Nicknamed the “German Marie Curie” by Albert Einstein and named Woman of the Year in 1946, Lise Meitner made groundbreaking contributions to nuclear physics by discovering a stable form of the element protactinium and coining the term “fission” in nuclear fission. Nominated 49 times for the Nobel Prize in physics and chemistry, she was repeatedly overlooked by the Nobel Committee due to her Jewish heritage and work in a male-dominated field.

After receiving her doctorate from the University of Vienna in 1906, Meitner moved to Berlin. She worked at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry, where she became the department head and the first physics professor in Germany. However, the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws of 1935 in Nazi Germany forced her to flee to the Netherlands.

In 1938, she secretly met with Otto Hahn and suggested testing an element that had previously been thought to be radium. He and Fritz Strassmann later identified it as barium, publishing their findings in the journal Naturwissenschaften. Because of Meitner’s exile, the Nobel Committee initially overlooked her contributions, but she was later recognized with Hahn and Strassmann for the 1966 United States Fermi Prize.

Although Meitner passed away in 1968, her legacy remains as a miscredited figure in physics and chemistry. Physics teacher Dr. Ning Xu is one of many to notice this long-standing pattern of miscredited contributions in the scientific community.

“We’ve made significant strides since the times when women were extremely discredited,” she said. “The visibility of women in STEM has improved with more inclusive policies and growing societal awareness. However, informal recognition and the cultural perceptions of women in science still require considerable work.”

To Xu, women in STEM are a symbol of what could be achieved in science with resilience and dedication.

“Without the contributions of women, science would lack critical and groundbreaking discoveries,” she said. “Their work has paved the way for more equitable treatment and recognition. Women in science challenge stereotypes, inspire future generations, and drive progress that benefits society as a whole.”

It was early 1858, and Charles Dickens, having recently received a copy of The Sad Fortunes of the Reverend Amos Barton in the mail, sat at his desk drafting a thank-you letter to the publisher for sending him the book.

“My Dear Sir, I have been so strongly affected by the two first tales in the book you have had the kindness to send me through Messrs,” Dickens wrote. “If I had been left to my own devices, to address the said writer as a woman.”

Dickens’ intuition proved to be correct. The author behind The Sad Fortunes of the Reverend Amos Barton was none other than Mary Ann Evans—better known to the world as George Eliot. Evans’ choice of a male pseudonym was not a mere act of whimsy but a deliberate tactic to circumvent the constraints on female writers in Victorian England.

Despite her education and obvious talent, Evans faced a society where female authors were dismissed as producers of superficial romance novels rather than serious literature. She adopted the pen name “George Eliot” to write as freely as male authors did.

In 1857, journalist Joseph Henry Liggins came forward to claim that he was the author behind George Eliot’s works. Facing public pressure, Evans was forced to reveal her identity in 1859. Her statement was backed by her publisher, John Blackwood. Although some readers were dismayed to learn that the author they admired was a woman, others were impressed by her literary ability.

Even with her cover blown, Evans continued to sign her works as “George Eliot.” According to English teacher Ethan Halter, this decision allowed her to write from a perspective that was not strictly her own.

“(The pseudonym) allows her to sublimate herself and write under a different perspective that was a product of the way that women were politically and socially subjugated,” he said.

Despite increasing public dissent, Evans persevered and went on to produce Middlemarch and The Mill on the Floss, novels now regarded as some of the greatest works of English literature.

In the early 1950s, scientists around the world worked to uncover the structure of DNA to understand its hereditary and chemical properties. One of the most important contributions to this pursuit was made by British chemist Rosalind Franklin. However, her work was overshadowed by her male counterparts.

Using X-ray crystallography, Franklin took a photo of the DNA structure in a basement at King’s College London. This photo, now known as Photo 51, clearly defined DNA as a helical molecule with two strands and is considered one of the most important photographs ever taken.

American biologist James Watson and English physicist Francis Crick received Photo 51 from Franklin’s co-worker, Maurice Wilkins, without Franklin’s consent. Photo 51 completed Watson and Crick’s DNA model, and they won the Nobel Prize for it with Wilkins in 1962. Franklin received no credit for her discovery.

Another factor that contributed to Franklin’s lack of recognition in the 20th century was her early death due to ovarian cancer in 1958. The Nobel Prize cannot be awarded posthumously, so she was notably absent from Watson, Crick, and Wilkins’ win. Still, Franklin’s story epitomizes the ongoing challenges that many women face in science—many are seen as inadequate or are not credited for their work simply because of their gender.

Recently, Franklin’s legacy has grown, and the scientific community has recognized her importance in genetics and biology, according to biology teacher Jena Lee.

“We are now acknowledging that she was a big contributor,” she said. “Watson and Crick would not have been able to do it in that timeline if they hadn’t seen her work.”

Lee emphasizes that challenges still persist for women in STEM fields, but the stigma surrounding their participation in academia and science has significantly decreased.

“We have to remember that it was a different time when there were just fewer women who had access to higher education,” Lee said. “Moving forward to the 21st century, that’s changed a lot, but I’m sure there are still women who face challenges in the workplace.”