What do you think?
Rate this book
The Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in Science
From the Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who broke the story, the inspiring account of the sixteen female scientists who forced MIT to publicly admit it had been discriminating against its female faculty for years—sparking a nationwide reckoning with the pervasive sexism in science.
In 1999, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology admitted to discriminating against women on its faculty, forcing institutions across the country to confront a problem they had long the need for more women at the top levels of science. Written by the journalist who broke the story for The Boston Globe , The Exceptions is the untold story of how sixteen highly accomplished women on the MIT faculty came together to do the work that triggered the historic admission.
The Exceptions centers on the life of Nancy Hopkins, a reluctant feminist who became the leader of the sixteen and a hero to two generations of women in science. Hired to prestigious universities at the dawn of affirmative action efforts in the 1970s, Dr. Hopkins and her peers embarked on their careers believing that discrimination against women was a thing of the past—that science was, at last, a pure meritocracy. For years they explained away the discrimination they experienced as the exception, not the rule. Only when these few women came together after decades of underpayment and the denial of credit, advancement, and equal resources to do their work did they recognize the relentless women were often marginalized and minimized, especially as they grew older. Meanwhile, men of similar or lesser ability had their career paths paved and widened.
The Exceptions is a powerful yet all-too-familiar story that will resonate with all professional women who experience what those at MIT called “21st-century discrimination”—a subtle and stubborn bias, often unconscious but still damaging. As in bestsellers from Hidden Figures to Lab Girl and Code Girls , we are offered a rare glimpse into the world of high-level scientific research and learn about the extraordinary female scientists whose work has been overlooked throughout history, and how these women courageously fought for fair treatment as they struggled to achieve the recognition they rightfully deserve.
In 1999, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology admitted to discriminating against women on its faculty, forcing institutions across the country to confront a problem they had long the need for more women at the top levels of science. Written by the journalist who broke the story for The Boston Globe , The Exceptions is the untold story of how sixteen highly accomplished women on the MIT faculty came together to do the work that triggered the historic admission.
The Exceptions centers on the life of Nancy Hopkins, a reluctant feminist who became the leader of the sixteen and a hero to two generations of women in science. Hired to prestigious universities at the dawn of affirmative action efforts in the 1970s, Dr. Hopkins and her peers embarked on their careers believing that discrimination against women was a thing of the past—that science was, at last, a pure meritocracy. For years they explained away the discrimination they experienced as the exception, not the rule. Only when these few women came together after decades of underpayment and the denial of credit, advancement, and equal resources to do their work did they recognize the relentless women were often marginalized and minimized, especially as they grew older. Meanwhile, men of similar or lesser ability had their career paths paved and widened.
The Exceptions is a powerful yet all-too-familiar story that will resonate with all professional women who experience what those at MIT called “21st-century discrimination”—a subtle and stubborn bias, often unconscious but still damaging. As in bestsellers from Hidden Figures to Lab Girl and Code Girls , we are offered a rare glimpse into the world of high-level scientific research and learn about the extraordinary female scientists whose work has been overlooked throughout history, and how these women courageously fought for fair treatment as they struggled to achieve the recognition they rightfully deserve.
411 pages, Hardcover
First published February 28, 2023
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 320 reviews
Want to read
February 28, 2023I was a student at MIT when the report on women in science came out--it was the result of a research project by women across the different science departments--and I attended a small info and Q & A session about it led by some of the researchers. One of the main professors was from my department. It was clear that we were witnessing something that was at once extremely brave, amazingly impressive, and momentous. It was moving and I still could not admire the researchers more. I'm looking forward to reading this.
April 21, 2023
This is a fantastic book! Nancy Hopkins wondered for years about her treatment at and by MIT and her colleagues there. As a woman of science, she basically kept her head down and focused on the work she loved. Over issues of shared space inequalities, she began to quantify what had been perceptions. The story is so very relatable to most any woman whose career has taken her into formerly male disciplines. Well researched and relatable, this book will become part of our society's historical record.
My thanks to the author, Kate Zernike, and the publisher, Scribner, for my copy of this book. #Goodreads Giveaway
My thanks to the author, Kate Zernike, and the publisher, Scribner, for my copy of this book. #Goodreads Giveaway
March 25, 2024
I have always been what people refer to as being on the nerdy side. The valedictorian and saludictorian of my high school class were both female but not nerdy although they were a year ahead of me in math and science, yet, one participated in four years of choir and the other was an outgoing person. Me: the misunderstood apple polisher simply because in history I read and questioned everything and in science and math I simply worked hard. From the earliest age, I devoured nonfiction books. In my dreams I desired to be a marine biologist if only I did not have a phobia of needles, otherwise I would be midway through a career researching dolphins in the Red Sea. My dad, a chemical engineer. Me: the kid who actually enjoyed reading his Chemical Engineering Progress magazine and used the articles for science current event stories. I knew who Mae Jamison the astronaut was before I had the adult insight to know that she was a trailblazing woman. A goodreads friend recently read The Exceptions and came away inspired. I have been reading about and studying women pioneers for years and had been on the fence about it, but, in the end, knew that a book featuring overlooked women scientists would be a vital part of my women’s history month reading, if anything else, to publicize their story and encourage more young women to pursue careers in STEM.
Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy League schools did not fully admit women until the early 1970s. The old boys network believed that they were grooming the future leaders of America, all men. A few years ago, I read Yale Needs Women, which brought this story to light. On the other hand, MIT, the science school, had opened its doors to women as early as the 1870s. This fact might not have been public knowledge; but, the school was less of an old boys network than its Ivy League counterparts. Housing and encouragement for women in science was all but nonexistent, but women were never officially banned from attending the school. Getting on faculty at any of these schools, even after they went coed, was another story. The Ivys maintained their paternalistic old boys network view of society, whereas the prevailing belief at MIT, even as recently as fifty years ago, is that women had to have children by the age of thirty or they would be deemed as too old to bare children. Women had to choose between having a career or having and raising children. The societal view even as late as the 1970s is that once women had children, they would have to stop working in their chosen field and not return until their children were old enough to care for themselves. This is something that women still grapple with although the conditions of returning to work have changed since then. Women in science felt this dichotomy more so than in other fields. Their research that could ultimately lead to a PhD could take years, the same prime years for child baring. It is of little wonder that science departments at top university remained one of the last bastions of the old boys network in American society.
Nancy Hopkins attended Radcliffe pre Harvard integration and attended a lecture given by James Watson of DNA double helix fame. She was mesmerized and wanted a career in science, specifically studying repressor genes, which could lead to cancer in both animals and humans. Nancy’s mother had a cancerous scare when she was growing up, so preventing its onset was something she cared deeply about. In James Watson, Nancy found a mentor early in her career who encouraged her to go for a PhD in molecular biology at MIT. Most men at the time would have discouraged this but not James Watson, known as Jim in the book, who had previously worked with Rosalind Franklin on his double helix discovery. Today a woman studying molecular biology is not rare; I have a friend who got a PhD in biochemical engineering so I know firsthand that it’s done. In the 1970s, Nancy Hopkins had to choose between science and having children; in the end science won out. Even though she rose to the top of her field, being a woman left her with few opportunities for career growth. Nancy loved science for science’s sake but she would have appreciated the same respect as her peers. Early in her career, she wrote this off as “this is how it’s done.” Later in the her career, she began to question the old boys network. It started with a tape measure.
