Marie Curie Day

http://blog.jgc.org/2012/10/marie-curie-day.html

by jgrahamc • 14 years ago

100 68 14 years ago

blog.jgc.org

bambax2• 14 years ago

I too love Marie Curie and the 1927 Solvay Conference's picture (which sits in my living room for the edification of my kids!)

She's a hero here in France but I don't know about her reputation in the English speaking world.

She was a very amazing person. Born in Poland, she studied secretly for years in her native country, because higher education was not opened to females! Then she moved to Paris to join her sister and continued her education during the day, while tutoring in the evenings to pay for it.

- - -

There was a nice play (in French) that I saw in 1989, called "Les Palmes de monsieur Schutz"

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Palmes_de_monsieur_Schutz

A movie was later made from the play. I didn't see the movie but hear it's not too bad for that kind of adaptation from scene to screen (and it has cameos from Pierre-Gilles de Gennes and Georges Charpak).

zalew2• 14 years ago

> She's a hero here in France

and obviously in Poland. But here we call her with her full Polish(hers)-French(husband) name, not only the French part.

a new bridge in Warsaw was recently named after her http://goo.gl/maps/Y1X5d

zbyszek• 14 years ago

And there is a university in Lublin named after her too.

mbq5• 14 years ago

She studied on the underground university not because she was female but because Poland was under Russian occupation; see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_University

bambax2• 14 years ago

... and the Russians severely limited education opportunities for females ;-)

krig3• 14 years ago

It seems a bit sad that we apparently only can have one woman in science. Why not have two?

I think it's perfectly legitimate to celebrate Marie Curie but at the same time also celebrate Ada Lovelace, and I don't see how the two are in competition.

If we're going down that route, why are we paying so much attention to Alan Turing, who elected him as the man in science? Aren't there other computer pioneers worth celebrating? Well, yes, but talking about Turing doesn't lessen them.

And, for that matter, why do women have to be their own category at all? Why does "Ada Lovelace Day" automatically mean "Woman Day", does that mean that we should also elect one single man to name a day after?

marquis2• 14 years ago

>we apparently only can have one woman in science. Why not have two?

I don't accept the premise of the article that Marie Curie isn't celebrated in her own right. I'd say you'd be hard-pressed to find a woman in any science who isn't aware of both of these women's contributions along with Grace Hopper, Rosalind Franklin and others.

>why do women have to be their own category at all?

Well, among the many many reasons that require a large number of comments to annunciate all the possible arguments here's a simple one: when there aren't many of your minority group in any field, celebrating a member of your group enables more members of your group to enter the field because precedence is set.

jgrahamc6• 14 years ago

> I don't accept the premise the article that Marie Curie isn't celebrated in her own right.

That's not the premise of my article. The premise is that Marie Curie would make a much better figurehead than Ada Lovelace.

krig3• 14 years ago

Yes, I agree with you and I didn't make myself clear enough. I think it is perfectly fine for women to be brought up and given attention, and that them being women in science is highlighted.

What I object to is that apparently women are strictly confined to this particular category, so that 1) there is a ranking of women and only one can be THE woman of science, and 2) women cannot have their own day but have to compete for the "woman day". That is, woman becomes the all-compassing defining trait, and they are only recognized within the constraints of that classification. That, I think, is tragic.

jgrahamc6• 14 years ago

I think it comes down to the fact that role models are helpful in some circumstances and so highlighting an individual can be a sort of metaphor. By choosing an example of a successful woman scientist some young women will be better able to identify with the idea of being a scientist. And my blog post argues that Curie is a better choice than Lovelace.

As an example, Sally Ride mattered a lot to me (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4283227) even though I'm a man, as I wrote when she died: "RIP Sally Ride. She was a personal inspiration as a child because I saw a woman going into space as an indication of the opening up of space to 'normal' people. She was also a scientist and not a military person."

yummyfajitas• 14 years ago

If we're going down that route, why are we paying so much attention to Alan Turing, who elected him as the man in science?

No one. He isn't "the man in science" - only a few computer geeks know about him. The man in science is Einstein.

