science in the Bedroom: A History of Sex Research (New York: Basic Books, 1994). Carpenter, Christopher, and Gary J. Gates, “Gay and Lesbian Partnership: Evidence from California,” Demography 45 (2008), 573–590. Chadwick, Whitney and Isabelle de Courtivron, eds., Significant Others: Creativity and Intimate Partnership (London: Thames and Hudson, 1993). Cohen, Deborah R., “A Lens of Many Facets: Science through a Family’s Eyes.” Isis 97 (2006), 395–419. Corbett, Mary Jean, Representing Femininity: Middle-Class Subjectivity in Victorian and Edwar- dian Women’s Autobiography (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Cowan, Ruth Schwartz, More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave (New York: Basic Books, 1983). Creamer, Elizabeth G. and Associates, Working Equal: Collaboration among Academic Couples, RoutledgeFalmer Studies in Higher Education 25 (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2001). Creese, Mary R.S. and Creese, Thomas M., Ladies in the Laboratory II: West European Women in Science, 1800–1900. A Survey of Their Contributions to Research (Oxford: Scarecrow Press, 2004). Davidoff, Leonore, and Catherine Hall, Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780–1850 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). Dietrich, Michael R. and Brandi H. Tambasco, “Beyond the Boss and the Boys: Women and the Division of Labor in Drosophila Genetics in the United States, 1934–1970,” Journal of the History of Biology 40 (2007), 509–528.

A. Lykknes et al. (eds.), For Better or For Worse? Collaborative 301 Couples in the Sciences, Science Networks. Historical Studies 44, DOI 10.1007/978-3-0348-0286-4, # Springer Basel AG 2012 302 Select Bibliography

Fausto-Sterling, Anne, Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men, 2nd edn. (New York: Basic Books, 1992). Folbre, Nancy, The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values (New York: The New Press, 2001). Folsing,€ Ulla, Geniale Beziehungen. Beruhmte€ Paare in der Wissenschaft (Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1999). Frevert, Ute, Women in German History: From Bourgeois Emancipation to Sexual Liberation (Oxford: Berg, 1989). Galison, Peter, and Bruce Hevly, eds., Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992). Gallagher, Catherine, Nobody’s Story: The Vanishing Acts of Women Writers in the Marketplace, 1670–1820 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994). Gates, Barbara T., Kindred Nature: Victorian and Edwardian Women Embrace the Living World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). Gerstel, Naomi and Harriet Gross, Commuter Marriage: A Study of Work and Family (New York: Guilford Press, 1984). Grinker, Roy Richard, In the Arms of Africa: The Life of Colin M. Turnbull (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000). Hansen, Bert, “Public Careers and Private Sexuality: Some Gay and Lesbian Lives in the History of Medicine and Public Health,” American Journal of Public Health 92, no. 1 (2002), 36–44. Haraway, Donna, Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science (New York: Routledge, 1989). Harkness, Deborah E., “Managing an Experimental Household: The Dees of Mortlake and the Practice of Natural Philosophy,” Isis 88 (1997), 247–262. Harrison, Royden J., The Life and Times of Sidney and Beatrice Webb 1858–1905: The Formative Years (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000). Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Marriage and Morals among the Victorians and Other Essays (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1986). Johnson, Jeffrey, “German Women in Chemistry, 1895–1925 (Part I),” N.T.M. 6 (1998), 1–21. Johnson, Jeffrey, “German Women in Chemistry, 1925–1945 (Part II),” N.T.M. 6 (1998), 65–90. John-Steiner, Vera, Creative Collaboration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Jordanova, Ludmilla, “Gender and the Historiography of Science,” British Journal for the History of Science 26 (1993), 469–483. Kass-Simon, G. and Patricia Farnes, Women of Science: Righting the Record (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990). Keller, Evelyn Fox, “Women Scientists and Feminist Critics of Science,” Daedalus: Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 116 (1987), 77–91. Keller, Evelyn Fox, A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1983). Kidwell, Peggy Aldrich, “Women Astronomers in Britain, 1780–1930,” Isis 75 (1984), 534–546. Koblitz, Ann Hibner, A Convergence of Lives: Sofia Kovalevskaia: Scientist, Writer, Revolution- ary (Boston: Birkh€auser, 1983). Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory and Donald L. Opitz, “Re-Imag(in)ing Women in Science: Projecting Identity and Negotiating Gender in Science,” in Ida H. Stamhuis, Teun Koetsier and Cornelis de Pater, eds., The Changing Image of the Sciences (Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002), pp. 105–139. Langenheim, Jean H., “The Early History and Progress of Women Ecologists: Emphasis on Research Contributions,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27 (1996), 1–53. Langenheim, Jean H., The Odyssey of Woman Field Scientist: A Story of Passion, Persistence, and Patience. Bloomington (IN: Xlibris, 2010). Lerner, Gerda, The Creation of Patriarchy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986). Levin, Miriam R., Defining Women’s Scientific Enterprise: Mount Holyoke Faculty and the Rise of American Science (Hanover: University Press of New England, 2005). Select Bibliography 303

Lightman, Bernard, Victorian Popularizers of Science: Designing Nature for New Audiences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007). Lykknes, Annette, Lise Kvittingen, and Anne Kristine Børresen, “Appreciated Abroad, Depreciated at Home: The Career of a Radiochemist in Norway: Ellen Gleditsch (1879–1968),” Isis 95 (2004), 576–609. Mazo´n, Patricia M., Gender and the Modern Research University: The Admission of Women to German Higher Education, 1865–1914 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003). McGrayne, Sharon Bertsch, Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles and Momen- tous Discoveries (Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing Group, 1998). Mountain, Isabel Morgan, “An Introduction to Thomas Hunt Morgan and Lilian Vaughan Mor- gan,” American Zoologist 23, no. 4 (1983), 825–827. Neeley, Kathryn A., Mary Somerville, Science, Illumination, and the Female Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Ogilvie, Marilyn and Joy Harvey, eds., Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science: Pioneering Lives From Ancient Times to the Mid-20th Century, 2 vols. (New York: Routledge, 2000). Opitz, Donald L, “‘This House Is a Temple of Research’: Country-House Centres for Late- Victorian Science,” in Clifford, David, Elisabeth Wadge, Alex Warwick, and Martin Willis, eds., Repositioning Victorian Sciences: Shifting Centres in Nineteenth-Century Scientific Thinking (London: Anthem Press, 2006), pp. 43–53. Perry, Ruth and Martine Watson Brownley, eds., Mothering the Mind: Twelve Studies of Writers and Their Silent Partners (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1984). Peterson, M. Jeanne, Family, Love, and Work in the Lives of Victorian Gentlewomen (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989). Price, Derek J. de Solla, Little Science, Big Science (New York: University Press, 1963). Pycior, Helena M., Nancy G. Slack, and Pnina G. Abir-Am, eds., Creative Couples in the Sciences (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996). Rayner-Canham, Marelene and Geoff Rayner-Canham, Chemistry Was Their Life: Pioneer British Women Chemists, 1880–1949 (London: Imperial College Press, 2008). Rayner-Canham, Marelene F. and Geoffrey W., eds., A Devotion to Their Science: Pioneer Women of Radioactivity (Montre´al & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997). Rentetzi, Maria, Trafficking Materials and Gendered Experimental Practices: Radium Research in Early 20th Century Vienna (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009). Richmond, Marsha L, “The ‘Domestication’ of Heredity: The Familial Organization of Geneticists at Cambridge, 1895–1910,” Journal of the History of Biology 39 (2006), 565–605. Rosario, Vernon, ed., Science and Homosexualities (New York: Routledge, 1997). Rosario, Vernon, Homosexuality and Science: A Guide to the Debates (Santa Barbara: ABC- CLIO, 2002). Rose, Elizabeth, A Mother’s Job: The History of Day Care, 1890–1960 (Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1999). Rose, Hilary, Love, Power and Knowledge: Towards a Feminist Transformation of the Sciences (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994). Rosenberg, Rosalind, Beyond Separate Spheres: Intellectual Roots of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982). Rossiter, Margaret W., Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982). Rossiter, Margaret W., Women Scientists in American: Before Affirmative Action, 1940–1972 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995). Rossiter, Margaret W., Women Scientists in America: Forging a New World since 1972 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012) Rossiter, Margaret, “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science,” Social Studies of Science 23 (1993), 325–341. Schiebinger, Londa, Has Feminism Changed Science? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003). 304 Select Bibliography