Title IX came into being in 1973. Most people associate this law with equality in sports, but law’s purpose was to provide equal opportunities to women at schools of all levels that received federal funds. Sports became a lightning rod because until 1973 women had almost zero opportunities to earn college scholarships; athletic scholarships were the bastion of men. The same could be said for women in tenure track positions in math and science at top colleges and universities. At MIT, there was one female professor. At the time, one could count the number of tenured female math professors on two hands. It did not matter how highly regarded a woman was in her given field; men regarded their female colleagues as girls and gave them little to no respect. Most of the men that Nancy worked with during her career went on to win the Nobel Prize for their work; women were not even considered as top candidates for the award until the 1980s. By that point, Title IX had reached ten years old. The generation that fought for yet did not win passage of the Equal Rights Amendment had entered the work force and slowly began to demand equal treatment at professions not necessarily regarded as being fields dominated by women. This included math and science, and, by the 1990s, one could see Title IX finally come of age. Both 1992 politically and 1996 athletically were dubbed the year of the woman. The time was ripe for women in STEM to speak out.
Nancy Hopkins sought out Mary Lou Pardue as another top rated woman biologist. It came to light that the two women had faced the same systemic discrimination throughout their careers. They sought out other women professors at MIT and came up with a group of sixteen ready to fight the old boys status quo. It would not be easy, but, if the university’s governing body listened to and met some of their demands, it would eventually lead to increased opportunities for women in science and math at both MIT and other universities nation wide. Kate Zernike is the daughter and granddaughter of scientists. She had been exposed to a scientific way of thinking for her entire life, and like me, was encouraged to pursue a career in STEM. She chose to be a journalist and won a Pulitzer for journalistic reporting in 2002 for her work on exposing ISIS as being the perpetrators of 9/11. When Nancy’s story broke at MIT, it was Kate who covered it, and she knew that the material would make for a great book. Nancy was skeptical at first. Even though her women’s committee had eventually won breakthroughs for women scientists and mathematicians, exposing her story to the public would cast many of her male colleagues in a poor light. Eventually, she agree to the book, realizing that her woman’s work would never be done, and her story lead to increased opportunities for women in math and science across the board. It is a story that women in all walks of life would benefit from reading so Kate and Nancy plowed on with this project.
At times, I thought that Zernike’s tone was a bit whiny, which took away from the accomplishments of these women who are at the top of their field. My mother is a feminist. She still has all her political buttons from NOW and wears her opinions on her sleeve. I grew up in this environment as well as with a father who told me I had a great engineering brain. By the time I was in high school, more women had entered into engineering, and it might have been fun to follow in his footsteps. Today I teach and enjoy math most. When I am in a fifth or sixth grade classroom, I tell girls that “I can’t is not in my vocabulary.” Try your best in math because it can take you places and I am happy to help you. Today I see girls in math and science three years above grade level. They are not as discouraged from applying themselves in STEM fields. Recently I saw a tenth grade girl construct a robot for a science Olympiad competition, and I have asked my female dentist when the profession changed from predominantly men to a field more indicative of the makeup of society. Women are no longer viewed as girls by their peers. They are respected for their discoveries and lauded for their achievements. According to Kate Zernike while telling Nancy Hopkins’ story, these changes were a long time coming and moved at the speed of molasses, but, once implemented, women finally received the credit they deserved. I might not think that women in science as a rarity but until the 1980s that is exactly what they were. Thanks to these brave women at MIT, female scientists are no longer considered to be the exceptions but the norm.
👩🔬 4 stars 🧬
Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy League schools did not fully admit women until the early 1970s. The old boys network believed that they were grooming the future leaders of America, all men. A few years ago, I read Yale Needs Women, which brought this story to light. On the other hand, MIT, the science school, had opened its doors to women as early as the 1870s. This fact might not have been public knowledge; but, the school was less of an old boys network than its Ivy League counterparts. Housing and encouragement for women in science was all but nonexistent, but women were never officially banned from attending the school. Getting on faculty at any of these schools, even after they went coed, was another story. The Ivys maintained their paternalistic old boys network view of society, whereas the prevailing belief at MIT, even as recently as fifty years ago, is that women had to have children by the age of thirty or they would be deemed as too old to bare children. Women had to choose between having a career or having and raising children. The societal view even as late as the 1970s is that once women had children, they would have to stop working in their chosen field and not return until their children were old enough to care for themselves. This is something that women still grapple with although the conditions of returning to work have changed since then. Women in science felt this dichotomy more so than in other fields. Their research that could ultimately lead to a PhD could take years, the same prime years for child baring. It is of little wonder that science departments at top university remained one of the last bastions of the old boys network in American society.
Nancy Hopkins attended Radcliffe pre Harvard integration and attended a lecture given by James Watson of DNA double helix fame. She was mesmerized and wanted a career in science, specifically studying repressor genes, which could lead to cancer in both animals and humans. Nancy’s mother had a cancerous scare when she was growing up, so preventing its onset was something she cared deeply about. In James Watson, Nancy found a mentor early in her career who encouraged her to go for a PhD in molecular biology at MIT. Most men at the time would have discouraged this but not James Watson, known as Jim in the book, who had previously worked with Rosalind Franklin on his double helix discovery. Today a woman studying molecular biology is not rare; I have a friend who got a PhD in biochemical engineering so I know firsthand that it’s done. In the 1970s, Nancy Hopkins had to choose between science and having children; in the end science won out. Even though she rose to the top of her field, being a woman left her with few opportunities for career growth. Nancy loved science for science’s sake but she would have appreciated the same respect as her peers. Early in her career, she wrote this off as “this is how it’s done.” Later in the her career, she began to question the old boys network. It started with a tape measure.
Title IX came into being in 1973. Most people associate this law with equality in sports, but law’s purpose was to provide equal opportunities to women at schools of all levels that received federal funds. Sports became a lightning rod because until 1973 women had almost zero opportunities to earn college scholarships; athletic scholarships were the bastion of men. The same could be said for women in tenure track positions in math and science at top colleges and universities. At MIT, there was one female professor. At the time, one could count the number of tenured female math professors on two hands. It did not matter how highly regarded a woman was in her given field; men regarded their female colleagues as girls and gave them little to no respect. Most of the men that Nancy worked with during her career went on to win the Nobel Prize for their work; women were not even considered as top candidates for the award until the 1980s. By that point, Title IX had reached ten years old. The generation that fought for yet did not win passage of the Equal Rights Amendment had entered the work force and slowly began to demand equal treatment at professions not necessarily regarded as being fields dominated by women. This included math and science, and, by the 1990s, one could see Title IX finally come of age. Both 1992 politically and 1996 athletically were dubbed the year of the woman. The time was ripe for women in STEM to speak out.
