The practice of science traces its origins back to medieval monasteries and universities. The church dominated all learning in the monasteries between the sixth and eleventh centuries. Women, in the holy orders, were active in preserving and advancing knowledge, including scientific knowledge. However, women were almost completely excluded in the early days of the universities.

As the universities took over from the monasteries as the seats of learning in the twelfth to sixteenth centuries, scientific advances became almost exclusively a male preserve. Schlesinger reports that in 1678 Elena Piscopia became the first woman at the University of Padua to obtain her Ph.D. degree. However, university officials decided not to set a precedent and for nearly three hundred years after Piscopia, no other woman received a Ph.D. degree from Padua.

Another historical seat of scientific study was in the great academies of science which developed in Europe in the seventeenth century. Though from the start there was no constitutional exclusion of women from these academies, they were, in fact, excluded. The Royal Society of London elected its first woman to full membership in 1945, though the Society was founded in 1662. Still, a number of women managed to make significant contributions to science "at the periphery," in Londa Schiebinger's words.

For example, in Paris there developed a number of "Salons": women would meet in the comfort of some noblewoman's residence and discuss scientific questions. Other women managed to get their work known through the aid of their husbands, sometimes by publishing in their names. Yet these rather sparse and informal contributions did not make a very visible impact on science. Today, the discriminations against women in the sciences are not so formal. In fact most male scientists, and even many female, will claim that there are no barriers to women in science. Then why are the numbers still so small?

There is no single, simple reason nor is there one easy solution. One explanation is the lack of role models for women scientists. Of course, to increase the numbers of role models, we first have to persuade more women to study science. We must break into the cycle somewhere.

To do so we need to know why more women do not choose science. Attitudes are set at an early age, by the family, by peers, the schools, and by society at large. How many cartoons showing scientists depict them as female? How many female scientists are seen on television? And these are two of the strongest influences on children today. Unfortunately we still hear of instances in the schools where, if a boy is struggling with his physics, he is helped and encouraged whereas a girl will be told, "This is too difficult for you. Why don't you choose some easier subject?"

But should more women be encouraged to become scientists, in particular, physical scientists? Perhaps they do not want to be scientists? We do not really know for sure whether they do not want to, or whether they have been truly persuaded that science is for boys.

Women who have managed to pursue work in science despite the difficulties surely must have wanted to be scientists. A career in science is an interesting one, and a rewarding one. It affords women, who can no longer rely on "living happily ever after" with 2.2 children and a husband who reliably brings home a good pay cheque, financial independence. Present statistics indicate that, on average, a woman can expect to work outside the home only four years less than a man and also, for some time, to be the sole source of financial support for themselves and their family. Women need to pursue interesting and well-paid careers.

credit Ros Stevenson

Another reason for increasing the numbers of women in science and technology is to make changes to science itself that might result from greater female participation. This turns the question around from "Why do so few women participate in science?" to "What is it about science that has limited the participation of women?" In recent years there has been considerable debate among feminists and some scientists on whether science is truly "value-free" and "gender-neutral". Would science be profoundly changed by greater participation by women? As physical scientists-a mineralogist and a theoretical physicist-we wonder how our understanding about minerals or fundamental particles would be enhanced if these sciences had equal participation of both genders.