IT IS only within recent decades that most women could aspire to professional careers on more or less the same basis as men.
Traditionally the role of women was narrowly defined as that of housewife and mother, and effective structural and attitudinal barriers prevented all but a few women, who had to be almost fanatically motivated, from entering any of the professions.
Science was no exception. Not only was it difficult for women to pursue careers as professional scientists but it appears that, in some cases where women did succeed in becoming scientists, intimidation was used by male colleagues that affected publication of the women's scientific results.
Cecilia Helena Payne is probably the most distinguished female astrophysicist of the century. Born in England in 1900, she developed an early interest in science. She decided to pursue a career in science, much to the disapproval of her school-teachers, who considered it an "unladylike" aspiration. Nevertheless, in 1919 Payne entered Cambridge University, became enthused about physics, graduated with a degree in this area and decided that she wanted to be an astronomer.
At the time, the only career open to a female science graduate in England was to teach science in a girls' secondary school. Payne decided to go to America, where, although it was not easy for a woman to pursue a research career in science, it did offer some opportunities. She went to Harvard University and enrolled on a Ph.D. programme at Harvard Observatory (the physics department would not accept her).
Payne did important pioneering work in her Ph.D research on the spectroscopic analysis of the elemental composition of stars. Spectroscopy is a technique whereby you can tell the composition of a substance by analysing the wavelength (colour) of the light that the substance emits or absorbs under certain conditions. Payne made many measurements using this technique and regularly published her results.
After some time it became apparent to Payne that the sun was composed mainly of two elements - hydrogen and helium - and of these hydrogen was much more abundant. This finding was quite surprising and it contradicted conventionally accepted calculations of senior and eminently respected physicists.
No research papers from Payne's laboratory could be published without the approval of the head of the laboratory, Harlow Shapely. When, Shapely read Payne's conclusions regarding the composition of the sun, he sent the work for comment to his mentor and former teacher at Princeton, a man called Russell. Russell at first praised the work but then changed his mind and decided that the conclusions couldn't be true.
Payne, a young Ph.D. student, felt that she dared not oppose Russell. She reported the results in her Ph.D. thesis and in a scientific paper, but toned down her conclusions regarding the abundance of hydrogen and helium in the sun, almost to the point of retraction.
SEVERAL years later, following detailed investigation of his own Russell published the seminal paper showing that the sun and the stars are primarily composed of hydrogen. He made only small reference to Payne's work in his paper, and no reference at all to his role in discouraging Payne from publishing her full conclusions several years earlier.
Today it is completely accepted that hydrogen and helium make up 98 per cent of the sun's mass. Hydrogen atoms dominate by far in number - for every 1,000 hydrogen atoms there are only 63 helium atoms.
The composition of the Earth is very different. The three most abundant elements are iron (34.6 per cent), oxygen (29.5 per cent) and silicon (15.2 per cent).
Prior to Payne's discovery it was generally thought that the elemental composition of the sun was not too dissimilar to the composition of the Earth.
Pyne's discovery was based on the application of the new findings of atomic physics. Her conclusions were surprising and it would not be excessively charitable to assume that Russell was only displaying prudent caution in his initial assessment of Payne's work However, when he later confirmed and extended her findings it seems mean of him, to say the least, not to acknowledge fully the merit of Payne's previous work in his own publication.
However, I must admit, not being a physicist, I am not, technically qualified to evaluate the scientific merit of either Payne's or Russell's publications, and I rely in my judgment on the details of this story of gas outlined by Marcia," Bartusiak in her book Through a Universe Darkly (Harper Collins, 1993).
After getting her Ph.d., Payne remained at Harvard. Despite her first-class scientific work, she could climb the ladder of academic appointment only with painful slowness. Although she was the first woman at Harvard to attain the rank of full professor (equivalent to our grade of senior lecturer) she did not reach it until 1956, perhaps 20 years after a man of her achievements would have earned that position.
TODAY the prospects for a woman wishing to embark on a career in science are immeasurably brighter than they were in the days of Cecilia Payne. In a majority of scientific disciplines, and in most parts of the developed world, in my opinion, women wishing to pursue a career in science confront no significant discrimination from the scientific establishment.
In general, women are much better represented in the biological sciences than in the biological sciences. In particular women are not well represented in physics. Surprisingly, this "problem" is particularly noticeable in America, the home of equal opportunity. For example in 1989 only 8 per cent of all Ph.Ds awarded in physics were to women. In that same year 19 per cent of all Ph.Ds in mathematics were awarded to, women, 25 per cent of all Ph.Ds in chemistry went to women, 38 per cent of all Ph.Ds in biology went to women and 56 per cent of all Ph.Ds in psychology were. awarded to women.
It is plain that, in general, science is not an unattractive option for women as a career, but for whatever reason, physics is out of step with other disciplines in this regard.
A recent Education and Living supplement to The Irish Times carried a prominent article on the position of female academics in Irish universities. Overall, in 1994, 21 per cent of full-time academic staff were women, as compared to 14 per cent 10 years previously.
Nine per cent of the most senior academic posts were held by women in 1994, as compared with 5 per cent in 1984. So, while there remains significant under-representation of women in the most senior academic posts, the position is rapidly improving and this trend will continue. In my own department, five of the 10 academic positions are held by women.
I am unaware of any barriers, on the job, to promotion of women that do not apply equally to men. In view of this I would therefore be entirely opposed to any form of affirmative action, as not infrequently called for, designed to accelerate promotional prospects for female academics as opposed to males. The introduction of any such programme would institute a new form of discrimination aimed at correcting an old form of discrimination that no longer exists.