Nancy Hopkins sought out Mary Lou Pardue as another top rated woman biologist. It came to light that the two women had faced the same systemic discrimination throughout their careers. They sought out other women professors at MIT and came up with a group of sixteen ready to fight the old boys status quo. It would not be easy, but, if the university’s governing body listened to and met some of their demands, it would eventually lead to increased opportunities for women in science and math at both MIT and other universities nation wide. Kate Zernike is the daughter and granddaughter of scientists. She had been exposed to a scientific way of thinking for her entire life, and like me, was encouraged to pursue a career in STEM. She chose to be a journalist and won a Pulitzer for journalistic reporting in 2002 for her work on exposing ISIS as being the perpetrators of 9/11. When Nancy’s story broke at MIT, it was Kate who covered it, and she knew that the material would make for a great book. Nancy was skeptical at first. Even though her women’s committee had eventually won breakthroughs for women scientists and mathematicians, exposing her story to the public would cast many of her male colleagues in a poor light. Eventually, she agree to the book, realizing that her woman’s work would never be done, and her story lead to increased opportunities for women in math and science across the board. It is a story that women in all walks of life would benefit from reading so Kate and Nancy plowed on with this project.
At times, I thought that Zernike’s tone was a bit whiny, which took away from the accomplishments of these women who are at the top of their field. My mother is a feminist. She still has all her political buttons from NOW and wears her opinions on her sleeve. I grew up in this environment as well as with a father who told me I had a great engineering brain. By the time I was in high school, more women had entered into engineering, and it might have been fun to follow in his footsteps. Today I teach and enjoy math most. When I am in a fifth or sixth grade classroom, I tell girls that “I can’t is not in my vocabulary.” Try your best in math because it can take you places and I am happy to help you. Today I see girls in math and science three years above grade level. They are not as discouraged from applying themselves in STEM fields. Recently I saw a tenth grade girl construct a robot for a science Olympiad competition, and I have asked my female dentist when the profession changed from predominantly men to a field more indicative of the makeup of society. Women are no longer viewed as girls by their peers. They are respected for their discoveries and lauded for their achievements. According to Kate Zernike while telling Nancy Hopkins’ story, these changes were a long time coming and moved at the speed of molasses, but, once implemented, women finally received the credit they deserved. I might not think that women in science as a rarity but until the 1980s that is exactly what they were. Thanks to these brave women at MIT, female scientists are no longer considered to be the exceptions but the norm.
👩🔬 4 stars 🧬
October 31, 2023
On its surface, the subject - the fight against sexual discrimination at MIT - seems a bit niche and wonky, but this book is totally engrossing. Kate Zernike's storytelling skills are simply of the highest level, and much of the book is simply a biography of Nancy Hopkins, which is full of drama, suspense and episodes which will make most readers angry. I had trouble putting the book down. Nancy's story, and those of her peers, will likely be of interest to those who have shared their experiences in any endeavor, and to those males (like me) who have all too often been oblivious to them. Readers who have read books like The Code Breaker by Walter Isaacson will likely find this account of a different aspect of the scientific establishment a very rewarding read. And this is also a superior addition to the plethora of literature on groundbreaking women such as Hidden Figures and books by Nathalia Holt (e.g. Rise of the Rocket Girls).
Although I recommend this to the general reader, I must confess that I am not that reader. I attended MIT from 1980 to 1984- where much of the book takes place - and subsequently received a PhD in Chemistry from UC Berkeley. I had the added enjoyment of having known some of the participants (but none of the main characters) in these episodes. Typically when I read about places that I'm intimately familiar with, I usually find that the author or journalist gets it all wrong. In this case, Kate Zernike totally gets MIT and must have spent considerable time immersed in its atmosphere.
If the book has a flaw, it would be its triumphalism. The committee report that is the culmination of this book and the report's acceptance by MIT administration as a basis for action was certainly a triumph. But twenty-five years have passed and I simply can't believe that everything has been alright since then. I wish the author would have spent a little more time explaining what has and especially what hasn't happened since the report.
Thanks to Net Galley for providing me with an electronic ARC of this title! This book will certainly be considered for the book club I lead at a local bookstore.
Although I recommend this to the general reader, I must confess that I am not that reader. I attended MIT from 1980 to 1984- where much of the book takes place - and subsequently received a PhD in Chemistry from UC Berkeley. I had the added enjoyment of having known some of the participants (but none of the main characters) in these episodes. Typically when I read about places that I'm intimately familiar with, I usually find that the author or journalist gets it all wrong. In this case, Kate Zernike totally gets MIT and must have spent considerable time immersed in its atmosphere.
If the book has a flaw, it would be its triumphalism. The committee report that is the culmination of this book and the report's acceptance by MIT administration as a basis for action was certainly a triumph. But twenty-five years have passed and I simply can't believe that everything has been alright since then. I wish the author would have spent a little more time explaining what has and especially what hasn't happened since the report.
Thanks to Net Galley for providing me with an electronic ARC of this title! This book will certainly be considered for the book club I lead at a local bookstore.
June 21, 2023
Excellent.
February 28, 2023
I loved this book! It was well written and thoroughly researched. Even better was the story! Women have long been aware of discrimination in the workplace, but it took a group of well credentialed and respected female scientists to quantify what that discrimination looks like. The work of Nancy Hopkins and her colleagues took emotions and personality out of the argument and just focused on behaviors and impacts: salary, lab space, job assignments. Their worked helped the administration and coworkers to see that discrimination is not always intentional, but ingrained.
July 3, 2023
As the Supreme Court recently determined race should no longer be considered for institutions of higher learning (lucky for me I live in Texas where it was done away with near the same time the women at MIT were fighting for equal pay and equal access), it seems like another reason to hang my head and sigh given how affirmative action is essentially seen as something not needed in the workplace or in any space. Interesting, given how much women gained because of affirmative action. These women were rising in their fields when affirmative action came into play in 1972.
Hopkins worked at MIT and encountered discrimination from the moment she stepped on campus. We would now call these microaggressions, but they happened to her for the entirety of her career. It took Hopkins twenty years to label it discrimination (or marginalization). Even though Hopkins had tenure, women always felt "her work ... is not properly acknowledged, not received, not responded to, not published, her opinion is not asked for" and men held all of the positions of power. There were women that pursued degrees in STEM, but few were hired as tenured professors and given proper recognition or equal pay.
The men were helped with grants, loans for housing, pay that was often times double that of their female counterparts. Many of the men remained unmoved by the grievances of the women on the campus. Hopkins' whole fight began when two male colleagues were to take over a biology course required by all undergrads. The two male colleagues said Hopkins would not be needed to help with the course even though she created the curriculum. When pushed, it turned out the two men were going to publish a book USING THE CURRICULUM SHE CREATED.
As I read, I marked so many passages. This is a striking quote from an article in the New York Times in 1974: "compelling colleges and universities to hire more women and blacks is lowering standards and undermining faculty." Straight to the heart.
This is an engaging read and one that is so easy to read. Yes, there is a lot of science discussed, but always in a way that is easily understood. I loved it.
