866 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXII. No. 833 



sponse; and then we wonder at it when young 

 women in their junior and senior years in col- 

 lege elect music and literature in preference 

 to mechanics and physiology; we wonder and 

 we frame theories about feminine predilec- 

 tions. 



Is there any other cause, operating perhaps 

 with the one just described, that may account 

 for the less than two per cent. Table X. in the 

 statistical study gives the number of scientific 

 men connected with institutions when there 

 are three or more. Fifty-eight institutions 

 appear in the list with a total of 762 men. Let 

 us drop from this list the four colleges for 

 women. They will scarcely be missed since 

 they take only nineteen of the 762. Of this 

 list of fifty-four institutions just which ones 

 open their major positions freely and fairly 

 to persons of gifts and attainments without 

 regard to sex? By a major position is meant 

 one that a man of the select first thousand 

 would be willing to occupy. Women are 

 quite welcome to become experts in washing 

 bottles and adding logarithms and dusting 

 specimens. Even in the case of high school 

 science the best positions in physics and chem- 

 istry are reserved for men. A young woman, 

 however strongly inclined to devote herself to 

 science, may well hesitate to proceed to a 

 science doctorate when she considers that 

 Table X. There is indeed room for doubt 

 whether we should have any thousand men of 

 science if all gifted and ambitious young men 

 were confronted by such barriers as a young 

 woman is obliged to face to-day. We should 

 find these young men going into literature, 

 law, politics, business; but scarcely into sci- 

 ence. It appears therefore difiicult to avoid 

 -the conclusion that other factors besides in- 

 nate sexual disqualification must be reckoned 

 with in attempting to account for the insig- 

 nificance of women's share in the advance- 

 ment of science. Ellen Hayes 



EMINENCE OP WOMEN IN SCIENCE 



To THE Editor of Science : In Dr. Cattell's 

 " Statistical Study of American Men of Sci- 

 ■ence '" occurs the following comment on the 



^Science, November 11, 1910, p. 676. 



fact that there are " only 18 women among 

 982 men :" " There are now nearly as many 

 women as men who receive a college de- 

 gree; they have on the average more leisure; 

 there are four times as many women as men 

 engaged in teaching." In view of a preceding 

 statement (p. 675) that " the advancement of 

 science depends mainly on those who hold 

 chairs in our colleges and universities," I 

 would suggest that, before drawing " the con- 

 clusion that there is an innate sexual disquali- 

 fication," there should be added to the prem- 

 ises from which any conclusion is drawn the 

 well-known fact that, except in some of the 

 women's colleges where the opportunities for 

 research are limited and the salaries notably 

 low, women are not considered eligible for 

 chairs in the sciences named. If they have 

 any positions in the departments at all, it is 

 chiefly as laboratory assistants. 



Another conclusion which might be drawn 

 is that women in larger proportions than men 

 (p. 675) are in the class of " amateurs " or 

 scientific persons who, not needing to earn 

 their living, devote their lives to scientific 

 research. 



It is indeed " possible," as the author says, 

 that " the lack of encouragement and sym- 

 pathy is greater than appears on the surface." 

 Until women are more generally given an 

 equal chance with men in academic recogni- 

 tion and remuneration, it is futile to attempt 

 to determine, in terms of statistical tables or 

 even of scientific reputation or eminence, how 

 much " they are able to do for the advance- 

 ment of science." 



Marion Talbot 



The Univeksity of Chicago, 

 November 14, 1910 



THE century dictionary SUPPLEMENT 



In the supplement to the Century Diction- 

 ary which has recently been issued, my name 

 appears as the responsible editorial contribu- 

 tor for terms in plant physiology. This is an 

 error which, I am informed by the editor of 

 the Century Dictionary, will be corrected in 

 subsequent copies of the supplement. I did 

 revise the terms in plant physiology for the 



