Women In Engineering

For 35 years, she tried to see a molecule that was killing millions—and when she finally mapped insulin’s structure, she gave diabetics their lives back. She’s the only British woman to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Most people have never heard her name. Dorothy Hodgkin spent her life making the invisible visible. She worked with X-ray crystallography—a technique so technically demanding it felt more like learning to read shadows than doing science. You couldn’t see molecules directly. You shone X-rays through crystals and studied the patterns they created—faint spots and rings that, if interpreted correctly, revealed the atomic architecture hidden inside. It was like understanding a building’s structure from the shadows it cast at different times of day. Except the building was a million times smaller than the eye could see, and all the calculations had to be done by hand. Most scientists thought it impossible. Dorothy made it her life’s work. Born Dorothy Crowfoot in Cairo in 1910, the daughter of an archaeologist, she fell in love with chemistry as a child. At 10, she was growing copper sulfate crystals in her bedroom, fascinated by how invisible atoms arranged themselves into ordered structures. In 1928, she enrolled at Oxford University and discovered X-ray crystallography—the key, she realized, to understanding life at its most fundamental level. But she was a woman in 1930s science. Oxford restricted access to labs. Cambridge initially refused her entry. Male colleagues doubted women could handle such mathematics. And by her twenties, rheumatoid arthritis made her hands swell and twist painfully. Delicate crystals and precise instruments became agonizing to manipulate. Dorothy adapted. She worked through the pain, understanding that she was seeing what no one else could—and that it could save lives. Her breakthroughs came one molecule at a time. She solved penicillin’s structure in 1945, giving drug companies the blueprint to mass-produce the antibiotic. She mapped vitamin B12 in 1956, enabling effective treatment for pernicious anemia. And insulin—her lifelong obsession—took 35 years. The molecule was enormous, difficult to crystallize, and calculations were overwhelming. Her arthritis worsened. In 1969, she finally solved insulin’s structure, atom by atom, enabling synthetic production and modern diabetes treatment. In 1964, she won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for her work, becoming the only British woman to do so. She remained a mentor, collaborator, and advocate for science serving humanity until her death in 1994 at age 84. Think about it: she worked in constant pain, faced discrimination, did decades of painstaking calculations by hand, and solved problems many thought impossible—all to make molecules speak so medicine could save lives. Penicillin. B12. Insulin. Millions alive today because Dorothy Hodgkin refused to accept “impossible.” Dorothy Hodgkin. Remember her name please.

Ready for some groundbreaking discoveries? This isn’t just science. It’s seismic. Some discoveries crack open the Earth. These exposed the forces inside it. Volcanoes, tectonic shifts, buried impact craters— They traced how our planet changes, and why. Their tools? Isotopes, satellites, and stubborn questions. This isn’t surface science. It goes deep. Meet 12 women who moved mountains—with data. 📌 Ida Noddack She asked: what if atoms can break apart? That idea explains Earth’s internal heat. And how we trace its age through decay. 📌 Marie-Anne Paulze Lavoisier She ran the lab that named Earth’s elements. Pioneered early mineral analysis and methods. Her work made chemistry map the planet. 📌 Julia Lermontova She decoded how minerals form and break down. Studied oil chemistry when few understood it. Her data powered early resource science. 📌 Alice Eastwood Saved geological collections in a quake’s ruins. Catalogued plant and rock records of the West. Worked in the field when women weren’t allowed in. 📌 Ellen Gleditsch Used radioactive decay to date the Earth. Helped prove our planet is billions of years old. Built Norway’s first radiochemistry lab. 📌 Adriana Ocampo Found the crater that ended the dinosaurs. Buried deep—until her maps revealed it. Led NASA research linking space and Earth. 📌 Aradhna Tripati Traces past climates using ancient isotopes. Her work sharpens our models of climate change. She builds labs—and access—for future scientists. 📌 Mariya Zuber Mapped the Moon’s gravity in fine detail. Her methods help us read Earth’s crust. She leads science from orbit to institution. 📌 Katharina Lodders Models how planets and meteorites are built. Her research decodes Earth’s elemental origins. It’s used from labs to launchpads. 📌 Darlene Lim Leads Earth-based missions to prepare for Mars. Studies extreme ecosystems to guide exploration. Brings field science to the future of space. 📌 Sian Proctor Geoscientist who trained in planetary volcanoes. Then flew to space—piloting a private mission. Her work spans lava flows to lift-off. 📌 Beatrix Potter Studied fossils and minerals before she wrote. Her illustrations taught geology before she was heard. Now her science is shelved in museums. They mapped the Earth—and modeled other planets too. Their data shaped how we build, adapt, and explore. 120 stories shared. 504 to come. If we terraform one day—will we credit the groundbreakers?