Hopkins worked at MIT and encountered discrimination from the moment she stepped on campus. We would now call these microaggressions, but they happened to her for the entirety of her career. It took Hopkins twenty years to label it discrimination (or marginalization). Even though Hopkins had tenure, women always felt "her work ... is not properly acknowledged, not received, not responded to, not published, her opinion is not asked for" and men held all of the positions of power. There were women that pursued degrees in STEM, but few were hired as tenured professors and given proper recognition or equal pay.
The men were helped with grants, loans for housing, pay that was often times double that of their female counterparts. Many of the men remained unmoved by the grievances of the women on the campus. Hopkins' whole fight began when two male colleagues were to take over a biology course required by all undergrads. The two male colleagues said Hopkins would not be needed to help with the course even though she created the curriculum. When pushed, it turned out the two men were going to publish a book USING THE CURRICULUM SHE CREATED.
As I read, I marked so many passages. This is a striking quote from an article in the New York Times in 1974: "compelling colleges and universities to hire more women and blacks is lowering standards and undermining faculty." Straight to the heart.
This is an engaging read and one that is so easy to read. Yes, there is a lot of science discussed, but always in a way that is easily understood. I loved it.
March 7, 2023
As a woman in STEM, I was immediately drawn to this non-fiction book and excited when I received a copy. Overall, I think this is a great recounting of Nancy Hopkins fight for women at MIT. I hadn't heard of this particular story, so it was great to learn more about Hopkins and her contributions to women's rights in the workplace.
I listened to this book on audio and enjoyed the narration. I think it helped me stayed engaged in the book, as there were some parts that felt a bit long or less interesting than others. However, this was an overall great read, especially during Women's History Month!!
Thank you Scribner Books for the gifted e-book!
I listened to this book on audio and enjoyed the narration. I think it helped me stayed engaged in the book, as there were some parts that felt a bit long or less interesting than others. However, this was an overall great read, especially during Women's History Month!!
Thank you Scribner Books for the gifted e-book!
March 17, 2023
This book explodes the myth that, by the 1980s and 1990s, the battle had been won, and that women had equal opportunity in the sciences. I know that was what we female scientists thought at the time. This book demonstrates by multiple examples that women had to be truly exceptional to get in the door at highly ranked universities like MIT and, even then, they were subtly and not-so-subtly discriminated against. I left experimental science shortly after the events described in this book, in 2000, after being worn down by 7 years of "a thousand cuts" (some of which I did not realize at the time were a result of subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination). While reading this book, again and again, I said "this happened to me, too!" and "uh-huh!". For those of us who lived it, this is a good reminder that we were not alone in our experience. For those of you who didn't live it, this is an excellent account of why we need to remain committed to equity of all types and at all levels, not just in science, but in all life endeavors, since very substantial discrimination can be very subtle but still very devastating. The book was very easy to read (albeit a bit painful in places), and the story unfolded logically and was easy to follow.
November 14, 2023
This should be required reading for every male faculty member and administrator in higher education. If they roll their eyes or scoff, they should immediately be exiled to work for Ron DeSantis.
January 13, 2023
The Exceptions is a powerful recounting of the uphill battle women have had to face in being treated equally, specifically in higher education at some of the most prestigious universities in the country. Zernike does a fantastic job of tracing Nancy Hopkins’ career and that of several of her female peers over the decades as they fought, over and over and over again to be respected for their dedication and contributions in their fields.
The story is incredibly compelling and deeply personal-which means that when it was speaking to the barriers these women faced, it made me deeply angry. How do you decide when you love something so much that you’re willing to put up with things that you shouldn’t have to? How deeply do you have to care about something that it’s worth the stress, anxiety, and disrespect you’re likely to face your entire career? How good do you have to be in your field, how many hours do you have to put in to study and work, just to be tolerated-not respected or even venerated?
The culmination of this novel is in 1999, when Nancy when public with the battle she and other women faced at MIT. It might have been a step in the right direction, but it was still only a step in the right direction. This was two years before I started at college. I’d been on computers since I was a child; I had a grandfather who worked for IBM. I loved computers, and loved my programming classes in high school. I went into college as a computer science major. It only took one semester for me to figure out that my love for computers and programming was not enough for me to put up with the micro aggressions and discrimination I experienced-and I certainly wasn’t willing to do it for the rest of my life. Nancy’s passion for various fields in genetics was clearly more than mine in a different STEM field, and possibly she stuck around longer because she didn’t feel outright mistreated from the very beginning. By the time she realized there was a serious problem and it wasn’t just her, she was decades into her career.
The question always gets asked about why women grow disinterested in STEM fields. The argument is made that it’s difficult to have more equal representation if more women and minorities don’t pursue those fields. Why is there a drop off between undergraduates with STEM degrees and graduates and post docs pursuing careers in the industry. It’s because there is STILL a problem with the way non-white individuals are treated when they express interest in these areas.
This book mainly takes place in the latter half of the twentieth century, but these issues are still a problem today-making this an incredibly important topic. I envy and cheer the women that had cheerleaders that were both women and men that helped them advance in STEM fields. I appreciate the fact that even though Zernike focuses primarily on Nancy and other women in this book, that she also addresses men that were supportive, not just detrimental. It’s a reminder that it takes people that have the power having the willingness to relinquish some of it to elevate others deserving of their dues. THAT is how the world becomes a better place.
As a disclaimer (not a spoiler), the book follows Nancy’s career, which is in biology and more specifically in various disciplines of genetics. It helps to have at least a basic understanding of the fundamentals of genetics to better understand the science being done in the book, but certainly won’t stop anyone from understanding Nancy’s uphill battle for respect, inclusion and equality. There were times where I wished that she had been more aggressive in fighting for her rights than she was, instead of pursuing incremental change, but I also, personally, recognize the difficulty in doing so after my own experience. This book is not only a great read, but a necessary one. A complimentary copy of this book was provided by the publisher. All thoughts and opinions are my own.
The story is incredibly compelling and deeply personal-which means that when it was speaking to the barriers these women faced, it made me deeply angry. How do you decide when you love something so much that you’re willing to put up with things that you shouldn’t have to? How deeply do you have to care about something that it’s worth the stress, anxiety, and disrespect you’re likely to face your entire career? How good do you have to be in your field, how many hours do you have to put in to study and work, just to be tolerated-not respected or even venerated?
The culmination of this novel is in 1999, when Nancy when public with the battle she and other women faced at MIT. It might have been a step in the right direction, but it was still only a step in the right direction. This was two years before I started at college. I’d been on computers since I was a child; I had a grandfather who worked for IBM. I loved computers, and loved my programming classes in high school. I went into college as a computer science major. It only took one semester for me to figure out that my love for computers and programming was not enough for me to put up with the micro aggressions and discrimination I experienced-and I certainly wasn’t willing to do it for the rest of my life. Nancy’s passion for various fields in genetics was clearly more than mine in a different STEM field, and possibly she stuck around longer because she didn’t feel outright mistreated from the very beginning. By the time she realized there was a serious problem and it wasn’t just her, she was decades into her career.
