Joseph A Nagy Jr <pagan_prince at charter.net> writes:
> John Knight wrote:
> <snip>
>>> >
> > And, that Marie got a quarter of a Nobel Prize because ONE of these men, the
> > husband of Marie, asked:
> >
> > Would a joint award be "more satisfying from the artistic point of view"?
>> Actually, to qoute from http://www.aip.org/history/curie/recdis2.htm:>> "MARIE WAS NOT REALLY NOMINATED for her first Nobel Prize. From the inception of the award in 1901,
> the Nobel Prizes have been made after a lengthy evaluation of the merits of nominees. In 1903 the
> French Academy of Sciences nominated Henri Becquerel and Pierre -- but not Marie -- Curie as
> candidates for the physics prize. If not for the intervention of a member of the nominating
> committee, Swedish mathematician Magnus Goesta Mittag-Leffler, Marie might have been denied
> recognition for her work. But Mittag-Leffler, an advocate of women scientists, wrote Pierre advising
> him of the situation. In his reply Pierre made clear that a Nobel Prize for research in
> radioactivity that failed to acknowledge Marie's pivotal role would be a travesty. Some strings were
> pulled, and a nomination of Marie Curie in 1902 was validated for 1903."
But look at all the bias in that quotation. That isn't history, it's
Feminist advocacy. I mean, I'm sure the dates are correct, and the
names of the persons involved, but everything that's spinnable is
totally spun. You see that, don't you?
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
