New Perspective of the Persistent Gender and Diversity Gap in Nobel Prizes

Abstract

Despite significant strides in gender equity, the Nobel Prizes in STEM fields continue to exhibit glaring disparities in the recognition of women's contributions to science. Thirty years ago, only 3% of Nobel laureates in science were women; today, that number has increased marginally to 4%, raising the critical question: Why “still” so few? This opinion piece examines systemic inequities and structural barriers that hinder the equitable acknowledgment of women's and underrepresented groups’ contributions to science. Data reveal that while women now comprise a significant proportion of degree recipients and workforce entrants in fields such as biomedical research and chemistry, their representation among Nobel laureates remains disproportionately low. Furthermore, racial inequities exacerbate the lack of diversity, with no Black individuals receiving a Nobel Prize in STEM fields to date. The article advocates for transformative changes in academic and research ecosystems to dismantle the power structures and biases that sustain these inequities. It calls for intentional strategies to support, empower, and recognize women and underrepresented scientists, emphasizing the need for inclusive metrics of success. Drawing on personal experiences and the inspirational achievements of past women laureates, the author underscores the urgency of creating equitable pathways to scientific recognition. The piece concludes with a hopeful vision of a future where diversity and inclusion in Nobel recognitions reflect the rich talent and innovation present across all demographics in STEM.

“Never before have so few contributed so much under such trying circumstances.”

Dr. Chien-Shiung Wu

Experimental physicist

After I defended my doctoral thesis in Neuroscience back in 1994, my dear research mentor, the amazing Dr. Ann E. Kelley, gave me a book titled: Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles, and Momentous Discoveries by Bertsch McGrayne (1993). In the inside cover, Ann wrote a special message for me: “For Carmen, just a bit of inspiration for you…Aim high, and who knows? But most of all, have fun!” I followed Ann's advice and voraciously read it in search of inspiration and guidance from the amazing stories of these incredible women scientists. Thirty years later, I still have this book near my desk. When this book was published in 1993, only 3% of the Nobel prize laureates in science were women. The author starts the book with a very insightful question: “Why so few?” and subsequently describes many instances in history where women scientists worthy of a Nobel Prize have faced significant barriers in their scientific and professional endeavors. These range from suffering discriminatory practices across their careers to limited recognition for their transformative discoveries in prestigious scientific scenarios when compared with their male counterparts. Despite these challenges, women in science have continued to be undeterred in their passion for discovery. Since the Nobel Prize was established in 1901, the road for women in science is paved with great triumphs mixed with intentional roadblocks.

I was astonished to observe that none of the awards in the fields of Sciences, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM: Physics, Chemistry, Physiology/Medicine and Economics) were awarded to women. In the Nobel Prize website itself, it is revealed that the percentage of women receiving the coveted award has risen to only 4%, a mere 1% increase in 30 years! (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/nobel-prize-facts/; Fig. 1). The absence of recognition of equally amazing scientific discoveries of women at the highest level of science in these fields through the years provokes the imperative question: Why “still” so few?

Figure 1.

Total number of Nobel Prize Laureates by gender in Chemistry, Physics, Physiology/Medicine, and Economics from 1901–2024.

The Nobel prize website reveals highly significant statistical differences between women and men awardees (Fig. 2). For example, only three out of the 96 Nobel laureates in economic sciences are women (3% of the total awards). These numbers are not proportional to the percentage of women that currently choose an academic career in Economics. A recent report showed that in the United Kingdom, in 2021/2022, women represented 29.1% of academic economists up from 22.9% in 2012/2013 (https://res.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/women-in-academic-economics-report-2024-v5.pdf).

Figure 2.

Total number of Nobel awards given to men or women in each science category (1901–2024).

Dr. Elinor Ostrom was the first woman to receive the award in 2009. It is noteworthy that the Nobel Prize in Economics was first awarded in 1969; thus it took the Nobel Prize organization 40 years to select for the first time a woman for this award. The other distinguished economic scientists Dr. Esther Duflo and Dr. Claudia Goldin were awarded in 2019 and 2023, respectively. In Physics, only five of 226 awards went to women (lowest percentage of 2% among all the sciences). In 2018, Dr. Donna Strickland won the Nobel in physics after a 55 year hiatus of no women receiving the award in that discipline. The good news is that representation of women in physics is growing. In 2020, the American Physical Society reported that 25% of the physics bachelor's degree in the United States went to women, a significant improvement from 2% in 1966 (https://www.aps.org/apsnews/2022/10/mixed-progress-women-marginalized). For Chemistry, the numbers are quite low as well with eight out of 191 Nobel laureates having been awarded to women for their discoveries (4%). According to the National Science Foundation, in 2018 academic degrees in chemistry, 50.8% at the bachelor's level and 39% of the doctorates were women (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/report/field-of-degree-women). Women scientists in Physiology/Medicine fair a little better with 13 of 229 awards which constitute 5.6% of the total awards. This is an abysmal difference when comparing the percentages of women entering the biomedical workforce for the last two decades. Over the past 20 years, more than half of biomedical Ph.D. recipients across the nation were women (Valantine et al., 2016).