Schiebinger, Londa, Nature’s Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science, 2nd edn. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006). Schwartz, Neena B., A Lab of My Own (Amsterdam: Editions Rodophi B.V., 2010). Scott, Joan Wallach, Gender and the Politics of History, Rev. ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999). Sheffield, Suzanne Le-May, “Gendered Collaborations: Marrying Art and Science,” In Ann B. Shteir and Bernard Lightman, eds., Figuring It Out: Science, Gender, and Visual Culture (Lebanon, NH: Dartmouth College Press, 2006), pp. 240–264. Sheffield, Suzanne Le-May, Revealing New Worlds: Three Victorian Naturalists (New York: Routledge, 2001). Shortland, Michael and Richard Yeo, eds., Telling Lives in Science: Essays on Scientific Biogra- phy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Shteir, Ann B., Cultivating Women, Cultivating Science: Flora’s Daughters and Botany in England, 1760–1860 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996). Sime, Ruth, Lise Meitner: A Life in Physics (Berkeley: University of Chicago Press, 1996). Soderqvist,€ Thomas, ed., The History and Poetics of Scientific Biography (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). Stocks, Janet, Capitolina Dı´az-Martı´nez, and Bjorn€ Hallerod,€ eds., Modern Couples Sharing Money, Sharing Life (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007). Strbanova, Sona, Ida Stamhuis, and Katerina Mojsejova, eds., Women Scholars and Institutions: Proceedings of the International Conference, Prague, June 8–11, 2003, Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities (Pra´ce Z Deˇjin Veˇdy), 2 vols. (Prague: Research Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities, 2004). Tikhonov, Natalia, “L’acce`s des femmes a` l’Universite´,” In Erica Deuber Ziegler and Natalia Tikhonov, eds., Les femmes dans la me´moire de Gene`ve (Geneva: E´ ditions Susanne Hurter, 2005), pp. 132–155. Tilgner, Hans Georg, Forschen, Suche und Sucht: Kein Nobelpreis fur€ das deutsche Forscherehepaar, das Rhenium entdeckt hat. Eine Biografie von Walter Noddack (1893–1960) und Ida Noddack-Tacke (1896–1978) (Hamburg: Libri Books on Demand, 2000). Tobies, Renate, ed., Aller M€annerkultur zum Trotz: Frauen in Mathematik und Naturwis- senschaften (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1997). Tosh, John., A Man’s Place: Masculinity and the Middle-Class Home in Victorian England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999). Vicinus, Martha, Intimate Friends: Women Who Loved Women, 1778–1928 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004). Vickery, Amanda, The Gentleman’s Daughter: Women’s Lives in Georgian England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman, “Doing Gender,” Gender & Society 1 (1987), 125–151. White, Paul, Thomas Huxley: Making the “Man of Science” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Wobbe, Theresa and Claudia Honegger, eds., Frauen in der Soziologie: Neun Portraits (Munchen:€ Beck, 1998). Wobbe, Theresa, ed., Frauen in Akademie und Wissenschaft: Arbeitsorte und Forschung- spraktiken, 1700–2000 (Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002). Yeo, Eileen Janes, ed., Radical Femininity: Women’s Self-Representation in the Public Sphere (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999). Yeo, Eileen, The Contest for Social Science: Relations and Representations of Gender and Class (London: Rivers Oram, 1996). Index

A Ayrton, Hertha, 5 AAAS. See American Association for the Ayrton, William, 5 Advancement of Science (AAAS) Achievement, recognition of, vi, 57 Adams, George, 254 B AEG. See Allgemein Elektrizit€at BAAS See British Association for the Gesellschaft (AEG) Advancement of Science (BAAS) Affirmative action, 11, 272, 286–288 Balfour, Alice Blanche (sister of EGMB), 38, 52 Aikin, Arthur, 22, 24, 29 Balfour, Arthur James (brother of EGMB), Aikin, Charles, 22, 29 40, 52 Albert Victor, Prince, 46 Balfour, Cecil Charles (brother of EGMB), 39 Algarotti, Francesco, 21 Balfour, Evelyn Georgiana Mary (EGMB). See Newtonianism for Ladies,21 Rayleigh, Baroness (Evelyn Strutt, Allgegenwartskonzentration (omnipresent ne´e Balfour) concentration theory), 124, 125, Balfour, Francis Maitland (brother of 146, 147 EGMB), 40, 53 Allgemein Elektrizit€at Gesellschaft (AEG), Balfour, Lady Blanche (ne´e Gascoyne-Cecil) 107, 110, 115, 116 (mother of EGMB), 41–42 American Association for the Advancement of Balfour, Lady Eve (niece of EGMB), 269 Science (AAAS), 168, 170, 187, Balfour, Lady Frances (ne´e Campbell) 246, 247 (sister-in-law of EGMB), 38, 46, 50 American Birth Control League, 179 Barnes, Harry Elmer, 168, 186, 215 American Botanical Society, 275 Barnett, Henrietta Octavia (ne´e Weston), Anning, Mary, 289 194, 228 Anonymity, 5, 14, 19 Barnett, Samuel Augustus (Canon Augustus), 94, Anthropology, 250, 290 228 Anti-nepotism rules, 8, 9, 11, 65, 158, 166, 177, Baroness (Evelyn Strutt) (EGMB), 44 272, 274–275, 284, 285 Barre´-Sinoussi, Franc¸oise, 72 Arbeitsgemeinschaft. See Collaborative Barrett, Alfred, 35 couples, models of Bateson, Gregory, 276 Argon. See Elements, discoveries of Bateson, William, 154, 176 Argyll, 8th Duke of (George Douglas Bayerische Staatsministerium fur€ Unterricht Campbell), 38 und Kultus, 115 Arrhenius, Svante, 7, 83 Beadle, George W., 69 Astronomy, 21, 246, 251, 252, 273, 274, 278 Behavioral and managerial sciences, 3 women in, 21 collaboration within, 3 Authorship, conventions of, 5 Bellamy, Edith, 277

A. Lykknes et al. (eds.), For Better or For Worse? Collaborative 305 Couples in the Sciences, Science Networks. Historical Studies 44, DOI 10.1007/978-3-0348-0286-4, # Springer Basel AG 2012 306 Index

