What do you think?
Rate this book
The Exceptions
From the Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who broke the story, the inspiring account of the sixteen female scientists who forced MIT to publicly admit it had been discriminating against its female faculty for years—sparking a nationwide reckoning with the pervasive sexism in science.
In 1999, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology admitted to discriminating against women on its faculty, forcing institutions across the country to confront a problem they had long ignored: the need for more women at the top levels of science. Written by the journalist who broke the story for The Boston Globe, The Exceptions is the untold story of how sixteen highly accomplished women on the MIT faculty came together to do the work that triggered the historic admission.
The Exceptions centers on the life of Nancy Hopkins, a reluctant feminist who became the leader of the sixteen and a hero to two generations of women in science. Hired to prestigious universities at the dawn of affirmative action efforts in the 1970s, Dr. Hopkins and her peers embarked on their careers believing that discrimination against women was a thing of the past—that science was, at last, a pure meritocracy. For years they explained away the discrimination they experienced as the exception, not the rule. Only when these few women came together after decades of underpayment and the denial of credit, advancement, and equal resources to do their work did they recognize the relentless pattern: women were often marginalized and minimized, especially as they grew older. Meanwhile, men of similar or lesser ability had their career paths paved and widened.
The Exceptions is a powerful yet all-too-familiar story that will resonate with all professional women who experience what those at MIT called “21st-century discrimination”—a subtle and stubborn bias, often unconscious but still damaging. As in bestsellers from Hidden Figures to Lab Girl and Code Girls, we are offered a rare glimpse into the world of high-level scientific research and learn about the extraordinary female scientists whose work has been overlooked throughout history, and how these women courageously fought for fair treatment as they struggled to achieve the recognition they rightfully deserve.
In 1999, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology admitted to discriminating against women on its faculty, forcing institutions across the country to confront a problem they had long ignored: the need for more women at the top levels of science. Written by the journalist who broke the story for The Boston Globe, The Exceptions is the untold story of how sixteen highly accomplished women on the MIT faculty came together to do the work that triggered the historic admission.
The Exceptions centers on the life of Nancy Hopkins, a reluctant feminist who became the leader of the sixteen and a hero to two generations of women in science. Hired to prestigious universities at the dawn of affirmative action efforts in the 1970s, Dr. Hopkins and her peers embarked on their careers believing that discrimination against women was a thing of the past—that science was, at last, a pure meritocracy. For years they explained away the discrimination they experienced as the exception, not the rule. Only when these few women came together after decades of underpayment and the denial of credit, advancement, and equal resources to do their work did they recognize the relentless pattern: women were often marginalized and minimized, especially as they grew older. Meanwhile, men of similar or lesser ability had their career paths paved and widened.
The Exceptions is a powerful yet all-too-familiar story that will resonate with all professional women who experience what those at MIT called “21st-century discrimination”—a subtle and stubborn bias, often unconscious but still damaging. As in bestsellers from Hidden Figures to Lab Girl and Code Girls, we are offered a rare glimpse into the world of high-level scientific research and learn about the extraordinary female scientists whose work has been overlooked throughout history, and how these women courageously fought for fair treatment as they struggled to achieve the recognition they rightfully deserve.
409 pages, Paperback
First published February 28, 2023
643 people are currently reading
22440 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 529 reviews
Want to read
February 28, 2023I was a student at MIT when the report on women in science came out--it was the result of a research project by women across the different science departments--and I attended a small info and Q & A session about it led by some of the researchers. One of the main professors was from my department. It was clear that we were witnessing something that was at once extremely brave, amazingly impressive, and momentous. It was moving and I still could not admire the researchers more. I'm looking forward to reading this.
April 21, 2023
This is a fantastic book! Nancy Hopkins wondered for years about her treatment at and by MIT and her colleagues there. As a woman of science, she basically kept her head down and focused on the work she loved. Over issues of shared space inequalities, she began to quantify what had been perceptions. The story is so very relatable to most any woman whose career has taken her into formerly male disciplines. Well researched and relatable, this book will become part of our society's historical record.
