The Matilda Effect

“It is important to note early that women’s historically subordinate ‘place,’ in science (and thus their invisibility to even experienced historians of science) was not a coincidence and was not due to any lack of merit on their part. It was due to the camouflage intentionally placed over their presence in science.” - Margaret Rossiter, Women Scientists in America

—

Hello!

Our fourth and final episode of Season One of Lost Women of Science is out today. That means our entire first season, “The Pathologist in the Basement,” is now available on most streaming services. It is about Dr. Dorothy Andersen: a pathologist, a self-proclaimed “rugged individualist” and, in the words of one colleague, “a credit to humanity,” who identified cystic fibrosis in 1938.

But there’s more: We’re excited to announce that we’ll be releasing a BONUS EPISODE called “The Resignation” next month, about a curious incident from 1949, when Columbia University Medical Center’s Chair of Pediatrics submitted his letter of resignation to then University President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

At the heart of this season—and many seasons to come—is a phenomenon that renders remarkable women scientists like Dr. Andersen forgotten, even as their contributions live on: the Matilda Effect.

This edition of the newsletter takes a deeper dive into what that is, who is involved, and why it’s important.

We hope you enjoy it.

Nora Mathison
Senior Editor

What is the Matilda Effect?

The Matilda Effect posits that women in science become overlooked because many of their discoveries and breakthroughs are attributed to men.

There are very real ways women are deterred from careers in science altogether; but the Matilda Effect explains that even when women contribute meaningfully (and they do even more than we realize), future generations will never know the extent of their contributions, because men are given the credit.

That credit can take in many forms: awards, citations on paper, portraits, casual mentions, names on buildings...

An example: In Episode 2, we learn that Dorothy Andersen co-authored a groundbreaking paper in 1951, which suggested for the first time that cystic fibrosis impacted the sweat glands. But a paper written in 1953 by several authors, including Paul di Sant’Agnese, Dr. Andersen’s mentee, is cited more often in later papers. As an effect, de Sant’ Agnese went down in medical history as the scientist who made the link between cystic fibrosis and the sweat glands.

These kinds of misattributions—or more accurately, missed attributions—conceal women layer by layer. This is how they get “lost.”

Who named the Matilda Effect?

Margaret Rossiter, an American historian of science who pioneered a field of research on female scientists, coined the term in a 1993 paper. After graduating from Radcliffe College, the former women’s-only college that later merged with Harvard, Rossiter earned numerous graduate degrees—a Masters of Science, Masters of Philosophy, and a Ph.D. The culmination of her academic career is a three-volume work called Women Scientists in America, which examines how women made meaningful or groundbreaking scientific contributions in spite of forces that hindered their careers and legacies.

Rossiter observed in both her research and her own life as a scholar how often men are given credit for the work of women scientists. Rossiter hoped that naming the phenomenon would make a larger impact in academia than just describing it. And she was right. It turned out scientific communities had been hungry for nomenclature, because “the Matilda Effect” has been cited in hundreds of papers since.