By Julie Kent / President@flnow.org
When I began my computer science career, I often heard the joke, “To get the job, a woman just has to be twice as good as a man—fortunately, that is not difficult.” While this remark is sometimes framed as a jab at men, it reflects a deeper and more troubling reality: women’s work, inventions, and achievements are frequently slower to be recognized—or not recognized at all—when compared with those of their male colleagues.
This phenomenon is known as the Matilda Effect, a term describing the systematic failure to acknowledge the contributions of women in science. The name honors Matilda Joslyn Gage (1826–1898), a suffragist, writer, and intellectual force who
challenged entrenched beliefs about women’s supposed lack of scientific capability. Gage, the youngest speaker at the 1852 Syracuse National Women’s Rights Convention, later published The National Citizen and Ballot Box, a monthly paper
advocating for women’s suffrage and equality. Through her writing, she directly confronted the notion—common in her time—that women were inherently unsuited to scientific work.
Despite more than a century of progress since Gage’s era, many of the same forces continue to shape whose work is visible and valued in science today. Structural bias, institutional decisions, and political pressures still contribute to the underreporting and
undervaluing of women’s contributions.
Federal government cuts in 2025 disproportionately affected women and minorities in scientific fields. Efforts to remove screened words such as “diversity,” “inclusion,” “women,” and “race” have had the practical effect of limiting what research is published, funded, or easily accessible. As a result, the work of many women scientists has become harder to find, harder to support, and easier to overlook.
Numerous articles document the broader impact of these cuts on national scientific research. To see how the Matilda Effect persists, however, it is instructive to look at specific cases—particularly women who earned leadership roles in science and were
subsequently pushed out of them. Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) before her employment was terminated. Dr. Susan Monarez, after being confirmed by the Senate, served briefly
as Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Rachel Spaeth, a researcher with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, was working to propagate rare fruit trees when she was let go during initial cuts. Dr.
Katherine Calvin served as NASA’s Chief Scientist and Senior Climate Advisor from 2022 to 2025.
These women have not disappeared. They continue to publish, innovate, and lead in new roles. Yet each time a woman of demonstrated merit is removed from a position of scientific authority, the loss reverberates far beyond her own career. Visibility matters. Leadership matters. When women are systematically excluded from both, it becomes harder for the next generation to be recognized at all. The Matilda Effect persists because women are still less likely to get credit, funding, and attention for their work.
Reducing the Matilda Effect is not solely the responsibility of institutions; it is also shaped by everyday choices. Ordinary women—and allies of all genders—can help by citing women’s research, sharing and amplifying their work, and naming women
explicitly as experts in classrooms, meetings, and public discussions. Mentorship, sponsorship, and peer support matter: recommending women for opportunities, crediting their ideas accurately, and challenging subtle erasure when it occurs all help
shift norms. Supporting journals, organizations, and educational spaces that prioritize equity and transparency also strengthens the scientific ecosystem as a whole.
The Matilda Effect thrives in silence and invisibility. It weakens when women’s work is acknowledged, credited, and championed—consistently and publicly. By paying attention to whose voices are heard and whose contributions are missing, ordinary
individuals can play a meaningful role in ensuring that scientific excellence is recognized wherever it appears. Progress does not require extraordinary power; it requires sustained awareness, collective action, and the refusal to let women’s
achievements fade into the background once again.