My thanks to the author, Kate Zernike, and the publisher, Scribner, for my copy of this book. #Goodreads Giveaway
My thanks to the author, Kate Zernike, and the publisher, Scribner, for my copy of this book. #Goodreads Giveaway
October 31, 2023
On its surface, the subject - the fight against sexual discrimination at MIT - seems a bit niche and wonky, but this book is totally engrossing. Kate Zernike's storytelling skills are simply of the highest level, and much of the book is simply a biography of Nancy Hopkins, which is full of drama, suspense and episodes which will make most readers angry. I had trouble putting the book down. Nancy's story, and those of her peers, will likely be of interest to those who have shared their experiences in any endeavor, and to those males (like me) who have all too often been oblivious to them. Readers who have read books like The Code Breaker by Walter Isaacson will likely find this account of a different aspect of the scientific establishment a very rewarding read. And this is also a superior addition to the plethora of literature on groundbreaking women such as Hidden Figures and books by Nathalia Holt (e.g. Rise of the Rocket Girls).
Although I recommend this to the general reader, I must confess that I am not that reader. I attended MIT from 1980 to 1984- where much of the book takes place - and subsequently received a PhD in Chemistry from UC Berkeley. I had the added enjoyment of having known some of the participants (but none of the main characters) in these episodes. Typically when I read about places that I'm intimately familiar with, I usually find that the author or journalist gets it all wrong. In this case, Kate Zernike totally gets MIT and must have spent considerable time immersed in its atmosphere.
If the book has a flaw, it would be its triumphalism. The committee report that is the culmination of this book and the report's acceptance by MIT administration as a basis for action was certainly a triumph. But twenty-five years have passed and I simply can't believe that everything has been alright since then. I wish the author would have spent a little more time explaining what has and especially what hasn't happened since the report.
Thanks to Net Galley for providing me with an electronic ARC of this title! This book will certainly be considered for the book club I lead at a local bookstore.
Although I recommend this to the general reader, I must confess that I am not that reader. I attended MIT from 1980 to 1984- where much of the book takes place - and subsequently received a PhD in Chemistry from UC Berkeley. I had the added enjoyment of having known some of the participants (but none of the main characters) in these episodes. Typically when I read about places that I'm intimately familiar with, I usually find that the author or journalist gets it all wrong. In this case, Kate Zernike totally gets MIT and must have spent considerable time immersed in its atmosphere.
If the book has a flaw, it would be its triumphalism. The committee report that is the culmination of this book and the report's acceptance by MIT administration as a basis for action was certainly a triumph. But twenty-five years have passed and I simply can't believe that everything has been alright since then. I wish the author would have spent a little more time explaining what has and especially what hasn't happened since the report.
Thanks to Net Galley for providing me with an electronic ARC of this title! This book will certainly be considered for the book club I lead at a local bookstore.
March 25, 2024
I have always been what people refer to as being on the nerdy side. The valedictorian and saludictorian of my high school class were both female but not nerdy although they were a year ahead of me in math and science, yet, one participated in four years of choir and the other was an outgoing person. Me: the misunderstood apple polisher simply because in history I read and questioned everything and in science and math I simply worked hard. From the earliest age, I devoured nonfiction books. In my dreams I desired to be a marine biologist if only I did not have a phobia of needles, otherwise I would be midway through a career researching dolphins in the Red Sea. My dad, a chemical engineer. Me: the kid who actually enjoyed reading his Chemical Engineering Progress magazine and used the articles for science current event stories. I knew who Mae Jamison the astronaut was before I had the adult insight to know that she was a trailblazing woman. A goodreads friend recently read The Exceptions and came away inspired. I have been reading about and studying women pioneers for years and had been on the fence about it, but, in the end, knew that a book featuring overlooked women scientists would be a vital part of my women’s history month reading, if anything else, to publicize their story and encourage more young women to pursue careers in STEM.
Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy League schools did not fully admit women until the early 1970s. The old boys network believed that they were grooming the future leaders of America, all men. A few years ago, I read Yale Needs Women, which brought this story to light. On the other hand, MIT, the science school, had opened its doors to women as early as the 1870s. This fact might not have been public knowledge; but, the school was less of an old boys network than its Ivy League counterparts. Housing and encouragement for women in science was all but nonexistent, but women were never officially banned from attending the school. Getting on faculty at any of these schools, even after they went coed, was another story. The Ivys maintained their paternalistic old boys network view of society, whereas the prevailing belief at MIT, even as recently as fifty years ago, is that women had to have children by the age of thirty or they would be deemed as too old to bare children. Women had to choose between having a career or having and raising children. The societal view even as late as the 1970s is that once women had children, they would have to stop working in their chosen field and not return until their children were old enough to care for themselves. This is something that women still grapple with although the conditions of returning to work have changed since then. Women in science felt this dichotomy more so than in other fields. Their research that could ultimately lead to a PhD could take years, the same prime years for child baring. It is of little wonder that science departments at top university remained one of the last bastions of the old boys network in American society.