Bell, Jocelyn, 72 Branford, Sybella (ne´e Gurney), 10, 194, 221, Benedict, Ruth, 248, 265, 290 225, 227, 232, 233, 235 Benkert, Joseph M., 164, 166, 184 co-operative housing work of, 10, 227 Benkert, Lysbeth (ne´e Hamilton), 164–166, Introduction to Regional Surveys, 228 172, 184 Sixty Years of Co-operation, 227, 241 Berg, Otto, 109–110, 118, 121, 137, 140, 142 Social Credit, 229 Berliner Gewerbeschule. See Friedrich- Branford, Victor Werdersche Oberrealschule Coming Polity, 228 Berlin State Library, 108 co-operative production theory of, 10, 227 Biochemistry, 6, 59, 64, 277 Interpretations and Forecasts, 228, 241 women in, 59 Social Inheritance, 228 Biology, 11, 15, 53, 63, 74, 75, 88, 106, Bridges, Calvin Blackman, 154 151, 152, 154–159, 163–171, 173, Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, 154 175–178, 181, 185, 186, 188, Brightwell, Cecilia Lucy, 35, 36 228, 246, 251, 261, 278, 282–287, British Association for the Advancement of 292, 294 Science (BAAS), 46, 47, 210, 211 microbiology, 69, 74 Britton, Elizabeth, 275 Biot, Madame (Gabrielle, ne´e Brisson Britton, Nathaniel, 275, 282 de Beauvais), 45 Buckland, Mary (ne´e Morland), 41 Birth control, 157, 160, 179, 286 Buckland, William, 41 Blackburn, Elizabeth, 72, 77 Burne-Jones, Sir Philip Black, Joseph, 20 Portait of Lord Rayleigh, 36–37, 48 Boardman, Harold Sherburne, 156 Portrait of Lady Rayleigh, 48, 49 Bohemium. See Elements, discoveries of Burton, Raymond H., 155, 177 Bohr, Niels, 70, 76 Bussey Institution, Harvard University, Bosanquet, Bernard, 194, 221, 224–227 152, 179 Aspects of the Social Problem, 240 Butler, Josephine, 223 as moral philosopher, 225 Butler, Lady Eleanor, 259 social theory, 226, 235 Bosanquet, Helen (ne´e Dendy) Aspects of the Social Problem, chapters C in, 240 Calkins, Gary N., 151 Charity Organisation Review, 226 Campbell, George Douglas. See Argyll, as secretary of the Charity Organisation 8th Duke of Society, 225, 226, 236, 240 Carney, Kathleen, 260 Strength of the People, 226, 240 Carpenter, Edward, 11, 251-259, 289–290 teaching at the London School of co-operative comradeship, 11, 251–259, Economics, 221 290 Bostian, Carey Hoyt (CHB), 164, 165, 175, Homogenic Love, 256–258, 268, 269 183, 184 Intermediate Sex, 257, 258 Bostian, Lloyd (son of CHB and NB), 164, Iolaus€ , 257, 259, 268, 269 165, 183, 184 Love’s Coming of Age, 257 Bostian, Neita (ne´e Corriher) (NB), 165, Modern Science, 251, 266 166, 183 portrait, 255, 259 Botany, 83, 89, 90, 149, 150, 167, 284, 286 Sexual Inversion, Case VI in, 256, 258 collectors in, 230, 282 social reform and, 11, 252 marine, 149, 150 theory of homosexuality, 251 Boundary conditions (boundaries), 7, 131, 213, Toward Democracy, 253 224, 236, 266, 291, 292 Unknown People, 257, 268 Boys, Sir Charles Vernon, 37, 51 uranian, coinage of, 258 Brandegee, Mary Katharine (ne´e Layne), Who Shall Command the Heart?, 257, 268 275, 277 Carson, Rachel, 180 Brandegee, Townshend, 275 Cassel, Arne (son of GC and JC), 204, 218 Index 307

Cassel, Gustav (GC), 9–10, 194–195, 204–206 Clements, Edith (ne´e Schwartz), 273 Social Handbok, chapters in, 204, 218 Clements, Frederic, 273 Socialpolitik, 204, 218 Cleve, Alma (ne´eO¨ hbom) (mother of AC), as theoretical economist, 205 83, 96, 100 Cassel, Inga (daughter of GC and JC), 204 Cleve, Astrid (AC). See von Euler, Astrid Cassel, Johanna (ne´eMoller)€ (JC), 9–10, (ne´e Cleve) 194–195, 204–206 Cleve, Per Teodor (father of AC), 7, 83, 86, Housemaiden’s Club, 205 89, 96, 98, 100 "Lines of Social Evolution," 205 Cobbe, Frances Power, 223, 239 "Needlewomen of Stockholm," 205 Cohorts, 12, 291 Cassel, Leif (son of GC and JC), 204 Colden, Jane, 273 Cassel, Margit (daughter of GC and JC), 204, Cold Spring Harbor 211, 212, 218 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 185, 187 Cassel, William Ernest, 152 Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Cavendish Laboratory, University of Quantitative Biology, 171 Cambridge, 45, 46 Department of Genetics, 168, 176, 185 Cavendish, Margaret. See Newcastle- Eugenics Record Office, 157 upon-Tyne, Duchess of Collaboration See also Collaborative couples, Cecil, Robert. See Salisbury, 3rd Marquis models of Chalmers, Rae Elizabeth, 164 division of labor within, 121, 127, 128, 203 Chamberlain, Joseph, 221, 228 dynamics of, v, 1–6, 8, 11, 12, 247, 248, Charity Organisation Society (COS), 225, 260, 272 226, 228, 235, 237, 240 as ideology, 3 Chase, Agnes, 275 invisibility within, 58, 248 Chatton, Edouard, 62 iterative work, 249 Chemistry, 7–8, 20, 25–27, 28–29, 85–88, non-spousal partners, 59, 70, 71 104–105, 106–107 See also patterns of, 2, 104, 115–125, 150, 258, Elements, discoveries of; Nuclear 272–274 fission; Periodic Table of elements; productivity and, v, vi, 4, 7, 245 Transuranium elements representations of, 4–6, 12 chromatography, 61, 73 Collaborative couples, models of decomposition, 26, 27 Arbeitsgemeinschaft, 8, 103–147 electrolysis, 25 co-operative comradeship, 11, 12, geochemistry, 112, 114–116, 120, 122–125, 245–269, 290 127, 130, 141, 143, 145 creator/assistant, 273 medical, 19, 20, 25, 30, 65, 103, 122, 140 egalitarian, 196, 197, 199, 201, 253, 255, organic, 24, 59, 60, 73, 81, 88, 106, 107, 272, 273, 277, 279 116, 117, 120, 142 genius/devotee, vi, 2, 3, 6, 33–35, photochemistry, 106, 112, 114, 116–118, 115, 122, 128, 129, 171, 209, 252, 120, 122, 124, 130, 141, 142, 258 144, 146 scientist/technician, 6, 45, 58–60, 65, 69, popular, vii, 5, 19–21, 25, 27, 91, 105, 106 71, 85, 128, 141, 163, 197, 245, 248, radiochemistry, 112, 134, 298 260, 272, 273, 276–278, 285, 287, wartime research in, 105 290, 291 women in, vii, 21, 31, 85, 101, 102, 106, separate worlds, 10, 206, 209 111, 128, 133, 134, 138, 298, 299 in the shadow of, 10, 87, 127, 128, 203, Childcare, vi, 11, 86, 88, 197, 199, 205, 206, 209 213, 233, 272, 279–281, 287, 290 teacher (mentor)/student, 5, 9, 20, 27, daycare, 280, 281, 286–288 89, 90, 155, 165, 204, 206, 253, maternity/paternity leave, 281 289, 290 Clapp, Cornelia M., 174 two roles, 10, 209 Class (social), 10, 11, 205, 207, 210, 224, vanishing spouse, 14, 57–77, 274 226, 228, 258, 260, 286 Colleges. See Universities 308 Index