I seriously doubt the man on the street could name anyone else, with the possible exception of "schizophrenic Russel Crowe".

rdl• 14 years ago

Hawking would also be recognizable, if not recalled without being prompted, even if only as "smart guy in a wheelchair". (I think Newton might have a shot, and maybe for people 35-55, Carl Sagan?)

krig3• 14 years ago

Precisely. Would anyone argue that instead of Einstein Day, we should have Turing Day? No, the objection to that would be that for one thing they have very little in common, so why would one replace the other, and for the other part, why can't we have both an Einstein Day and a Turing Day? Both valid points. So why are women different, why is it the case that the only way Curie can become more prominent is if Lovelace takes a step back?

The choice of Turing as an example: He was a closer match to Lovelace in being a computer science pioneer.

Surio4• 14 years ago

Agreed! Our school curriculum covered Marie Curie on multiple subjects: Chemistry and English (her biography made for inspirational reading) and by contrast, Lovelace has had what one would call "honourable mention" ;-)

I keep referring back to this topic more and more these days... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiglers_law_of_eponymy

jimhefferon• 14 years ago

Link shoud be to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

Surio4• 14 years ago

Thank you, kindly. :)

precisioncoder• 14 years ago

This woman is an inspiration. She fought great challenges to stand on equal ground with mental giants. I find her humbling and amazing.

beloch• 14 years ago

Marie Curie is undeniably one of the greatest female role-figures in science of the last century. I don't know why she isn't more revered, although perhaps are here are a few reasons why: (Note: I bring them up mostly in hopes of pointing out how silly they are)

1. Her work eventually killed her. There was no way for the Curies to know what effect long-term radiation exposure would have, but it's still not a huge image booster for her to have died from material handling practices that would be considered idiotic today.

2. She wasn't a "lone wolf". i.e. She did much of her work with her husband Pierre, who shared the Nobel Prize for physics with her. Pierre was an instructor when they met and undoubtedly gave her a huge helping hand right when she needed it. Never mind that she came from a poor background and showed remarkable determination just getting into college in the first place, or that she would later be the sole recipient of a Nobel prize for chemistry!

3. People are still scared of words like "radioactive" and "radiation". Just look at how comfortable people are with coal power that kills thousands every year as a part of normal operation. Then note how those same people freak out when a nuclear plant threatens to give a handful of people cancer, but only after being horribly mismanaged and then hit by an improbable sequence of natural disasters! Arguably, Curie is scary by her association with something people are unreasonably paranoid about.

4. Let's face it, Ada Lovelace was a bit of a looker, or at least she was painted that way. She even had a sexy sounding name. We have real, unromantic photographs of Curie on the other hand the reveal her to be rather plain by comparison, plus her name is now linked with a scary unit of radioactive decay! It's a case of the Belle vs the school-marm.

laktek• 14 years ago

Not sure about in US, but I'm pretty sure majority of kids in this part of the world knows who Marie Curie is than Ada Lovelace.

Ada Lovelace is celebrated among us the computer geeks, because she's the female icon for the field.

Surio4• 14 years ago

+1 for that point..

I also posit that, were it not for the "rockstar" image that computing has acquired in the last 30 years or so, this Ada Lovelace thing wouldn't have catapulted like this as well.

reuven• 14 years ago

My 7th-grade daughter just did a report on Marie Curie for school. She was fascinated by the subject, and amazed to find how useful and important her research was. I wanted to go to her laboratory/museum in Paris when we were there several summers ago, but it was unfortunately closed.

Bottom line, Marie Curie is a great role model, and while I don't think that my daughter is headed for a career in science or engineering, at least she now sees that there are women who did it, and did amazing things in the field.

njharman• 14 years ago

I learned of Marie Curie in school (~30yrs ago US). Never heard of Ada Lovelace until much later.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper way, way more awesome than Ada. Length of nanosecond http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEpsKnWZrJ8

yread• 14 years ago

> handling practices

especially when compared to Röntgen who used lead to isolate him some time before her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Röntgen

rmc2• 14 years ago

4. Let's face it, Ada Lovelace was a bit of a looker, or at least she was painted that way. She even had a sexy sounding name. We have real, unromantic photographs of Curie on the other hand the reveal her to be rather plain by comparison, plus her name is now linked with a scary unit of radioactive decay! It's a case of the Belle vs the school-marm.