There are women who invented the technology behind Wi-Fi, sent astronauts to the moon, won Nobel Prizes, and pioneered fertility treatments that have helped millions of families. 💎 How many of them can you name? 📱 Hedy Lamarr is best known as a Hollywood actress from the 1940s and 50s, with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. With no formal STEM training, she read engineering books obsessively. During WWII, she and composer George Antheil developed “frequency hopping,” switching radio frequencies to prevent signals from being intercepted, patented in 1942. This work laid the groundwork for Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. 🔬 Dame Elizabeth Anionwu began her career in Britain’s National Health Service at 16. As a community nurse, she devoted herself to sickle cell disease, a blood condition disproportionately affecting people of African heritage. The UK lacked what she needed, so she traveled to the US. In 1979, she and Dr. Milica Brozovic opened the first UK sickle cell counseling and screening center in London and became a Professor of Nursing at the University of West London. 🚀 Katherine Johnson was one of NASA’s “human computers.” She graduated high school at 14, college with a math degree at 18, and calculated trajectories for America’s first space journey in 1961, the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, and the safe return of the Apollo 13 crew in 1970. Her story inspired the 2016 film Hidden Figures. 🧬 Barbara McClintock won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983, at 81, for discovering genes can move between chromosomes. She was rejected so forcefully she stopped publishing in 1953. She became the first woman to receive the National Medal of Science in 1970. ⚛️ Chien-Shiung Wu, the “first lady of physics,” worked on the Manhattan Project at Columbia and was the first female instructor in Princeton’s physics department. After retiring in 1981, she devoted the rest of her life to advocating for equal opportunities for women in STEM. 🔬 Dr. Indira Hinduja pioneered fertility treatments in India, leading to the birth of India’s first “test tube” baby. She developed the Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (GIFT) technique and delivered India’s first GIFT baby in 1988. Her Oocyte Donation Technique made possible the first baby born using that method in 1991. Read the full article by Annabel Blakey in The Collector to learn more about trailblazing women in STEM who shaped our future! 👉 https://lnkd.in/eh4ahauB #WomenInSTEM #GirlsInSTEM #STEMGems #GiveGirlsRoleModels ―――――――――――――――――― 💜🩷💙💚 The women in this post changed what is possible for every girl who comes after them. At STEM Gems, giving girls role models, programs, and community to see themselves in STEM is what drives us. A decade of impact and counting. Learn more here: https://lnkd.in/ed-nJVsN

Have you ever considered how many potential “Marie Curies” we lose each year to systemic gender gaps in innovation and intellectual property (IP)? Read Professor Myriam Mariani’s insights into a more inclusive innovation and IP ecosystem in our latest World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO IP and Economics blog. It discusses the barriers women face in the innovation sector and suggests potential solutions to achieve gender parity. According to WIPO’s latest report on the global gender gap in innovation and creativity, over the past 20 years only 23% of international patents included at least one woman as a listed inventor, and overall, only 13% of all inventors listed were women. These figures highlight not just a participation gender gap but also reveal unused potential in the global innovation landscape. Professor Mariani outlined several reasons for the need to increase women’s participation in innovation: 1.   Expanding the talent pool, as over-reliance on male talent and underutilizing female talent limits the diversity, quantity and quality of ideas. 2.   Ensuring equal opportunities for all, allowing everyone the freedom to become an inventor, regardless of gender. 3.   Addressing innovation gaps in technologies, as women inventors often bring more patents focused on their own needs, experiences and interests. At WIPO, we are committed to changing these statistics by promoting a more inclusive innovation ecosystem that embraces diversity and nurtures talent to ensure that innovation thrives on the talents of all, unrestricted by gender. Let’s discuss how we can support a more inclusive environment that celebrates and nurtures diverse inventors, prevent the loss of potential “Marie Curies” and build a more inclusive future. Read Prof. Mariani’s insights: https://lnkd.in/eqD_ug9K Find out more about WIPO’s work regarding the Innovation Gender Gap: https://lnkd.in/eChJVxZJ #GenderDiversity #Innovation #IntellectualProperty #WIPO #InnovationEcosystem #Economics #WomenInInnovation #GenderEquality