Committee of the Labour Association for Fletcher, Alice Cunningham and E. Jane Promoting Co-operative Production, Gay, 259 227, 241 Galvani, Luigi and Lucia, 41 Communications, advances in, 11, 288 Geddes, Patrick and Anna, 194 Commuting, 158, 169, 278–280 Gould, John and Elizabeth Coxen, 273, 292 Contagious Diseases Acts, 223 Greb, Raymond J. and Magnhild Torvik, Conversations on Chemistry, 5, 19–32 164, 166, 184 See also Marcet, Alexander Jean Hamilton, William Rowan and Helen, 41 Gaspard; Marcet, Jane Huber, Johann Jakob and Rosina, 41 changes, 26 Huggins, William and Margaret, 56, editions, 5, 19, 24–26 273, 292 manuscript versions, 5, 20, 24, 25 Hutchinson, G. Evelyn and Grace translations, 25 Pickford, 276 Co-operative movement (British), 10–11, 227 Huxley, Thomas Henry and Henrietta, 4, 40 Co-operative housing, 10, 227 Joliot-Curie, Fre´de´ric and Ire`ne, 6, 58, 292 Co-operative production, 10, 227 Krogh, August and Marie, 6, 58, 61–62, 74 Cori, Carl, 6, 58, 65–66, 277, 278 Lapicque, Louis and Marcelle, 66–67 blood glucose research, 65, 277 Lederberg, Joshua and Esther, 70, 75, 276 Cori, Gerty Theresa (ne´e Radnitz), 6, 58, Lister, Lord and Lady, 223 65–66, 277, 278 Lwoff, Andre´ and Marguerite, 6, 58, 62–65 blood glucose research, 65, 277 Lyell, Charles and Mary, 45 full professorship, 65, 278 Marcet, Alexander and Jane, 5, 19–32 COS. See Charity Organisation Society Marshall, Alfred and Mary Paley, 194 Couples, in science Masters, William and Virginia Balfour, Lady Eve and Beryl Hearnden, 260 E. Johnson, 276 Barnett, Samuel and Henrietta, 194 Mead, Margaret and Ruth Benedict, 248, Bateson, Gregory and Margaret Mead, 265, 290 248, 276 Morgan, Thomas Hunt and Lilian Vaughan, Benkert, Joseph M. and Lysbeth Hamilton, 173, 176 164, 165, 184 Noddack, Walter and Ida Tacke, Biot, Jean-Baptiste and Gabrielle, 21, 45 3, 103–147 Bosanquet, Bernard and Helen, 10, 194, Painter, Theophilus S. and Anna Thomas, 240, 242 152, 174 Bostian, Carey Hoyt and Neita Corriher, Rathbone, Eleanor and Elizabeth 164, 165, 183 Macadam, 237 Brandagee, Townshend and Mary Rayleigh, Lord and Lady, 5, 6, 33–56, 273 Katharine (Kate), 275 Rayner-Canham, Geoff and Marelene, 60, Branford, Victor and Sybella, 10, 194, 73, 132, 146 221, 235 Robinson, Robert and Gertrude, 6, 58–61, 73 Buckland, William and Mary, 41 Sabine, Edward and Elizabeth, 45 Carpenter, Edward and George Merrill, Schrader, Franz and Sally Hughes, 173 11, 255, 259, 267, 268, 298 Schultz, Jack and Helen Redfield, 173 Cassel, Gustav and Johanna, 9, 204–206, 211 Shreve, Forrest and Edith Bellamy, 277 Clements, Frederic and Edith Schwartz, 273 Speicher, Benjamin Robert and Kathryn Cori, Carl and Gerty, 6, 58, 65–66, 74, 277, Gilmore, 164, 167 292, 293 Steffen, Gustaf and Oscara, 9, 194, 195, Creese, Thomas M. and Mary R.S., 86, 99 199–203, 215, 217 Curie, Pierre and Marie, 6, 58, 66, 97, 110, Stokes, George Gabriel and Mary, 40, 53 131, 292 Sullivant, William Starling and Eliza Davy, Humphry and Jane, 24, 31 Wheeler, 272, 273 Dunham, Ethel Collins and Martha May Turnball, Colin Macmillan and Joseph Elliott, 260 Allen Towles, 250, 260 Faraday, Michael and Sarah, 41 Vogt, Oskar and Ce´cile, 67–68, 75 Index 309

von Euler-Chelpin, Hans and Astrid Cleve, Dulbecco, Renato, 64, 68–69, 74, 75 7, 81–102, 147, 275 Dunham, Ethel Collins, 260 von Euler-Chelpin, Hans and Beth Ugglas, Dunn, Leslie C., 152, 156, 162, 175, 182 90, 95 Dzierzon, Johann, 170 von Koch, Gerhard and Carola Sahl, 208, 211 Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, 10, 194, 221, 225, 238, 241, 242 E Whiting, Phineas and Anna Rachel, 8–9, Eastwood, Alice, 275 149–158, 160–163, 165–172, 274, Eaton, Daniel Cady, 152 278–279 Ebeling, Max, 106 Wicksell, Knut and Anna, 9, 196–199, 202, Ecological Society of America (ESA), 207, 214, 215 281–285 Craik, George Lillie, 38, 52 Ecology, 91, 151, 273, 281–285 Creative Couples in the Sciences, 3, 11, 32, 49, limnology, 276 56, 73, 94, 95, 97, 101, 141, 165, women in, 281–282 183, 211, 239, 248, 263, 265, 271, Edinburgh Mathematical Society, 252 292, 299 Education, female Cremer, Erika, 138 higher, vii, 13, 133, 224 Curie, Marie, vii, 66, 76, 97, 111, 131, 278 at home, 83, 94 Curie, Pierre, 6, 66, 73, 97, 110, 131, 292 private, 20 scientific, 35, 57 Egalitarianism, 10, 156, 161, 196, 197, 199, D 201, 222, 253, 255, 272, 273, Dahl, Tora, 92, 101 275, 277, 279, 286, 294 Darwin, Charles Robert, 249 Einstein, Albert, 106, 142 Darwin, Sir George, 38 Elements, discoveries of Davenport, Charles Benedict, 157, 176, 179, argon, 35, 38, 46, 51, 273 185, 187 Bohemium (element 93), 117 Davy, Lady (Jane, ne´e Apreece), 45 Florentium (Illinium or element 61), 142 Davy, Sir Humphry, 24, 31 masurium (see technetium) Deissmann, Adolf, 138 rhenium (element 75), 110, 111, 119 De´jerine, Augusta Klumpke, 67 technetium (masurium or element 43), De´jerine, Jules, 67 110, 111, 119, 132–133, 136, 139 Demerec, Milosovic, 185, 187 Elliott, Martha May, 260 Democratic Foundation (Britain), 34, 50, 252 Ellis, Havelock, 252, 256, 264 Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Sexual Inversion, 258, 256–257, 264 Leopoldina, 111 Emotions Deutsche Edison-Gesellschaft, 107 history of, 13 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. See investment of, v Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Employment, women’s Wissenschaft academic appointments, 158–159, 169, 274 Diatoms (silicious algae), 7, 90, 92 industrial positions, 91, 106, 231, 246, Division of labor, gender, 203, 222, 224–227 261, 290 communion of labor, 223, 224 unpaid labor, 7-8, 85, 112, 169 Divorce, 2, 7, 82, 89–91, 93, 95, 100, 177, wartime, 105 237, 272, 275, 276, 290 Enequist, Gerd, 212 Domestic work, vi, 9, 20, 43–44, 197–198, 205, Enoch, J.K., 45, 54 206, 232, 235, 237, 255, 258, 272, Ethnicity, 222, 246, 275, 287, 288, 291 280, 287, 290 Eugenics, 149, 153, 157, 160, 179, 180, 224, hired staff, 7, 43 232, 233 Drosophila (fruit flies), 69, 156, 160, 162, Eugenics Record Office. See Cold spring 168, 176, 181, 183, 279 harbor Dugdale, Blanche (ne´e Balfour), 38, 55 Evans, Alexander William, 152 310 Index

F division of labor (see Division of labor, Fabian society, 202, 207, 210, 217, 230–232, gender) 234–237, 241, 243, 252 “doing gender,” 200 Fabian Women’s Group (FWG), 234, 236, essentialism, 248 237, 243 identity, 3 Faithfull, Emily, 53 power imbalance, 82, 276 Family, the ratios, 163 socioeconomic theory of, 199, 206 representation, 210, 238 as support mechanism, 38, 195 roles, 8, 10, 95, 208, 222, 230, 233, 238, 239 Faraday, Michael, 41, 50 separate spheres (see Separate Faraday, Sarah (ne´e Barnard), 41 spheres-gender ideology of) Fearnehough, Albert, 253 structural patterns, 82 Federal Emergency Relief Administration, General Electric (GE), 280 U.S. (F.E.R.A.), 187 General Electric Research Laboratory, 280 Feit, Wilhelm, 141 Genetics See also Drosophila; Eugenics; Fellowship of the New Life, 252 Habrobracon; Hymenoptera; Femininity, 14, 54, 222, 239, 257 Mendelian theory; Sex Fermi, Enrico, 118, 132 determination, Genetics and Fernandes, Lorenzo, 117 cytology of Fletcher, Alice Cunningham, 259 cytogenetics, 149, 282 Florentium. See Elements, discoveries of women in, 160–161, 321 Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de, 21 Genetics Society of America, 171 Fox, Charles, 252 Genius, Romantic ideal of, 50 Franklin, Rosalind, 71, 76 Geochemisches Institut, 113–115, 122, 123, Freiburger Wissenschaftlichen 125, 128, 139, 141, 146 Gesellschaft, 125 Geology, 27, 86, 91, 102, 261 French Cancer Research Institute, 63 German Chemical Society, 111 Friedrich-Werdersche Oberrealschule, 106 G.I. Bill, The, 286 Fries, Ellen, 96 Giobel-Lilja,€ Ingrid, 206, 217–218 Fulton, John, 67 Goldring, Winifred, vii Goldschmidt, Richard, 299 Goldschmidt, Victor M., 124 G Gordon, George, 54 Galilei, Galileo, 21, 249 Gould, Elizabeth (ne´e Coxen), 273 Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Gould, John, 273 World Systems,21 Greb, Magnhild (ne´e Torvik), 164, 166 Galston, Arthur, 294 Greb, Raymond J., 164, 166 Galton, Frank Wallis, 231, 241, 242 Greiger, Carol, 72 Galvani, Lucia (ne´e Galeazzi), 41 Gruttner,€ O., 121 Galvani, Luigi, 41 Guiher, Ruth, 164 Ganong, William Francis, 173 Gustaf Adolf, King, 92 Garnjobst, Laura Flora, 69–70, 75, 76 Guy’s Hospital (London), 19, 20 Gavin, Sir William, 34, 39, 42, 50 Gay, E. Jane, 259 Geddes, Anna, 194 H Geddes, Patrick, 194, 228 Habrobracon (parasitic wasps), 149, 154, Coming Polity, 228 160, 170, 171, 176, 180, 181, 183, social inheritance, 228 187, 188 Gender Habrobracon research group, Pittsburgh, construction of sexual difference, 3, 5, 161–167 256–258 Haldimand, Anthony Francis, 20 conventions, 4–5, 10, 231 Hamburger, Viktor, 73 discrimination, 246, 274–275, 284–285 Hamer, Dean, 245, 261 Index 311