We should fight this attitude. Women have a history of being judged solely on their looks, and that is wrong. Everyone should be judged on their merits.

JoeAltmaier5• 14 years ago

Everybody is judged by their looks. Einstein is famously nerdy-looking - we celebrate that. I enjoy the photographs of Curie - words like formidable, determined spring to mind.

jlgreco• 14 years ago

Here is a #5

Curie is a figurehead of the nuclear era, while Lovelace's importance is seen to be in the genesis of the computer era. Even ignoring the "nuclear == icky" aspect, people (likely rightly) associate computers with something that is more important in their own lives.

scotty79• 14 years ago

Marie Skłodowska-Curie

... since we recently had a story about recognizing contributions of polish people: http://www.smh.com.au/world/honour-for-overlooked-poles-who-...

wowoc2• 14 years ago

Why do people always omit the "Skłodowska" part? She has used her maiden name through all her life and always identified with her Polish origins, so it might be a little bit disrespectful. There simply are too many signs that she would want to be remembered as Marie Skłodowska-Curie, not just Marie Curie.

Surio4• 14 years ago

History is (re)written by victors, etc...etc... ;-)

jgrahamc6• 14 years ago

In my case I plead ignorance. I grew up knowing her as Marie Curie and not as Marie Skłodowska-Curie. Who does one pronounce Skłodowska?

barry-cotter• 14 years ago

Sklo-DOV-ska

Sclo like it's halfway between a and o, _not_ an “oh”.

b0rsuk5• 14 years ago

sk uo dovska

dotborg2• 14 years ago

yet you did not fix your mistake in your article title, guess you have a lot of fun

imagine yourself having fun with your ignorance of some jewish scientist, it's exactly the same problem, even though more Poles died during WWII than jews

mbq5• 14 years ago

Maria Skłodowska-Curie, to be exact. She moved to France and married there, but never rejected her Polish origins. In fact she supported Polish independence, founded a scientific institute in Warsaw and named one of the elements she discovered after Poland.

gambiting• 14 years ago

Exactly, I hate the fact that hardly anyone outside Poland knows that she was Polish.

b0rsuk5• 14 years ago

While she was born Maria Salomea Skłodowska, she studied in Paris and Sorbonne. She was denied higher education in Poland because she was a woman. Later, University of Kraków also rejected her, because she was a woman.

It's not nice, but I think it's OK to call her a French scientist. Poland clearly didn't want her. It is an old tradition that best polish scientists, athletes and inventors go abroad. They're not valued in the country.

pitiburi• 14 years ago

So following that reasoning, a chinese scientist who made his/her PhD and research work in the USA should be called "an american researcher"? I think you can understand that that is not only not nice, but just wrong. If you think that not respecting her because she was a woman was a terrible thing (I agree), then we should not do the same, and as a sign of respect, at least, we should call her by her real name

mbq5• 14 years ago

Please note that we were mostly under Russian or German occupation during the last 200 years, so it is not our fault many bright units have been kicked or run abroad. Skłodowska was rejected by Russians, so blame them for intolerance.

ajuc4• 14 years ago

She was denied education in Poland occupied by Russians, and Austrians (never tried in Prussian occupied part, IIRC).

What she learnt in Poland she learnt from Polish teachers that taught Poles secretly in homes (because it was forbidden to teach some subjects - not only to woman, but to anyone - for example Polish history).

And she was always supportive of Polish independence, named Polonium after Poland, kept her name after mariage to associate with Poland. Wouldn't happen if she had problems with Poland, don't you think?

I think you project modern problems on historical situation.

wowoc2• 14 years ago

Poland was under Russian and German occupation then. Well, your argument is invalid. If you had read the first three paragraphs of the Wikipedia article, you would have known how wrong you are. Marie Skłodowska-Curie has always acknowledged her Polish origins and supported Poland's struggle for independence.