The question always gets asked about why women grow disinterested in STEM fields. The argument is made that it’s difficult to have more equal representation if more women and minorities don’t pursue those fields. Why is there a drop off between undergraduates with STEM degrees and graduates and post docs pursuing careers in the industry. It’s because there is STILL a problem with the way non-white individuals are treated when they express interest in these areas.
This book mainly takes place in the latter half of the twentieth century, but these issues are still a problem today-making this an incredibly important topic. I envy and cheer the women that had cheerleaders that were both women and men that helped them advance in STEM fields. I appreciate the fact that even though Zernike focuses primarily on Nancy and other women in this book, that she also addresses men that were supportive, not just detrimental. It’s a reminder that it takes people that have the power having the willingness to relinquish some of it to elevate others deserving of their dues. THAT is how the world becomes a better place.
As a disclaimer (not a spoiler), the book follows Nancy’s career, which is in biology and more specifically in various disciplines of genetics. It helps to have at least a basic understanding of the fundamentals of genetics to better understand the science being done in the book, but certainly won’t stop anyone from understanding Nancy’s uphill battle for respect, inclusion and equality. There were times where I wished that she had been more aggressive in fighting for her rights than she was, instead of pursuing incremental change, but I also, personally, recognize the difficulty in doing so after my own experience. This book is not only a great read, but a necessary one. A complimentary copy of this book was provided by the publisher. All thoughts and opinions are my own.
May 28, 2023
I was fairly disappointed by this book. Much of the writing was dull and overly detailed, and the message was surprisingly not as inspiring as I thought it would be based on the other reviews and the book’s promotion. As a scientist currently at MIT, I ask authors to do better.
First, Zernicke goes into way too much early-life detail about the women she profiles. It ends up adding excessive length to the book without adding much meaningful color to the stories. There were many times the book felt as though it were droning on unnecessarily.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the author venerates when women (and in this case, exclusively white women) “ignore” harassment and only focus on the science. Each of these women were completely fine just being research techs, but “decided to become faculty just so they could keep doing research.” And they would only care about doing science - nothing else mattered in their personal lives, their relationships, etc. This mindset is absolutely poisonous. We should be past the days where we praise when people who claim to not be feminists. We should all be feminists! And you CAN be a scientist and a person at the same time. This book portrays those two things as mutually exclusive, and they absolutely are not.
I learned that the author never even interviewed Nancy Hopkins when writing this - she just relied on journal entries. How could she capture Nancy’s experiences adequately this way, especially considering that at the time the journals were written, she may not have even had the LANGUAGE yet to express what she was going through (i.e. terminology like imposter syndrome, harassment, etc.)
The only redeeming part of this book (that bumped it up from 2 to 3 stars) was the ending. I was excited and interested in the story of Nancy and the other women at MIT that fought to drive change. I wish the book had focused more on that, and given context on the ramifications of their fight, since it ended pretty abruptly and I was curious about how their changes had endured & got very few answers on that from this book.
I want to be clear - this is by no means any sort of dig at the women featured in the book. They are all brilliant, amazing, and change-driving women that are inspirational as they are. I just wish the author could have written about them in the best way possible— in the way that they deserved.
First, Zernicke goes into way too much early-life detail about the women she profiles. It ends up adding excessive length to the book without adding much meaningful color to the stories. There were many times the book felt as though it were droning on unnecessarily.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the author venerates when women (and in this case, exclusively white women) “ignore” harassment and only focus on the science. Each of these women were completely fine just being research techs, but “decided to become faculty just so they could keep doing research.” And they would only care about doing science - nothing else mattered in their personal lives, their relationships, etc. This mindset is absolutely poisonous. We should be past the days where we praise when people who claim to not be feminists. We should all be feminists! And you CAN be a scientist and a person at the same time. This book portrays those two things as mutually exclusive, and they absolutely are not.
I learned that the author never even interviewed Nancy Hopkins when writing this - she just relied on journal entries. How could she capture Nancy’s experiences adequately this way, especially considering that at the time the journals were written, she may not have even had the LANGUAGE yet to express what she was going through (i.e. terminology like imposter syndrome, harassment, etc.)
The only redeeming part of this book (that bumped it up from 2 to 3 stars) was the ending. I was excited and interested in the story of Nancy and the other women at MIT that fought to drive change. I wish the book had focused more on that, and given context on the ramifications of their fight, since it ended pretty abruptly and I was curious about how their changes had endured & got very few answers on that from this book.
I want to be clear - this is by no means any sort of dig at the women featured in the book. They are all brilliant, amazing, and change-driving women that are inspirational as they are. I just wish the author could have written about them in the best way possible— in the way that they deserved.
March 3, 2023
This book took me on a journey. In the beginning I was extremely frustrated with the author for passing off Nancy’s multiple SAs and minimal mentions of Rosa Franklin and Henrietta Lacks while Watson and Crick were featured prominently. However, as I continued it became clear that the author was charting Nancy’s own evolution as a feminist and scientist. In the end, this book made me angry (in a good way) for both the major grievances and “the minutia of sexism”. But it also made me proud of Nancy and her fellow scientists fighting for equality.
April 10, 2023
Being a woman in STEM as a female data scientist I felt like I couldn’t not read this book. It seemed like it was my duty. And while I expected to find this extremely relatable and hopefully inspiring, I did not expect it to drag on forever.
This book is mostly about the life of Nancy Hopkins, a scientist at MIT, culminating with MIT’s admittance of discrimination against their female scientists. As I mentioned, I expected to personally relate to this story and hoped to be inspired with how other women overcame discrimination. But this story did not live up to what I hoped it to be.
For one, this story was very, very long. For some reason it felt painstaking to make it through each page. I think it was because of the level of detail. So. Much. Detail. There was so much that was unnecessary to the point of this story and it took forever to move forward. And unfortunately, the end of the story was a huge let down. It ended with the article being published with barely any follow up on how it impacted the women’s lives or if it altered the lives and careers of women today. I just was very disappointed with the content of this book.
I was definitely shocked by some aspects of this book. To imagine a time when women could not be hired because men did not think they were intelligent or capable is jarring, and I’m reassured with how far things have come since then. But at the same time, it was disheartening how much seemed just as relevant today. The notion that women will end up quitting their careers to care for their families and therefore cannot be taken seriously as candidates is still very much applicable today. I might be naive to hope this book would offer some insight to a solution to this, but it was disappointing when I realized Hopkins did not end up becoming a mother, and therefore did not have to face this challenge herself. I was hoping to gather advice for overcoming this but all I seemed to get out of it was that balance does not exist if you want to do actual science. The few women who did raise families were basically unicorns who supposedly came to work days after giving birth - something I could not even fathom doing.
I really wanted to like this book because of what I believe it wanted to stand for, but it really let me down in terms of what it achieved and also in holding my interest. It was far too detailed to keep me intrigued and did not cover the points that I hoped it would.
Thank you to NetGalley and Scribner for an ARC of this book.
Read my full review here: https://www.between-bookends.com/2023...
This book is mostly about the life of Nancy Hopkins, a scientist at MIT, culminating with MIT’s admittance of discrimination against their female scientists. As I mentioned, I expected to personally relate to this story and hoped to be inspired with how other women overcame discrimination. But this story did not live up to what I hoped it to be.