Hamilton, Lady (Helen Maria, ne´e Bayly), 41 Institute for Experimental Research in Hamilton-Nystrom,€ Anton, 208 Agricultural Science, 91 Hamilton, Sir William Rowan, 41, 53 Institute of Sociology, 221, 228, 235, 236 Harden, Arthur, 92 International Association of Eugenics and Harris, J. Allen, 117 Euthenics, 179 Hausser, Karl Wilhelm, 110 International Congress of Genetics, 156, 171 Hearnden, Beryl, 260 International Congress of History of Science Heckscher, Ebba, 204, 218 and Technology, 1–2 Heckscher, Eli, 206, 211, 212, 217–219 International Federation of Univeristy Helpmeet role, 6, 11, 57, 60, 71, 93, Women, 127 254–255, 290 International Union of Pure and Applied Hewish, Antony, 72 Chemistry (IUPAC), 125, 147 Hill, Octavia, 228 Iowa Child Welfare Research Station, 149, Hirschfeld, Magnus, 249, 268 175, 178 Hirt, August, 113 Hobhouse, Leonard Trelawny, 227, 238 J Holleck, Ludwig, 113, 139–140 Jacob, Franc¸ois, 63, 64, 74 Holmgren, Ann Margret, 198 Jakobsson, Valborg, 86, 98, 99, 281 Holmlund, Eugenie, 204, 219 James, William, 226 Holmlund, Josephine, 204 Jenness-Miller, Annie, 201 Homosexual relationships, 11, 245–248, 250, John Innes Horticultural Institution, 154 245, 258, 259, 290 Johnson, Virginia E., 276 cohabitation within, 247 Joliot-Curie, Fre´de´ric, 6, 58, 272, 292 demographics, 247, 260, 262 Joliot-Curie, Ire`ne, 6, 292 living separately within, 248 Jones, Thomas B., 25 Honigschmid,€ Otto, 113, 140, 143 New Conversations on Chemistry, 25 Hopkins, B. Smith, 117 Jordan, David Starr, 283 Households, scientific See also Millthorpe; Jordani club at Cornell University, 283 Terling Place; Tulse Hill portrait, 283 apparatus in, 43, 85, 97 astronomical, 246 as co-operative workplace, 11, 254 K as family firms, 9, 33, 49, 128, 203, 272 Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft, 63 horticultural, 154 Keilin, David, 63 social-science, 10 Kennedy, Anne, 179 staff in, 115 Key, Ellen, 96, 204, 205 as workshops, 33, 43 Kinsey, Alfred Charles, 247, 249, 262, Housekeeping. See Domestic work 265, 266 Huber, Johann Jakob, 41 Kirkebride, Wanda, 275 Huber, Rosina (ne´e Rohner), 41 Klein, Viola Huggins, Lady (Margaret Lindsay, ne´e Women’s Two Roles, 209 Murray), 48, 56, 273 Koblic, Odolen, 117 Huggins, Sir William, 48, 56, 273 Kock, Karin, 212 Hutchinson, G. Evelyn, 276, 293 Kovalevskaia, Sofia, 84, 96, 267 Huxley, Henrietta (ne´e Heathorn), 4, 40 Krogh, August, 6, 58, 61-62, 74 Huxley, Thomas Henry, 4, 40, 46 insulin production, 61–62 Hymenoptera (bees), 162, 176, 180, 181, 187 respiration studies, 61 zoophysiological laboratory, 62, 70 Krogh, Marie (Birta, ne´e Jorgensen), 6, 58, I 61–62, 74 Ibsen, Henrik, 201 as head of own laboratory, 62 Illustration, scientific, 169 nutrition studies, 61 312 Index

Krogh (cont.) Memoranda, 21, 23, 31, 32 respiration studies, 61 Two Lectures on Electro-Chemistry, thyroid disorders research, 61 25–27, 32 Kropotkin, Petr, 202, 204, 217 Marcet, Jane (ne´e Haldimand), 5, 19–32 See Fields, Factories and Workshops, 205 also Conversations on Chemistry Conversations on Natural Philosophy, L 21, 30 Laboratories Conversations on Political Economy, courtship in, 150, 163, 283 21, 30 domestic, 2, 36, 37, 43, 223 as popular science author, 27, 266 hierarchies in, 87, 130 religiousness, 42 industrial research, 91 Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL), 8, 15, private, 36, 37, 43, 59 150, 151, 173, 174, 184 social life within, 161 as summer resort, 8, 15, 150 women and, 161, 291 Marriage Labouchere Amendment, 256 children within, 59, 81, 86, 164, 166, 172, Langenheim, Jean, 276, 281, 293 176, 188–189, 193, 197, 202, 204, Lapicque, Louis, 66–67, 74, 75 233, 283–284, 287 Lapicque, Marcelle de Herrida, 66–67, 74, 75 common-law, 197 Lavoisier, Antoine Laurent, 20, 30 companionship within, 256 Lederberg, Esther M. (ne´e Zimmer), 70, 76, 276 courtship leading to, 211 Lederberg, Joshua, 69, 70, 75, 76 covenant, 130 Le Play House (London), 221, 228, 241 domestic partnership, 258 LeVay, Simon, 249, 263 fictitious, 265 Levi, Hilde, 70, 76 honeymoon after, 234 Levi-Montalcini, Rita, 73 romance within, 233 Linder, Gurli, 207, 208, 216, 219 same-sex, 245–269 Lister, Baroness (Agnes, ne´e Symes), 223 strife within, 7 Lister, 1st Baron (Joseph Lister), 223, 239 terms of, 209 Little, Clarence C., 152, 155 Marshall, Alfred, 224, 231, 235 Lock, Robert Heath Economics of Industry, 235 Recent Progress in the Study of Variation, Marshall, Mary (ne´e Paley), 194, 235 Heredity and Evolution, 154 Economics of Industry, 235 London School of Economics and Political Masculinity, 222, 234, 257 Science (LSE), 221, 229, 231, Masters, William, 276 235, 241 Masurium, See Elements, discoveries of London School of Ethics and Philosophy, 226 Mathematics, 40, 44, 45, 106, 204, 246, 252, London School of Sociology and Social 280, 284 Economics, 221, 227 Matheson, Ce´cile LSE. See London School of Economics and Women’s Work and Wages, 237 Political Science (LSE) Matilda effect. See Rossiter, Margaret–Matilda Lwoff, Andre´ Michel, 6, 58, 62–65, 74 Effect Lyell, Lady (Mary, ne´e Horner), 45 Maxwell, James Clerk, 41 McClintock, Barbara, 71 McClung, Clarence Erwin, 153 M Mead, Margaret, 226, 248, 290 Macadam, Elizabeth, 237 Mecke, Reinhard, 139 Malcolm, Shirley M., 246, 261 Medicine, 20, 61, 64–66, 68, 69, 72, 81, 222, Mallock, Arnulph, 54 250, 264, 278, 284 Malthus, Thomas, 21 women in, 222, 284 Manhattan project, 3, 291 Medico-Chirurgical Society of London, 24 Marcet, Alexander Jean Gaspard, 5, 19–32 Meier, Hans, 49, 115 See also Conversations on Chemistry Meitner, Lise, 111 as Huguenot, 20 Index 313

