Uncovering Hidden Contributions with Professor Sheila Graham
What does it mean to be a woman in science? If science truly is, as Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman defined it, "imagination in the service of the verifiable truth," then the gender of the scientist should be irrelevant. Yet throughout history, the scientific landscape has been markedly male-dominated, with women's contributions often overlooked, minimized, or attributed to others 1 . This paradox forms the heart of our conversation with Professor Sheila Graham, a distinguished molecular biologist whose work spans both laboratory research and documenting the historical contributions of women in science.
"We're at a fascinating juncture in the history of science," Professor Graham reflects. "On one hand, we have more women earning PhDs in sciences than ever before—approximately 50% in many fields. On the other, only 3.6% of Nobel Prizes in sciences were awarded to women from 1902 to 2022. This discrepancy tells us something important about how science has been recorded and credited."
In this exclusive interview, we explore with Professor Graham not only her groundbreaking research but also the systemic challenges that have rendered women's scientific work largely invisible—until now.
of Nobel Prizes in sciences awarded to women (1902-2022)
of top academic positions held by women in US and Europe
The conventional "Veracity Perspective" holds that science is fundamentally impartial to the identity of its practitioner. Truth, according to this view, can be discovered by anyone regardless of gender, race, or background 1 . While this sounds ideal in theory, Professor Graham explains how this perspective has been used to justify historical exclusion.
"The argument often went like this: if science is truly objective and gender-blind, then the lack of women in the historical record simply reflects their lack of significant contributions," she notes. "This circular logic ignored the substantial barriers that prevented women from accessing education, resources, and recognition."
Recent research has begun to quantify how women's contributions to science have been systematically overlooked. A groundbreaking study published in Genetics examined 883 papers in Theoretical Population Biology between 1970 and 1990, revealing a troubling pattern: women made up 43.2% of those mentioned as programmers in acknowledgements but only 7.4% of those listed as authors 2 .
Source: Analysis of 883 papers in Theoretical Population Biology 2
"What we're seeing here is what I call the 'acknowledgement gap,'" Professor Graham explains. "Women were doing the work—often substantial, creative work that drove the science forward—but were denied the primary credit that comes with authorship. This wasn't just about fairness; it had real consequences for their careers and visibility."
The bias against women in science isn't limited to credit allocation; it extends to how research itself is conducted. Professor Graham highlights a critical issue: the systematic exclusion of female subjects from scientific studies, particularly in biomedical research.
"Women are harder to study than men from a methodological standpoint," she acknowledges. "Female hormones change cyclically, which means research using female participants must account for cycle phase. What might seem like a minor complication can triple the time and cost of answering a research question" 4 .
9 months
to collect data on 79 women
$30,000
vs $12,000 for male participants
This systematic exclusion of female subjects—from human trials to animal models—has profound implications for scientific knowledge and women's health.
"A colleague who studies Alzheimer's Disease—a condition that affects significantly more women than men—was only asked for the first time in 2018 why his research used only male mice," Professor Graham shares. "He estimated that at least 90% of the mechanistic research on Alzheimer's has been conducted exclusively on males" 4 .
| Research Area | Historical Practice | Consequences |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical Trials | Exclusion or underrepresentation of women | Limited understanding of drug efficacy and side effects in women |
| Animal Research | Predominant use of male animals | Missed therapeutic opportunities for female-specific conditions |
| Cell Studies | Use of male-derived cells | Fundamental biological mechanisms may differ in unstudied ways |
One of the most compelling examples of recognizing women's hidden contributions comes from theoretical population biology. Professor Graham walks us through a key experiment that revealed how women's work was systematically undercredited.
The research team, led by Rori Rohlfs and Emilia Huerta-Sánchez, analyzed authorship patterns in 883 scientific papers published between 1970 and 1990. They noticed that many women appeared only in the acknowledgements sections of these studies, despite making what appeared to be significant programming contributions 2 .
"The methodology was elegant in its simplicity," Professor Graham explains. "The team recorded data on authors and acknowledgements, then categorized the types of contributions mentioned. They paid particular attention to programming work, which was essential to the computational aspects of population biology."
The research process involved:
Identifying all relevant papers in Theoretical Population Biology over a 20-year period
Recording authors, acknowledged individuals, and the nature of acknowledged contributions
Determining the gender of authors and acknowledged individuals based on names and additional research
Comparing representation in authorship versus acknowledgements by gender
The findings were striking. Women were disproportionately represented in acknowledgements compared to authorship for programming work. Some names, like Margaret Wu, appeared repeatedly in acknowledgements sections of multiple papers. Wu had contributed to developing a method for estimating genetic diversity that became one of the most influential papers ever published in the journal 2 .
"These women weren't just performing routine tasks," Professor Graham emphasizes. "They were developing novel methods and making substantive intellectual contributions that advanced their fields. Yet without the credibility of authorship, they remained largely invisible and unable to advance their own scientific careers."
Source: Analysis of programming contributions in population biology 2
"The trajectory tells us that when a field is considered administrative or supportive work, it's often gendered female and undervalued," Professor Graham observes. "When the same work is recognized as intellectually central, it becomes masculinized and credited more appropriately."
Throughout our discussion, Professor Graham emphasizes that proper methodology—including the precise preparation of reagents and solutions—forms the foundation of reliable science. She outlines several key research reagents and their functions in typical laboratory experiments.
Maintain consistent pH levels in biological assays and enzyme activity tests.
Serve as solvent for biochemical reactions in cell culture media and protein extraction.
Provide efficient storage and customization through dilution to working concentrations.
Study solubility limits and equilibrium in crystal formation and chemical synthesis.
Model unique dispersion properties in pharmaceutical delivery and material science.
"Accuracy in reagent preparation isn't just a technical detail—it's a fundamental principle that separates robust, reproducible science from unreliable results," Professor Graham stresses. "Small errors in concentration or measurement can lead to significant deviations in experimental outcomes, potentially wasting resources and misleading scientific understanding" 6 .
As our conversation draws to a close, Professor Sheila Graham reflects on the progress made and the path forward for women in science. "We're witnessing a gradual but significant shift," she says. "Federal agencies now often refuse to fund clinical trials that don't include women, and there's growing insistence on including female animals and cells in preclinical work. These systemic changes are crucial because they create structures that support inclusion rather than relying on individual goodwill" 4 .
of science PhDs earned by women
women acknowledged as programmers
women authors for same work
The work of recovering women's historical contributions continues to reshape our understanding of science itself. "When we look beyond authorship to acknowledgements, laboratory notebooks, and correspondence, we discover a richer, more complete picture of how scientific knowledge actually develops," Professor Graham notes. "It turns out that women were there all along—programming computers, running experiments, analyzing data—just often without formal recognition."
"The history of science is not just a record of discoveries; it's also a record of our evolving understanding of who can be a discoverer. We need diverse perspectives not simply as a matter of fairness, but because those perspectives ask different questions, notice different patterns, and ultimately create more robust and comprehensive knowledge."
As we continue to refine both our scientific methods and our historical understanding, the invisible women of science's past are finally stepping into the light—and in doing so, they're illuminating new pathways for the scientists of tomorrow.