RyanMcGreal• 14 years ago

I'm astounded by the number of radioactive quack products still being manufactured currently:

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/quackcures.htm (see the bottom of the page)

Most of them seem to originate in Japan.

stephengillie2• 14 years ago

Marie Curie was a groundbreaking scientist and an admirable figure.

The need to celebrate the one symbolic "woman of science" is sexist and crude. The idea of one "woman of science" makes the work of other female scientists seem less important. The idea that the "woman of science" be symbolic makes Marie Curie's work seem symbolic and unimportant.

Why can we not just celebrate both Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace as excellent scientists, leaving gender out of the discussion?

DamnYuppie• 14 years ago

I agree. We don't have an Einstein, Tesla, Newton, or Galileo day so why do we need a Marie Curie day? I personally find this idea very sexist. It does nothing to further my appreciation of feminism and their ideals, I would go so far to say as this is base pandering.

jgrahamc6• 14 years ago

Just to be clear: my blog post is not arguing that there should be a Marie Curie Day, it is arguing that if you are going to have a day named after a woman scientist as a celebration of women in science then I think Ada Lovelace is a poor choice.

stephengillie2• 14 years ago

I don't think either is a suitable 'trophy woman' of science.

fourgrant• 14 years ago

I am currently in the middle of reading “The Emperor of All Maladies”, a well written "history" of cancer, that puts what she did for the disease in perspective. Highly recommended: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/books/11book.html

CKKim• 14 years ago

I had read about Lovelace in Doron Swade's works on Babbage, and for a long time was "that guy" who would come into CS love-ins and attempt to correct what I believed at the time were gross exaggerations of her contributions to the field. Eventually I learned to keep my mouth shut since it was usually met with hostility, and more importantly I'm not arrogant enough to think that what I had read by one author is going to be right.

The summary of Lovelace in the OP brought this back to mind as it is exactly what my stance had been when I'd ditched it for the more conservative "well I guess I don't really know". I never looked into it again until now. Does anyone have a recommendation for a balanced modern summary of her contribution?

I believe most of what I had read by Swade was written before she was as popular in the CS community as she now is, and when I raised his points in discussion I was usually told he was widely regarded to hold a grudge against her for some reason no-one really understood.

jgrahamc6• 14 years ago

> I was usually told he was widely regarded to hold a grudge against her for some reason no-one really understood.

Who told you that?

For an independent (of Swade) analysis you might like to read Bruce Collier's 1970 PhD thesis (http://robroy.dyndns.info/collier/index.html). This was written well before Swade was on the Babbage case and was based on reading of the primary documents. A couple of quotes from it:

"In the summer of 1843, Menabrea's paper was translated by Ada Augusta, Countess of Lovelace, and only legitimate daughter of Lord Bryon; she composed, in extensive consultation with Babbage, a series of long notes to the paper, which together comprised about three times the length of Menabrea's original version. The whole was published in Richard Taylor's Scientific Memoirs for 1843, 92 under the title "Sketch of the Analytical Engine invented by Charles Babbage, Esq;" this was the only extensive paper on the Analytical Engine published in English during Babbage's life, or, indeed, up to the present. Although it is clear that Lady Lovelace was a woman of considerable interest and talent, and it is clear that she understood to a very considerable degree Babbage's ideas about the general character and significance of the Analytical Engine, and expressed them well in her notes to Menabrea's paper, it is equally clear that the ideas were indeed Babbage's and not hers; indeed, she never made any claim to the contrary. She made a considerable contribution to publicizing the Analytical Engine, but there is no evidence that she advanced the design or theory of it in anyway. And she did not even express an interest in learning about the machine until January 5, 1841, 93 even as late as June 30, 1843, she apparently knew quite little about the mechanical details of the Engine"

"All of this is said not to belittle Lady Lovelace, but because a very exaggerated view has been formed by some recent writers of the significance of her contribution to the Engine or of her role in Babbage's life."

The citations for those parts are Babbage's personal correspondence with Lovelace that are held by the British Museum.

nollidge• 14 years ago

Somewhat related, I highly recommend the book Radioactive, which is a very artfully done biography of Marie Curie:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8968323-radioactive

Marie Curie Day

Related Stories