real scientists

Leslie Kay lmk2 at
Sun Aug 28 01:28:53 EST 1994

In article <33ojk8$88s at tierra.santafe.ede>,
C. A. Stewart <cheryl at> wrote:
>None of it personally directed against Ms. Cathy, but generally pointing
>out that women scientists who don't even have the right to call themselves
>a scientist yet (no Ph.D.) yet seem to think they know everything about
>what it meanst to be a woman in science...

Not to nitpick or anything, but I'd always assumed that one became a
scientist at one of a number of occasions: 1) starting an independent
research project, 2) finishing an independent research project, 3) publishing
a paper in a peer reviewed journal, 4) passing the qualifying exam, and
5) getting a PhD.  I know several very good scientists who satisfy some
subset of the above criteria, some even who do not satisfy 5.  If some of
them happen to be female, then I believe that they qualify as a "woman
in science."  Not all grad students, or even people not yet having begun
grad school, are as naive as you seem to assume.  In fact, I know hardly
any women _starting_ grad school who are unaware of the possible difficulties
ahead.  In addition, many women start grad school later in life and have
had their share of sexism in the workplace.

Maybe that's a good topic for discussion "when does one become a
_real_ scientist?" or better yet, what is a _real_ scientist?

See, I did "kill this thread", the subject line has changed :-).

Leslie Kay
lmk2 at

More information about the Womenbio mailing list