For one, this story was very, very long. For some reason it felt painstaking to make it through each page. I think it was because of the level of detail. So. Much. Detail. There was so much that was unnecessary to the point of this story and it took forever to move forward. And unfortunately, the end of the story was a huge let down. It ended with the article being published with barely any follow up on how it impacted the women’s lives or if it altered the lives and careers of women today. I just was very disappointed with the content of this book.
I was definitely shocked by some aspects of this book. To imagine a time when women could not be hired because men did not think they were intelligent or capable is jarring, and I’m reassured with how far things have come since then. But at the same time, it was disheartening how much seemed just as relevant today. The notion that women will end up quitting their careers to care for their families and therefore cannot be taken seriously as candidates is still very much applicable today. I might be naive to hope this book would offer some insight to a solution to this, but it was disappointing when I realized Hopkins did not end up becoming a mother, and therefore did not have to face this challenge herself. I was hoping to gather advice for overcoming this but all I seemed to get out of it was that balance does not exist if you want to do actual science. The few women who did raise families were basically unicorns who supposedly came to work days after giving birth - something I could not even fathom doing.
I really wanted to like this book because of what I believe it wanted to stand for, but it really let me down in terms of what it achieved and also in holding my interest. It was far too detailed to keep me intrigued and did not cover the points that I hoped it would.
Thank you to NetGalley and Scribner for an ARC of this book.
Read my full review here: https://www.between-bookends.com/2023...
April 4, 2024
Why can't we turn this into a TV mini-series instead of Lessons in Chemistry? These women literally paved a way for other women in science and I owe them so much. Their story is engaging, at times infuriating, and overall just so inspiring.
May 29, 2023
I can't yet write a descriptive review of this book because I'm still screaming inside. However, the book is very much fact and doesn't linger much on feeling. The feelings however are hard to ignore. As a woman in science, with a mother in science, with a father also in science who was less ambitious and less successful than my mother, I can briefly summarize the problems highlighted in this book (and add a few comments):
1) every woman in science can write a hundred-page book on all the times they've been told women are not as good as men, their success is only temporary or due to their gender (or other status such as immigrant or ethnic/racial background) every single time they outcompeted men. Which happens often.
2) If we didn't waste our time trying to just be left alone to do our job properly we would accomplish so much more; and we already accomplish a lot more than most men in similar positions.
3) The USA and Western Europe is really far behind at including women in science and other jobs. Discrimination is still pretty nasty in Eastern Europe, but female role models abound in former communist countries. My assumption is that the isolationist political and economic approach of mid 20th century communism didn't afford the countries to import talent from elsewhere, so we had to work with our own talent. Thus women could not be ignored, and right now, with the genie out of the bottle , it's much harder to force it back. Still, bias is baked in Eastern European culture as well.
4) This book is torture to read for a woman in STEM, but you should read it if you are one. It takes time to unlearn the self-doubt you has been fed YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. Think of this as a surgery to remove a tumor that's been cutting off blood supply to essential organs. The tumor may grow back. But if you don't remove it, it will surely suffocate you and your ambitions.
Quick anecdote from my time as a PhD student in Heidelberg Germany. I was waiting for a train and a mathematician from India stroke a conversation with me. Upon finding out that I was Romanian he asked me "What do you guys do in Romania, that makes you have so many really talented female mathematicians. I've worked with a few already." He thought it was something genetic. I answered: "We just don't discourage women as much as they do in other places." In Germany hiring personnel told me to my face they will not hire a female who is married and had just turned 30 because she will likely go on mat leave. In Romania they dislike women going on mat leave as well; we just can't fill all the spots available at a job without women, so they are allowed in. And competitions plus anecdotes like the one I just relaid prove that the women were exceptional. If something as simple as slightly more permissive hiring practices can cause such a change in demographics, we need to stop turning to genetics or biology as the default explanation for why women are underrepresented at work world wide. And it should be a relief: genetics is much harder to change. Society can be changed in 1-2 generations. It already has. We are currently facing more unconscious than overt bias at work. That is progress.
However, we can't stop here. More progress is needed. Not for the sake of representation. But for the sake of quality and fairness.
1) every woman in science can write a hundred-page book on all the times they've been told women are not as good as men, their success is only temporary or due to their gender (or other status such as immigrant or ethnic/racial background) every single time they outcompeted men. Which happens often.
2) If we didn't waste our time trying to just be left alone to do our job properly we would accomplish so much more; and we already accomplish a lot more than most men in similar positions.
3) The USA and Western Europe is really far behind at including women in science and other jobs. Discrimination is still pretty nasty in Eastern Europe, but female role models abound in former communist countries. My assumption is that the isolationist political and economic approach of mid 20th century communism didn't afford the countries to import talent from elsewhere, so we had to work with our own talent. Thus women could not be ignored, and right now, with the genie out of the bottle , it's much harder to force it back. Still, bias is baked in Eastern European culture as well.
4) This book is torture to read for a woman in STEM, but you should read it if you are one. It takes time to unlearn the self-doubt you has been fed YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. Think of this as a surgery to remove a tumor that's been cutting off blood supply to essential organs. The tumor may grow back. But if you don't remove it, it will surely suffocate you and your ambitions.
Quick anecdote from my time as a PhD student in Heidelberg Germany. I was waiting for a train and a mathematician from India stroke a conversation with me. Upon finding out that I was Romanian he asked me "What do you guys do in Romania, that makes you have so many really talented female mathematicians. I've worked with a few already." He thought it was something genetic. I answered: "We just don't discourage women as much as they do in other places." In Germany hiring personnel told me to my face they will not hire a female who is married and had just turned 30 because she will likely go on mat leave. In Romania they dislike women going on mat leave as well; we just can't fill all the spots available at a job without women, so they are allowed in. And competitions plus anecdotes like the one I just relaid prove that the women were exceptional. If something as simple as slightly more permissive hiring practices can cause such a change in demographics, we need to stop turning to genetics or biology as the default explanation for why women are underrepresented at work world wide. And it should be a relief: genetics is much harder to change. Society can be changed in 1-2 generations. It already has. We are currently facing more unconscious than overt bias at work. That is progress.
However, we can't stop here. More progress is needed. Not for the sake of representation. But for the sake of quality and fairness.
April 19, 2023
4.5 ⭐️ An interesting, well research, infuriating yet inspiring read on the discrimination of women throughout the history of MIT and the strides that have been made for equality for women in STEM. This book mainly follows the life and career of Nancy Hopkins, a molecular geneticist and cancer researcher and her uphill battle against sometimes blatant and other times subtle forms of sexual discrimination and in the end what she finally did about it.
Quotes:
‘A large part of education to the future lives of women is, in fact, the education of men’
‘Until children are considered a family responsibility for two consenting adults, women cannot have equal opportunities in employment. Only when social roles require comparable efforts from professional men and women can equality of opportunity be said to exist.’
‘The male perception of talented, ambitious women is at best ambivalent, a mixture of admiration, resentment, confusion, competitiveness, attraction, skepticism, anxiety, pride, and animosity.’