Mellon, Andrew, 168 National Socialist Party (Germany), 112, 113 Mendeleev Congress, 123, 125 Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei Mendeleev, Dmitri, 107–109, 123, 125 (NSDAP), 113 Mendel, Gregor, 152–154 Natural history, 14, 39, 52, 252 Mendelian theory, 153, 154 Natural philosophy, 2, 21, 24, 30, 50, Mentoring, 165, 170, 247 93, 97 Merrill, George, 11, 254–256, 258, 259, 290 popular, 2, 21 field observations, 258 Nepotism. See Anti-nepotism rules as helpmeet, 11, 254, 290 Networks, 89, 126, 127, 247, 288, 290 portrait, 255, 259 Neurobiological Institute,Berlin, 67 working class origins of, 11, 255 Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Duchess of (Margaret Meyerhof, Otto, 63 Cavendish), 93 Meyer, Lothar, 108 New Haven High School, 152 Mill, Harriet Taylor, 222 Newton, Sir Isaac, 249, 264 Millthorpe cottage (Sheffield, England), New York Botanical Garden, 275, 294 251, 253–255, 258 Nielsen, Bodil Schmidt, 61, 70 portrait, 253 Nobel Prize Mining Academy, Berlin, 106 awarded in Moll, Albert, 257 chemistry, 81, 92, 111, 130 Monod, Jacques, 63 physics, 130, 273 Montagnier, Luc, 72 physiology/medicine, 69, 81, 278 Morgan, Ann Haven, 174, 176 committee, 58, 92, 101 Morgan, Conwy Lloyd, 226 laureate, 57–102 Morgan, Lilian Vaughan, 173 nomination, 70, 93, 126 Morgan, Thomas Hunt, 154, 173, 175, 176, Noddack, Ida (ne´e Tacke), 8, 103–147 279, 293 anti-coagulation studies, 8, 103, 105, Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, 154 109, 126, 130, 131, 134–136, 139, Moseley, Henry, 110 141, 147 Motherhood, 129, 165, 222, 224, 232, 233, 237, background chemical literature analysis, 108 239, 240 as chemical engineer, 107, 116 Muirhead, Robert Franklin, 252, 256, 266 elements, research on new, 106–112, Muller, Herman Joseph, 154 116–120 Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, 154 laboratory notebooks 109 Muller,€ W.J., 182 portrait, 104, 109, 119, 121, 128, 141, Mumford, Lewis, 232, 233, 242 146, 271, 272 Munthe, Henrik, 91 Nobel Prize nomination, 111, 126 Murchison, Lady Charlotte (ne´e Hugonin), 45 nuclear fission research, 130 Murrow, Edward R., 278 portrait, 105, 114 Muse´um d’Histoire Naturelle, 66 publication record, 115, 117 Mylius, Franz, 107 rhenium, spectroscopic discovery of, 119 Myrdal, Alva technetium, spectroscopic discovery of, 132 Women’s Two Roles, 209, 220 unpaid research assistance, 110, 112, 115 Noddack, Walter, 3, 103–147 elements, research on new, 106–112, N 116–120 National Academy of the Sciences (U.S.), 170, laboratory notebooks, 104, 109, 271 180, 188, 294 portrait, 105 National Organization of Gay and Lesbian publication record, 115–116 Scientists and Technical rhenium, spectroscopic discovery of, 119 Professionals (NOGLSTP), 247, technetium, spectroscopic discovery of, 132 261, 290 Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft, National Research Council (NRC), 157, 167, 179 110, 137 National Science Foundation (NSF), 49, NRC. See National Research Council 262, 286 314 Index

NSF. See National Science Foundation Pictet, Marc-Auguste Nuclear fission, 104, 118, 130, 132, 139, 147 Bibliothe`que Britannique, 23, 32 Pittsburgh skin and cancer foundation, 166 O Plas Newydd, Llangollen (Wales), 259 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 170 Pockels, Agnes, 47, 55 Oates, Charles George, 255, 267, 268 Politics, impact on careers in science, 113, Oates, Francis, 255 140, 171 Ponsonby, Miss Sarah, 259, 269 Popular science, 5, 19, 21, 25, 35, 91, 157, 219, P 252, 266 Page`s, Jacqueline, 64 conversations, 19 Paijkull, Lilly, 83, 96 dialogues, 21 portrait,83 familiar format, 35 Painter, Anna Mary (ne´e Thomas), 168, scientific biography, 4–6, 14, 48, 51, 249 174, 187 Pourtale`s, Guy de, 20, 23, 25, 30 Painter, Theophilus Schickel, 152, 168, 174 Poverty, social problem of, 224, 230 Paleontology, women in, vii poor laws, 236 Parkinson, Stephen, 44, 54 Price, Derek J. de Solla, 12, 34, 50 Partnerships. See Collaboration Professionalization, 10, 15, 151, 221, 240, 260 Paschen, Friedrich., 138 Prussian academy of sciences, 137 Pasteur Institute, 63 Sitzungsberichte, 110 Pasteur, Louis, 139, 249, 265 Payne-Gaposchkin, Cecilia, 286 Peck, Charles Horton, 282, 294 R Peirce, Benjamin, 252, 266 Radioactivity studies, women in, 58, 127, 132 Peirce, James Mills, 249, 264, 266 Ramsay, Sir William, 37 as Prof. X, 264 Rathbone, Eleanor, 237 Pennsylvania College for Women (PCW), Rayleigh, Baroness (Clara, ne´e Vicars) (mother 158–160, 167, 168, 180, 183, 184 of JWS), 44, 46 Periodic table of elements, 106, 108, 109, 117, Rayleigh, Baroness (Evelyn Strutt, ne´e 143 Balfour) (wife of JWS), 5, 6, 33-56, Perkin, William Henry, Jr., 60, 76 273 Perrier, Carlo, 111, 138 acoustical assistance, 40, 44 Pert, Candace, 72 diaries, 34, 39, 48 Phelps, Almira Lincoln, 275 domestic management, 41, 44 Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule, electrical standards measurements, 45, 47 Bamberg, 114, 126 imagery of, 6 Philpot, Elizabeth, 289 laboratory assistance, 38, 43, 45, 46 Physics, 4, 44, 83, 105–107, 281 mathematical assistance, 38, 40, 44 acoustics, 40, 44 musical talent, 40 amateurs in, 47–48, 251 natural history studies, 39, 52 domestic laboratories in, 41–43, 44, 48 portrait,34 optics, 21, 55 translation work, 47 religion and, 6, 33, 35–39, 51 Rayleigh, 3rd Baron (John William Strutt) representations of research in, 5, 34–39, (JWS), 5, 6, 33-56, 273 47–49 acoustics experiments, 54 scales of research in, 2, 34 argon, discovery of, 35, 38 Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt (PTR), family engagement, 34 107, 132 imagery of, 6 Physiology, 57–72 portrait,48 neuroanatomy, 67 productivity, 52 neuroendocrinology, 62 religiousness of, 42 women in, 6, 59, 72, 75, 278 as solitary genius, 34–35 Pickford, Grace, 276, 286 work routine, 35, 48 Index 315