"This report developed by UNESCO and in collaboration with the Women for Ethical AI (W4EAI) platform, is based on and inspired by the gender chapter of UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. This concrete commitment, adopted by 194 Member States, is the first and only recommendation to incorporate provisions to advance gender equality within the AI ecosystem. The primary motivation for this study lies in the realization that, despite progress in technology and AI, women remain significantly underrepresented in its development and leadership, particularly in the field of AI. For instance, currently, women reportedly make up only 29% of researchers in the field of science and development (R&D),1 while this drops to 12% in specific AI research positions.2 Additionally, only 16% of the faculty in universities conducting AI research are women, reflecting a significant lack of diversity in academic and research spaces.3 Moreover, only 30% of professionals in the AI sector are women,4 and the gender gap increases further in leadership roles, with only 18% of in C-Suite positions at AI startups being held by women.5 Another crucial finding of the study is the lack of inclusion of gender perspectives in regulatory frameworks and AI-related policies. Of the 138 countries assessed by the Global Index for Responsible AI, only 24 have frameworks that mention gender aspects, and of these, only 18 make any significant reference to gender issues in relation to AI. Even in these cases, mentions of gender equality are often superficial and do not include concrete plans or resources to address existing inequalities. The study also reveals a concerning lack of genderdisaggregated data in the fields of technology and AI, which hinders accurate measurement of progress and persistent inequalities. It highlights that in many countries, statistics on female participation are based on general STEM or ICT data, which may mask broader disparities in specific fields like AI. For example, there is a reported 44% gender gap in software development roles,6 in contrast to a 15% gap in general ICT professions.7 Furthermore, the report identifies significant risks for women due to bias in, and misuse of, AI systems. Recruitment algorithms, for instance, have shown a tendency to favor male candidates. Additionally, voice and facial recognition systems perform poorly when dealing with female voices and faces, increasing the risk of exclusion and discrimination in accessing services and technologies. Women are also disproportionately likely to be the victims of AI-enabled online harassment. The document also highlights the intersectionality of these issues, pointing out that women with additional marginalized identities (such as race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or disability) face even greater barriers to accessing and participating in the AI field."

At a certain point in your career, your biggest asset isn't your skills. It's who's talking about you when you're not in the room. That's sponsorship. And most women are losing out on it without even realising it. I know this because in one of our Lean In Circle discussions, everyone could name a mentor - instantly without hesitation, but when asked to name a sponsor, the room went quiet.  A mentor tells you what to work on. A sponsor works on your behalf. A mentor builds your skills. A sponsor builds your visibility in rooms you haven't been invited to. Mentorship is structured, measurable and programmable. Sponsorship is informal, invisible, and often the single most decisive factor in who actually gets to the next level. Women are being mentored generously but sponsored rarely. What sponsorship looks like - not one moment of advocacy, but a pattern of it. Someone who inserts your name into a conversation you weren't part of. Who corrects the record when your idea gets attributed to someone else? Who says - she's ready before you've said it about yourself. Who puts their own reputation behind yours, not because they were asked to, but because they chose to. Sponsors only do this for people they truly believe in. Which means when it happens, it's one of the most powerful signals a career can receive. So why do women lose out? Both sides have a role. On our side: we put our heads down, do good work, and trust it'll be noticed. It won't - not automatically, not consistently, and rarely in rooms that matter the most. We also only put our hands up when we're 100% ready. But sponsors don't advocate for your performance. They advocate for your potential. Those are very different things, and that distinction is quietly costing women opportunities they've already earned. On the other side: sponsorship flows to people with the most face time, not the most promise. It travels through informal networks, spaces women have historically had less access to.  And the moment a woman is being considered, assumptions quietly enter the room around her responsibilities at home, family plans, and travel constraints. None of it gets said. But it shapes who gets the advocacy. This is not a pipeline problem. It is not a confidence problem. It is a sponsorship problem. And no mentorship programme, however well designed, closes a gap that requires something fundamentally different - someone willing to use their influence on your behalf. Two questions before you scroll past.  If you're a senior leader - whose name did you say in the last room she wasn’t in? Was it the person who looked most familiar? If you're a woman, who knows about your work beyond the people who see it every day? And are you waiting to be discovered, or creating the conditions to be known? The gap between where you are and where you want to be is often not a skill gap. It's a sponsorship gap. And unlike most gaps, this one can be closed by a conversation. The question is who starts it.