Nancy Hopkins - ‘She could try to innovate, try to be the best, try to please everyone, it would not matter. A woman’s work would never be valued as highly as a man’s. -It had taken her twenty years to see it - she’d understood it about other women before she realized it was true for her, too. She had taken all of this personally, but she now realized it didn’t have much to do with her. These men barely saw her; she was a nonentity.’
‘The key conclusion that one gets from the report is that gender discrimination in the 1990’s is subtle but pervasive, and stems largely from unconscious ways of thinking that have been socialized into all of us, men and women alike. This makes the situation better than in previous decades where blatant inequalities and sexual assault and intimidation were endured but not spoken of. We can all be thankful for that. But the consequences of these more subtle forms of discrimination are equally real and equally demoralizing.’
‘The study has significant social value, because it documents with unusual clarity how pervasive and destructive discrimination can be even when there is no blatant harassment or intimidation.’
Quotes:
‘A large part of education to the future lives of women is, in fact, the education of men’
‘Until children are considered a family responsibility for two consenting adults, women cannot have equal opportunities in employment. Only when social roles require comparable efforts from professional men and women can equality of opportunity be said to exist.’
‘The male perception of talented, ambitious women is at best ambivalent, a mixture of admiration, resentment, confusion, competitiveness, attraction, skepticism, anxiety, pride, and animosity.’
Nancy Hopkins - ‘She could try to innovate, try to be the best, try to please everyone, it would not matter. A woman’s work would never be valued as highly as a man’s. -It had taken her twenty years to see it - she’d understood it about other women before she realized it was true for her, too. She had taken all of this personally, but she now realized it didn’t have much to do with her. These men barely saw her; she was a nonentity.’
‘The key conclusion that one gets from the report is that gender discrimination in the 1990’s is subtle but pervasive, and stems largely from unconscious ways of thinking that have been socialized into all of us, men and women alike. This makes the situation better than in previous decades where blatant inequalities and sexual assault and intimidation were endured but not spoken of. We can all be thankful for that. But the consequences of these more subtle forms of discrimination are equally real and equally demoralizing.’
‘The study has significant social value, because it documents with unusual clarity how pervasive and destructive discrimination can be even when there is no blatant harassment or intimidation.’
March 7, 2023
Marvelous book!
March 27, 2023
LOVED THIS STORY SO MUCH (both the book and the true story that it told….)I can’t believe I’d never heard about these women, and that historical moment in time?!! I loved the way the book built the tension, really slowly laying out the egregious and compounding gender discrimination across DECADES, by focusing on multiple characters in depth. While that really helped the reader understand the magnitude of time and scale of the harassment/sexism, it sometimes felt a little slow as a plot, if that makes sense. But in general WOW, my full body was in chills as I read the ending, when it all came together. It’s astonishing how the discrimination was decades-long, and then as soon as it’s out publicly, everything happens FAST. Such an incredible story; the bravery of the MIT 16, particularly Nancy, cannot be overstated.
January 20, 2023
Serendipity! I am currently reading Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Garmus (which I definitely would recommend), and then I receive an advance readers' copy of The Exceptions which will be published February 28. Both deal with the same topic - how women were (and still are in some cases and some places) discouraged from certain careers, underpaid, subjected to verbal and sexual abuse, and so on. Worth reading.
March 26, 2023
In the most objective, a story of underdogs achieving the impossible. I loved how the story of science became human, and despite the challenges, or possibly because of them, I felt compelled to want to participate in both the science and in overcoming the bias. The last 20 pages led to continued rounds of goose bumps and happiness.
December 23, 2022
Exceptional accounting of the fight for women in science. It's unfortunate this type of discrimination against women occurred, but it is encouraging to read about women such as Nancy Hopkins who fought to make a difference. I would highly recommend.
January 8, 2023
Brilliant, thought provoking, and powerful. The Exceptions dives into the discrimination that was prevalent as women began to enter the field of science. The blatant unfairness drove me to a few rants. Great read.
April 1, 2024
The two great changing points in my life thus far have been marrying my wife and having my daughter. These two women are the sun my meager cold and rocky planet revolves around. Thus it astounds me that any man who has a wife and a daughter is not a radical feminist as well, seeing as when we exclude women, we knock out the pillar which holds up "half the sky" (to quote Mao Zedong's more lucid moment). I will be the first to knock down any barrier which stands in the way of my daughter achieving everything she wants in this world, since that is the oath that all fathers take when they introduce them into this world. I got angrier and angrier thinking of my daughter in the place of Nancy Hopkins, suffering and sacrificing, just to endure a slow death by a thousand paper cuts. That's the insidious thing that these clever men have got going here - each individual thing which comes up can be explained by 'individual circumstance' but, like lung cancer and smoking, we must view the aggregate to see the clear and damnable pattern. Whether it's lower pay, different standards for tenure, a lack of equipment, not being told about programs to get a loan for a house, not being invited to luncheons or to make connections, not getting credit on paper, or a hundred other things. Making this doubly hard, to rebuff every one of these simple situations which can easily be explained away on an individual basis takes the indictment of every man throughout the system, none of which (in today's world) would consider themselves anything but a champion for women, and nothing is stronger than man's capacity to defend himself when cornered.
Nancy Hopkins was the picture of a reluctant gender warrior. It grieves me deeply to see how many parallels this has to other movements, particularly the civil rights movement, in the fact that these people did not want to fight, did not choose to have to fight these battles, but were forced to. It is death by a thousand paper cuts, demoralization, and an uncomfortable climate which forces self-selection of women out of the sciences (and so many other places), all without a single man having to 'get his hands dirty' - it is small complicit and even unwitting actions which can do the work for them. What a monumental waste that half the energy of some of the finest minds ever produced have to work fighting battles for equality and respect instead of being free to focus on the science which will reshape our world for the better.
Nancy Hopkins was the picture of a reluctant gender warrior. It grieves me deeply to see how many parallels this has to other movements, particularly the civil rights movement, in the fact that these people did not want to fight, did not choose to have to fight these battles, but were forced to. It is death by a thousand paper cuts, demoralization, and an uncomfortable climate which forces self-selection of women out of the sciences (and so many other places), all without a single man having to 'get his hands dirty' - it is small complicit and even unwitting actions which can do the work for them. What a monumental waste that half the energy of some of the finest minds ever produced have to work fighting battles for equality and respect instead of being free to focus on the science which will reshape our world for the better.
December 1, 2023
Although I found the book a bit too long and detailed, it hit the mark when it comes to my own life experiences. When I began as a faculty member in 1989, the amount of start-up funding I received was one-sixth that of a male colleague in my department who joined the faculty one month later. I received one lab bench in someone else's lab whereas my new colleague got beautiful facilities. The pretext was that I did international, population-based research which was less expensive (ha!) and less lab-intensive (true) than the other investigator's research. I was also asked by my boss to take visitors on tours of our campus. When I finally got up the courage to tell him this wasn't in my job description, he said it wasn't about my sex, he was just "ageist". I also was given no administrative support and had to pay for admin support out of my start-up funds and grant money. In retrospect, I was ridiculously under-supported, underpaid, and like many women in The Exceptions, felt I that needed to be grateful for the very little I was given.