Rayleigh, 4th Baron (Robert John Strutt) Salk Institute, 68 (son of JWS), 38, 39, 46, 47, 52 Same-sex relationships. See Homosexual Rayner-Canham, Geoffrey, 73, 132 relationships Rayner-Canham, Marelene, 73, 132 Sanger, Margaret, 157, 179 Religion See also Physics - religion and Say, Jean-Baptiste, 21 the Bible, 41, 253 Sch€affle, A.E.F., 201 Evangelical Anglican, 6, 33–34, 38, 39, 48, Scheele, Carl Wilhelm, 111 222–223 Schlenk, Wilhelm, 138 and natural philosophy, 24 Schmitt-Ott, Friedrich, 137 Research groups Schrader, Franz, 173 big science, 291 Schrader, Sally Hughes, 173 little science, 2, 34 Schultz, Helen (ne´e Redfield), 173 multi-institutional, 45, 242 Schultz, Jack, 173 research schools, 2, 291 Schuster, Sir Arthur, 38, 52 Retzius, Gustaf, 90, 100, 101 Schwartz, Neena, 291, 295 Rhenium. See Elements, discoveries of Scopes, John Thomas, 157 Rieder, Friedrich, 121 Scott, Joan Wallach, 13, 250, 265 Rive, Auguste de la, 20, 30, 32 Scott-Moncrieff, Rose, 60, 73 Robinson, Gertrud Maud (ne´e Walsh), 6, 58–61 Segre´, Emilio, 111, 138 chromatography, method of, 61, 73 Separate spheres, 4, 6, 35, 38, 42, 50, 82, 94, honors and recognition, 60 95, 128, 194, 212, 222 plant pigments, research on, 60 private sphere, 34, 35, 38, 94, 95, Robinson, Robert, 6, 58–61 128, 222 chromatography, method of, 61 public sphere, 35, 82, 95, 103, 196, 207, honors and positions, 60 209, 222, 226, 234, 239 plant pigments, research on, 60, 61 Sex determination, genetics and cytology Rockefeller foundation, 62 of, 149–189 Rockefeller institute, 69 Sex Disqualification Act, 235 Role model, 35, 94, 165, 167, 171, 172 Sexology, 249 Rolla, Luigi, 117, 142 Sexual orientation Rossiter, Margaret-Matilda Effect, 6, 8, 14, biological studies of, 248 71, 77, 94, 101, 127, 146, 158, 166, as demographic category, 246–247 242, 271 experiences and meanings of, 245, 248, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, 277 See 251, 257, 258 also State Institute for the Study labels for, 250, 282 of Malignant Diseases, Buffalo, Shaw, C. Ruth, 164 New York Shaw, George Bernard, 232 Royal Institution (London), 19, 23, 24, 31, 37, Shreve, Forrest, 277 40, 47, 51, 52, 56 Sidgwick, Eleanor Mildred (ne´e Balfour), 44, Royal Society of London, 19, 52, 60, 74 47, 52, 55 Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 86, 89, women’s higher science education, 55 92, 93, 98, 101 Sidgwick, Henry, 44, 52, 55 Rumford, Sir Benjamin Thompson, Count, 23 Siemens & Halske, 103, 109–111, 120, 121, Ruskin, John, 223 126, 131 Rydberg, Susen, 208 Silicious algae. See Diatoms Rydberg, Viktor, 208 Singlehood, 68, 71, 222, 237, 247, 262, Ryle, Martin, 72 263, 275 Sismondi, Jean-Charles de, 21 Skinker, Mary Scott, 158, 159, 179, 180 S Skrabal, Anton, 138 Sabine, Lady (Elizabeth, ne´e Leeves), 45 Smiles, Samuel, 41, 50, 53 Salisbury, 3rd Marquis (Robert Gascoyne-Cecil), Smith, Adam, 21 35, 51 Smith, Brian Abel, 117, 235 316 Index

Smith, Harold Hill, 294 reform dress work, 200, 201, 203 Smithsonian Institution, 275 translation work, 200 Snyder, Solomon, 72 Stern, Curt, 170, 188 Socialism, 9–13, 113, 126, 138–140, 149, 157, Stockholms Arbetareinstitut, 208 166, 168, 178, 224, 227, 230, 232, Stokes, Lady (Mary, ne´e Robinson), 40 241, 251, 252, 254, 256 See also Stokes, Sir George Gabriel, 40, 53 Co-operative movement; National Stout, George Frederick, 226 Socialist Party; Strindberg, August, 201, 216 Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Strutt, Evelyn. See Rayleigh, Baroness (Evelyn Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) Strutt, ne´e Balfour) Social reform, 9-11, 193-195, 197, 199, 200, Strutt, John William. See Rayleigh, 3rd Baron 202-205, 207-210, 211, 232, 252 St. Stephen College, 63 See also Co-operative movement; Stuart, James, 251 socialism St. Ursula Gymnasium, 104 communion of labor, 9, 10, 223, 224, Sturtevant, Alfred Henry, 8, 150, 154 235, 238 Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, 154 homosexuality and, 9, 249, 251, 252, Sullivant, Eliza (ne´e Wheeler), 273 256–258, 261, 264–266, 268, 303 Sullivant, William Starling, 272, 282 Social science Svanberg, Olof, 87 academization of, 4, 9, 193–220 Swedish Chemical Society, 111 family firms in, 203 Swedish Hydrographical-Biological social reform and, 193–220 Commission, 90 Sociological Review, 221, 228, 233, 240, 242 Symonds, John Addington, 249, 256, 257, 264, Sociological Society (London), 221, 228, 242 266, 268 Somerville, Mary (ne´e Fairfax), 45, 54, sexual inversion, 9, 256, 258, 223, 239 264, 268 Connexion of the Physical Sciences, 223 Synge, Richard L.M., 61, 73, 73 Somerville, William, 224 Szostak, Jack W., 72 Sorbonne, The. See Universities-University of Paris Sorby, Henry Clifton, 48 T Speicher, Benjamin Robert, 164, 167 Tacke, Adelberg, 104 Speicher, Kathryn A. (ne´e Gilmore), 164, Tatum, Edward Lawrie, 69–70, 75, 76 167, 186 Technetium, 111, 132 See also Elements, Spencer, Herbert, 12, 225 discoveries of Staatliches Forschungsinstitut fur€ Technische Hochschule Berlin (TH), 105, 133 Geochemie, 114 Telecommuting, 272, 288 Stark, Johannes, 6, 112, 132, 138, 194, 200 Templeton, Alexis, 245 State Institute for the Study of Malignant Terling Place (Essex, England), 5, 33–56 Diseases, Buffalo, New York, 65 portrait, 42–43 See also Roswell Park Memorial Thomsen, Julius, 86, 97 Institute Timmermann, Albert, 122, 144 Steffen, Elsa (daughter of GS and OS), 102, Titmuss, Richard, 235 173, 202 Tjernysjevsky, Nikolaj, 201 Steffen, Gustaf (GS), 194, 195, 199–201, 203, Tower, Beauchamp, 54 205, 215–217 Towles, Joseph Allen, 250 as chemist, 199, 200 Toynbee, Arnold, 227 as sociologist, 199, 200 Toynbee, Charlotte (ne´e Atwood), 227 Steffen, Mona-Lisa (daughter of GS and OS), Transuranium elements, 132 203, 217 Tulse Hill (London), 273 Steffen, Oscara (ne´e von Sydow) (OS), Turnbull, Colin Macmillan, 250 194–196, 199–204, 206–210, 217 Turner, Herbert Hall, 44 Index 317