The “Matilda Effect” In the late nineteen sixties at Yale University, Margaret Rossiter sat in the archives surrounded by boxes of scientific records. She was researching the history of American science for her dissertation. It was supposed to be straightforward academic work, a simple tracing of discoveries and breakthroughs. But something kept unsettling her. In photograph after photograph she saw women standing at benches, working with equipment, included on laboratory rosters. Yet when she read the papers, the award citations, and the official histories, the women were gone, names missing, contributions erased-and it had been happening a long time. Women had been doing scientific work since the earliest days of research laboratories. They had simply not been acknowledged. She found countless examples. Women who designed experiments, only to see male colleagues publish the results without giving them credit, who’s discoveries were assigned to supervisors, footnotes instead of as full authors, passed over for awards that went to male collaborators who contributed less. It was not random & not accidental. It was systemic, she needed a name for what she was documenting. She found it in the work of Matilda Joslyn Gage, a nineteenth century suffragist who had written about this exact pattern. Margaret called it the “Matilda Effect”. Her dissertation became a lifelong mission. she spent more than thirty years researching and writing a landmark three volume series titled Women Scientists in America. She read letters, examined institutional policies, followed individual careers, and gathered evidence that proved women in science had been consistently undercredited and structurally excluded. Her work faced resistance. Many scholars dismissed women’s history as political rather than academic. Others insisted she was exaggerating bias. Margaret did not argue emotionally. She simply presented data. She showed documented cases. She showed patterns repeated across decades and institutions. The evidence became undeniable. Her research helped restore recognition to scientists who had been pushed out of the story. Rosalind Franklin-X ray of DNA. Lise Meitner-nuclear fission (omitted from that Nobel Prize). Nettie Stevens- sex chromosomes. Cecilia Payne Gaposchkin-composition of stars…. The Matilda Effect became standard terminology. Scholars used it to examine how credit is assigned, how publications list authors, who receives awards, and who is left out. Universities updated curricula. Margaret received the Sarton Medal, the highest honor in the history of science field. The Matilda Effect did not end in the past. It continues today. Women scientists still receive fewer citations, fewer awards, and fewer promotions. “Margaret Rossiter AHS, Oxford Univ Press” #womeninscience #genderequity

On this International Day of Women and Girls in Science, I’m celebrating the women whose knowledge, courage, and leadership are reshaping the future of conservation. Among them are Risslin 'Milah' Kamarollah and Suzana binti Ali, two Indigenous Jahai women working deep in one of the world’s oldest rainforests in Malaysia. They are the first women in their community to become full‑time rangers, protecting the critically endangered Malayan tiger and the ancestral forests their families have called home for generations. Supported through WWF-Malaysia's Project Stampede, Milah and Suzana have mastered complex field science including identifying poaching threats, navigating dense terrain, setting remote camera traps, all while opening doors to new opportunities for women in their community. Their story is a powerful reminder that science does not exist only in labs and universities. It lives in the deep, place‑based knowledge held by Indigenous Peoples and local communities who read the forest, understand its rhythms, and protect its future. Women like Milah and Suzana show what becomes possible when women and girls are supported to pursue science in all its forms. I find my inspiration in stories like theirs, and in the many incredible women around the world helping to move us toward a healthier, more hopeful future. https://lnkd.in/eCpWAtnn

In the late 1960s, historian Margaret Rossiter began her doctoral research at Yale expecting a conventional study of American scientific progress. Instead, she repeatedly found a disturbing pattern: women appeared in laboratory photographs, on research rosters, and in archival notes, yet were missing from published papers, citations, and official histories. Their contributions had been erased. As she followed these clues through decades of scientific records, Rossiter realized this was not a series of isolated oversights but a systematic pattern stretching back centuries. Born in 1944, Rossiter came of age during early feminist movements, yet the archives revealed to her that the exclusion of women in science was far older. Women had long designed experiments, gathered data, and developed theories, but their work was routinely claimed by male supervisors, relegated to acknowledgments, or omitted entirely. Seeking a term to describe this structural bias, Rossiter drew from nineteenth-century suffragist Matilda Joslyn Gage and named the pattern the **Matilda Effect**—the systematic denial or minimization of women’s scientific achievements. What began as a dissertation grew into Rossiter’s lifelong mission. Over more than thirty years, she produced the monumental three-volume *Women Scientists in America*, meticulously documenting policies, letters, careers, and case studies that proved women were consistently undercredited and institutionally excluded. Her findings, initially dismissed as political, eventually became undeniable through sheer evidence. Her work helped reestablish recognition for overlooked scientists such as Rosalind Franklin, Lise Meitner, Nettie Stevens, and Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin. The Matilda Effect is now standard terminology in the study of scientific credit and bias. It has reshaped curricula, inspired new biographies, and transformed how institutions assess authorship and awards. Rossiter’s scholarship exposed how incomplete and distorted the traditional narrative of science had been. Although the pattern persists today, naming it makes it measurable and harder to ignore. Through her persistence, Rossiter restored generations of erased women to the story of science and reshaped our understanding of scientific history.