Most of us understand that, based on historical inequality, achieving parity in the Nobel awards is an elusive and unattainable goal. Even if one woman wins the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine award each year (and no man receives the award), it will take 203 years for the number of women to match the number of men. If the rate would be two women per year (like it occurred in 2020 for Chemistry), it would take over a century to achieve it. However, as a scientific community, we should focus our efforts on assuring that the selection process of these awards is more fair, inclusive, and absent the biases that historically have discriminated against women, keeping them from competing equally for the opportunities to reach the top tiers of scientific accolades. Presently, our society and scientific community would welcome a more diverse selection of Nobel awardees.

Unfortunately, inequities within the Nobel prizes persist and should make us reflect critically about the award process. For example, in the past when women received a Nobel Prize along with men, they were likely to receive a smaller portion of the prize money. Also, never in the history of the Nobel Prize has a black person of any gender received the prize in any scientific category. I guess the pioneer works of the great African-American physiologist Dr. Ernest Everett Just or the African-American female scientists-trailblazers Dr. Marie Maynard Daly (Medicine) and Dr. Valerie Thomas (Physics) unfortunately did not catch the Nobel prize selection committee's attention. Abundant evidence and data-driven studies show that racial and economic inequalities make it extremely difficult for women and people from minoritized groups to thrive in STEM fields. The lack of a fair representation in the Nobel Prizes perpetuates the notion of who scientists are and what they look like.

Although success in STEM disciplines is measured by the scientific impact and potential of discovery of the research agendas of individuals, the recognition of meritorious work by women is often endangered by structural obstacles that contribute to gender and racial bias. Although women comprise 40% of tenure-track faculty, they make up only 24% of tenured faculty and 14% of leadership positions such as department chairs and deans in American universities (Valantine et al., 2016). The current power structure in STEM disciplines operates through a coercive hierarchy and barriers rooted in dominance and elitism. To change the power dynamics at play in this context, we need to transform the nature of our relationships and our ways of relating in academic and research settings. So, it should not surprise anyone that forcing amazing and talented women or historically underserved populations to navigate a career in science where they regularly experience microaggressions, mansplaining, stereotyping, and sexual harassment results in high attrition for these individuals. Women continue to be especially vulnerable to sexual harassment in the STEM fields. A previous study of early-career researchers revealed that >92% of women experienced sexist remarks during their career (Valantine and Collins, 2015). Moreover, a study confirms that the consequences of gender harassment on a woman's psychological, mental, and physical health and decisions are just as profound as other less common forms of sexual harassment (Jagsi et al., 2016).

In my opinion, another year of no women or persons-of-color in the Nobel awards is detrimental to the goal of showcasing scientific excellence with an inclusive approach. It is also a symptom that progress is too slow in achieving racial and gender equity and inclusion in STEM fields. It is imperative to be intentional in implementing strategies that work to break with this sustained discrimination. In order to accomplish this, first, academic institutions and the science establishment need to do more in empowering, supporting, and recognizing women scientists’ achievements and their innovative work. We as a research community, regardless of scientific discipline, should create and support groups within our scientific ecosystem that encourage open discussion about the career barriers women and underrepresented groups face in research settings. Scientists should also be purposeful in finding transformative ways to change the discourse of unequal metrics that govern the image of a successful scientist.

As a Latina neuroscientist, researcher, and educator, I have experienced many of the toxic situations and challenges that women scientists of color face at different stages of my career. Nevertheless, I was fortunate to have developed a network of peers, students, mentors, and family members that through their support and encouragement helped me thrive successfully in my career. I am also inspired by the lives of the three women neuroscientists that thus far have received the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine: Dr. Rita Levi-Montalcini (1986), Dr. Linda Buck (2004), and May Britt-Moser (2014). I am still hopeful that in my lifetime, I will see the first Latina or Black female scientist to receive a Nobel prize in any of the STEM categories.

In this first quarter of the twenty-first century, scientists across disciplines need to genuinely embrace the idea that research competence is not intrinsically tied to race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. These factors have no bearing on one's success as a researcher. Research environments should not put someone at a disadvantage based on who they are. As a mentor of many women, Latinx and Black students and faculty in science, my passion to train them in the arts of conducting rigorous and innovative science strongly persists. In addition, I motivate them to become role models for the future generations of researchers. They should enter this amazing career in science research with strong aspirations of becoming a great scientist with a civic purpose. Amazing women and underrepresented scientists in STEM fields across the world are rightfully waiting for their opportunity to achieve scientific stardom.