U Stockholm University College, 199, 205, Uddeholms AB (pulp mill), 91, 99, 100 208, 211 Ugglas, Elisabeth, Baroness af, 90, 93, 95 St. Stephen College, 153 Ulrichs, Karl Heinrich, 249, 257 Swarthmore College, 169 Urning, coinage of, 257 Technische Hochschule Berlin (TH), 105, 133 Universities Technische Universit€at Berlin (see Amherst College, 167 Technische Hochschule Berlin) Bard College (see St. Stephen College) University of Berlin, 68, 82, 106, 108, 138 Bloomfield Junior College, 167 University of California, Berkeley, 14, 132, Brandeis University, 275 274, 286, 294, 299 California Institute of Technology, 64, 68 University of California, Santa Cruz, 276 Catawba College, 157–159, 165 University of Cambridge, 50, 53, 154 Chatham University (see Pennsylvania University of Chicago, 12, 14, 31, 51, 52, College for Women) 54, 140, 166, 167, 178, 181, 182, Columbia University, 72, 146, 151, 154, 213, 264–266, 269, 298 160, 167, 168, 179, 181, 279 University of Copenhagen, 61, 62 Cornell University, 283, 284, 294, 299 University of Delaware, 170, 188 Erlangen University, 114, 130 University of Dundee, 228 Franklin and Marshall College, 153 University of Edinburgh, 20, 228, 239 Gothenburg University, 194, 199, University of Freiburg, 112, 123, 126 203, 214 University of Gothenburg, 84, 96, 194, 199, Harvard University, 175, 182, 269, 284, 294 203, 214, 286 Huron College, 164, 166, 185 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Iowa Wesleyan College, 167 142, 286 Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven, 105, University of Iowa, 149, 153, 154, 157, 109, 114, 119, 131 175, 180 Lund University, 194, 198, 215 University of Liverpool, 59, 237 Mainz University, 123 University of London, 13 Marion Junior College, 167 University of Maine, 155–156, 161, 164, 167 Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Manchester, 259 (MIT), 286 University of Michigan, 177, 294 Mount Holyoke College, 154, 174 University of Oxford, 12–14, 54, 75, 136, Munich University, 82 238, 263, 264, 293 Newnham College (Cambridge), 235 University of Paris, 63 North Carolina State, 165, 170, 184, 188, 189 University of Pennsylvania, 15, 30, 149, Oberlin College, 152 152, 153, 161, 169, 170, 173, 175, Oregon State University, 69, 70, 76, 275 178, 275 Pennsylvania College for Women (PCW), University of Pittsburgh, 8, 158, 160, 158–160, 167, 168, 180, 183, 184 161, 163, 164, 166–171, 179, Pennsylvania State University, 275 182–186, 210 Princeton University, 14, 51, 141, 175, 210, University of South Dakota, 166, 185 265, 286 University of St. Andrews, 59, 225 Reichsuniversit€at (see University of University of Strassburg, 112, 113, 126, 129 Strassburg) University of Sydney, 59 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 279 University of Washington, 65, 66, 277, 278 Rostock University, 203 University of Wisconsin, Madison, 284 Smith College, 149, 150, 152, 155, 170, Uppsala University, 83, 96, 97, 212, 300 173, 178 Washington University, 65, 66, 277, 278 South Dakota State University, 164, Yale University, 50, 51, 152, 242, 284, 293, 166, 185 294, 297 Stanford University, 50, 132, 286 Urbain, Georges, 110 State University of New York, 275, 299 Urwick, Edward Johns, 235, 241 St. Bonaventure University, 189 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 69 318 Index

V Webb, Beatrice (ne´e Potter), 10, 194, 221, 225, Vavilov, Nikolai, 157 238, 241, 242 Verein Deutscher Chemiker, 127, 146, 147 as creative thinker, 230 Verein Deutscher Chemikerinnen, 127 History of Trade Unionism, 231, 242 Verein fur€ Sozialpolitik, 210 Industrial Democracy, 231, 242 Victoria, Queen, 46 My Apprenticeship, 229 Visual culture of science, 5 Webb, Sidney, 10, 194, 221, 225, 238, 241, 242 Vogt, Ce´cile (CV), 67–68, 75 as detail-oriented practitioner, 10 Vogt, Marguerite Maria (daughter of CV History of Trade Unionism, The, 231, 242 and OV), 64, 68–69, 71, 75, 77 Industrial Democracy, 231, 242 Vogt, Marthe Louise (daughter of CV and Wedgwood, Josiah, 259 OV), 75 Weinberg, Alvin, 12, 34, 50 Vogt, Oskar (OV), 67, 68, 75 Weizmann, Chaim, 59 von Antropoff, Andreas, 138 Wernerwerk of Siemens and Halske. von Euler, Astrid (ne´e Cleve) 7, 81–102, See Siemens & Halske 147, 275 Wheeler, William Morton, 152, 153 as botanist, 81, 83 Whiting, Anna Rachel (ne´e Young), viii, 8–9, as chemist, 7 149–163, 165–172, 274, 278–279 Diatomeen von Schweden and Finnland, 92 as biological department head, 155, 158, 159 diatoms research, 7, 90, 91 chromosomes, study of X-ray effects on, 169 geological controversies, 91 as guest investigator, 169 honors, 92 honorary doctorate, 170 industrial research, 91 at Marine Biological Laboratory, 8, 150, 173 portrait,83 parasitic wasps, research on, 149, 154, publication record, 88, 90 160, 170, 171, 176, 180, 181, unpaid research assistance, 85 187, 188 von Euler-Chelpin, Gabriele (ne´e Furtner) portrait, 159 (mother of HEC), 82 professorship at University of von Euler-Chelpin, Hans (HEC), 7, 81–102, Pennsylvania, 169 147, 275 publication record, 155, 179, 183 fermentation studies, 81, 86, 92 as role model, 167, 172 portrait, 89, 92 socialism, 9, 156–157, 178 publication record, 88 Whiting, Phineas Westcott, 8–9, 149–158, von Euler-Chelpin, Rigas Georg Sebastian 160–172 (father of HEC), 82 graduate students, 152, 158, 163–165, 187 von Helmholtz, Hermann, 40 parasitic wasps, research on, 149, 154, Lehre von den tonempfindungen,40 170, 176, 180, 181, 187 von Hevesy, Georg, 112 professorships von Koch, Carola (ne´e Sahl), 208, 211 Iowa, 149, 153, 154 Emigranternas land, 208 Maine, 155, 156, 177, 178 von Koch, Gerhard Halfred, 208 Pennsylvania, 152, 153, 158, 163, Emigranternas land, 208 168–170, 175, 178, 180 von Liebig, Justus, 111 Pittsburgh, 8, 158, 160–165, von Sydow, Blanche, 199 167–169, 187 von Sydow, Fingal, 199 publication record, 155, 163, 179, 183 von Post, Lennart, 91 sexual morphs, study of, 149, 162, 171 socialism, 149, 156–157, 167–168 W Whitlock, Anna, 198 Wagner, Karl Ludwig, 138 Whitlockska samskolan, 204, 205, 218 Wahlstrom,€ Lydia, 85, 96, 97 Whitman, Walt, 253, 267 Walden, Paul, 142 Leaves of Grass, 253, 267 Wallas, Graham, 202, 232 Whittingehame House (Scotland), 39, 42, 52 Wallis, Curt, 200, 216 Advertiser, 39, 52 Index 319

Wicksell, Anna (ne´e Bugge) (AW), 9, compensatory history of, 3 196–199, 202, 207, 214, 214 longitudinal studies of, 11, 282 delegacy to the League of Nations, 10, 198 Women’s Christian Temperance Union, 175, 178 law degree, 194 Women’s Co-operative Guild, 227, 237, 243 translation work, 206 Women’s Industrial Council, 243 Wicksell, Finn (son of AW and KW), 197 Women’s Liberation Movement, 238 Wicksell, Knut (KW), 9, 196–199, 202, 207, Women’s suffrage, 207, 234 214, 214 Women’s University Settlement, 237 Finanzteoretische Untersuchungen, 197 Woods Hole. See Marine Biological Geldzins und Guterpreise€ , 197 Laboratory neoclassical economics, 196 Woolridge, Margaret Abbott, 164 politics, 197 Wright, Sewall, 152, 153, 175 Uber€ Wert, Kapital und Rente, 197 Wicksell, Sven (son of AW and KW), Widowhood, 47, 125, 128, 275–277, 284, Y 285, 293 Yelloly, John, 24 Wilde, Oscar, 256 Yntema, Leonard Francis, 117 Wilder, Burt Green, 173 Yonath, Ada, 72 Williams, Trevor, 60, 238 Young, Grace (ne´e Chisolm), 5 Wilson, Edmund Beecher, 154 Young, Robert E., 150 Wissinger, William L., 189 Young, William Henry, 5 Wohler,€ Friedrich, 134 Women in higher education, 133, 299 Women in science, 85, 147, 159, 172, 271, 276, Z 284, 294 Zoology, 70, 150, 153, 154, 158–160, 162, 163, See also Biochemistry, women in; 165, 169, 173, 174, 181, 185, 263, Chemistry, women in; Genetics, 274, 282, 283 women in; Paleontology, women in; protozoology, 151 Physiology, women in; Zoophysiological Laboratory, University of Radioactivity studies, women in Copenhagen, 62