All academics owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Nancy Hopkins and the MIT crew. Because of them, my own university now has clear guidelines for salaries and start-up funding. The data on recruitment and retention of women and minorities are available on-line. Parental and family leave policies are also much more transparent and less "punative".
Although we still have a way to go, I enjoyed reading about the fight for equity. As a member of the National Academy of Medicine myself, I know I benefited from the work of these women, unlike my brilliant mother--also a researcher--who struggled against stereotypes until she finally retired in the 1980's.
All academics owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Nancy Hopkins and the MIT crew. Because of them, my own university now has clear guidelines for salaries and start-up funding. The data on recruitment and retention of women and minorities are available on-line. Parental and family leave policies are also much more transparent and less "punative".
Although we still have a way to go, I enjoyed reading about the fight for equity. As a member of the National Academy of Medicine myself, I know I benefited from the work of these women, unlike my brilliant mother--also a researcher--who struggled against stereotypes until she finally retired in the 1980's.
March 28, 2024
Very good reporting about women scientists at MIT and their treatment and their resistance to unfairness. Very detailed narratives about their lives, and lots of information about the bureaucracy that science professors work with in order to do their research. Lots of interesting ambiguities too, some people were sometimes helpful and at other times obstructive.
September 11, 2023
beautiful
October 7, 2023
An outstanding presentation of the subtle ways in which women are left at t a disadvantage in science. It was interesting to see the reality of who the "greats" in molecular biology really are as humans. And who would have guessed that James Watson would be a major mentor/supporter of Nancy Hopkins in her fight for equity. Perhaps a more nuanced evaluation of Watson, despite his very public flaws, is in order.
May 25, 2023
Great read if you’re a woman working in a science field. Good takes on feminism. I felt extremely sorry for the women who felt like they had to choose between career in science and having families and meaningful relationships.
March 15, 2023
I know many of the people and places in this book. I entered Yale as a biology graduate student two years after Mary Lou Pardue, who figures prominently. Mary Lou and Joe Gall found how to do in situ hybridization when I was there. Mary Lou was going to work with Don Brown at the Carnegie Institution of Embryology in Baltimore. I did a sabbatical at Carnegie with Don, and Joe Gall had moved there. In retirement, I live 2 miles from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, where Nancy Hopkins was a postdoc with James Watson. Finally, both Bob Birgeneau, who played a prominent positive role as the Dean of Science at MIT, and Kate Zernike, the author of the book, graduated from the University of Toronto, where I was a Professor for 30 years. I was leaving just when Birgeneau arrived to become President. Given all this, my review will be quite personal.
The book is a very interesting account of women scientists at MIT fighting to gain proper recognition. Besides the usual academic fights over lab space, course teaching, and salary, Nancy Hopkins and her women colleagues accumulated evidence that their work and abilities were not given the same attention as their male colleagues. In a long and tortuous fight, MIT accepted their arguments and worked to make academic life more equitable for female scientists.
Many prominent male MIT biologists are cast in a harsh light, including David Baltimore, Philip Sharp, Harvey Lodish, Eric Lander, Richard Hynes, and Frank Solomon. Zernike acknowledges help and interviews with the first four, but not with Hynes and Solomon. Will they be suing? Lander may just be a bull in the china shop. He also appears as the heavy in Walter Isaacson's book on Jennifer Doudna "The Codebreakers". There Lander argues for Wang and Church to receive the Nobel Prize instead of Doudna and Charpentier. Was he arguing against women or simply promoting scientists at his and a neighboring institution?
The male MIT professors are presented as a hyper-competitive, aggressive, opinionated lot. In my more than 40 years as a biology professor, I was never exposed to that atmosphere. I worked at excellent universities but not elite ones, so that could be a reason. Another reason could be that this was an unusual cohort. They made some of the core discoveries in molecular biology between the formulation of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953 and completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003. The latter was a hyper-competition between Craig Ventner and Francis Collins, with James Watson playing a prominent role. Hence, the MIT male molecular cohort may be an outlier. That view is mentioned in the book by Ursula Goodenough who said that Nancy Hopkins was engaged in "an extremely rarefied and competitive scientific field" (p. 175).
In support of Goodenough's opinion, Hopkins felt relief when she changed her lab's focus from viruses to developmental biology, the field that I was in. Women biologists are prominent in developmental biology, particularly in the analysis of mammalian embryos. It is striking that Phil Sharp had never heard of Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, before this developmental biologist won the Nobel Prize (p.228).
The book, however, makes me wonder whether I also was unaware that I was discounting women biologists. Running through the composition of my lab over the years, my scientific collaborations, and my administrative interactions, I think I always respected the abilities and accomplishments of women in biology. It is probably too much in the past, but it may be interesting to hear from the women that I worked with. I hope I would not be surprised.
The book is a very interesting account of women scientists at MIT fighting to gain proper recognition. Besides the usual academic fights over lab space, course teaching, and salary, Nancy Hopkins and her women colleagues accumulated evidence that their work and abilities were not given the same attention as their male colleagues. In a long and tortuous fight, MIT accepted their arguments and worked to make academic life more equitable for female scientists.
Many prominent male MIT biologists are cast in a harsh light, including David Baltimore, Philip Sharp, Harvey Lodish, Eric Lander, Richard Hynes, and Frank Solomon. Zernike acknowledges help and interviews with the first four, but not with Hynes and Solomon. Will they be suing? Lander may just be a bull in the china shop. He also appears as the heavy in Walter Isaacson's book on Jennifer Doudna "The Codebreakers". There Lander argues for Wang and Church to receive the Nobel Prize instead of Doudna and Charpentier. Was he arguing against women or simply promoting scientists at his and a neighboring institution?
The male MIT professors are presented as a hyper-competitive, aggressive, opinionated lot. In my more than 40 years as a biology professor, I was never exposed to that atmosphere. I worked at excellent universities but not elite ones, so that could be a reason. Another reason could be that this was an unusual cohort. They made some of the core discoveries in molecular biology between the formulation of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953 and completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003. The latter was a hyper-competition between Craig Ventner and Francis Collins, with James Watson playing a prominent role. Hence, the MIT male molecular cohort may be an outlier. That view is mentioned in the book by Ursula Goodenough who said that Nancy Hopkins was engaged in "an extremely rarefied and competitive scientific field" (p. 175).
In support of Goodenough's opinion, Hopkins felt relief when she changed her lab's focus from viruses to developmental biology, the field that I was in. Women biologists are prominent in developmental biology, particularly in the analysis of mammalian embryos. It is striking that Phil Sharp had never heard of Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, before this developmental biologist won the Nobel Prize (p.228).
The book, however, makes me wonder whether I also was unaware that I was discounting women biologists. Running through the composition of my lab over the years, my scientific collaborations, and my administrative interactions, I think I always respected the abilities and accomplishments of women in biology. It is probably too much in the past, but it may be interesting to hear from the women that I worked with. I hope I would not be surprised.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 320 reviews