Nancy Hopkins attended Radcliffe pre Harvard integration and attended a lecture given by James Watson of DNA double helix fame. She was mesmerized and wanted a career in science, specifically studying repressor genes, which could lead to cancer in both animals and humans. Nancy’s mother had a cancerous scare when she was growing up, so preventing its onset was something she cared deeply about. In James Watson, Nancy found a mentor early in her career who encouraged her to go for a PhD in molecular biology at MIT. Most men at the time would have discouraged this but not James Watson, known as Jim in the book, who had previously worked with Rosalind Franklin on his double helix discovery. Today a woman studying molecular biology is not rare; I have a friend who got a PhD in biochemical engineering so I know firsthand that it’s done. In the 1970s, Nancy Hopkins had to choose between science and having children; in the end science won out. Even though she rose to the top of her field, being a woman left her with few opportunities for career growth. Nancy loved science for science’s sake but she would have appreciated the same respect as her peers. Early in her career, she wrote this off as “this is how it’s done.” Later in the her career, she began to question the old boys network. It started with a tape measure.
Title IX came into being in 1973. Most people associate this law with equality in sports, but law’s purpose was to provide equal opportunities to women at schools of all levels that received federal funds. Sports became a lightning rod because until 1973 women had almost zero opportunities to earn college scholarships; athletic scholarships were the bastion of men. The same could be said for women in tenure track positions in math and science at top colleges and universities. At MIT, there was one female professor. At the time, one could count the number of tenured female math professors on two hands. It did not matter how highly regarded a woman was in her given field; men regarded their female colleagues as girls and gave them little to no respect. Most of the men that Nancy worked with during her career went on to win the Nobel Prize for their work; women were not even considered as top candidates for the award until the 1980s. By that point, Title IX had reached ten years old. The generation that fought for yet did not win passage of the Equal Rights Amendment had entered the work force and slowly began to demand equal treatment at professions not necessarily regarded as being fields dominated by women. This included math and science, and, by the 1990s, one could see Title IX finally come of age. Both 1992 politically and 1996 athletically were dubbed the year of the woman. The time was ripe for women in STEM to speak out.
Nancy Hopkins sought out Mary Lou Pardue as another top rated woman biologist. It came to light that the two women had faced the same systemic discrimination throughout their careers. They sought out other women professors at MIT and came up with a group of sixteen ready to fight the old boys status quo. It would not be easy, but, if the university’s governing body listened to and met some of their demands, it would eventually lead to increased opportunities for women in science and math at both MIT and other universities nation wide. Kate Zernike is the daughter and granddaughter of scientists. She had been exposed to a scientific way of thinking for her entire life, and like me, was encouraged to pursue a career in STEM. She chose to be a journalist and won a Pulitzer for journalistic reporting in 2002 for her work on exposing ISIS as being the perpetrators of 9/11. When Nancy’s story broke at MIT, it was Kate who covered it, and she knew that the material would make for a great book. Nancy was skeptical at first. Even though her women’s committee had eventually won breakthroughs for women scientists and mathematicians, exposing her story to the public would cast many of her male colleagues in a poor light. Eventually, she agree to the book, realizing that her woman’s work would never be done, and her story lead to increased opportunities for women in math and science across the board. It is a story that women in all walks of life would benefit from reading so Kate and Nancy plowed on with this project.
At times, I thought that Zernike’s tone was a bit whiny, which took away from the accomplishments of these women who are at the top of their field. My mother is a feminist. She still has all her political buttons from NOW and wears her opinions on her sleeve. I grew up in this environment as well as with a father who told me I had a great engineering brain. By the time I was in high school, more women had entered into engineering, and it might have been fun to follow in his footsteps. Today I teach and enjoy math most. When I am in a fifth or sixth grade classroom, I tell girls that “I can’t is not in my vocabulary.” Try your best in math because it can take you places and I am happy to help you. Today I see girls in math and science three years above grade level. They are not as discouraged from applying themselves in STEM fields. Recently I saw a tenth grade girl construct a robot for a science Olympiad competition, and I have asked my female dentist when the profession changed from predominantly men to a field more indicative of the makeup of society. Women are no longer viewed as girls by their peers. They are respected for their discoveries and lauded for their achievements. According to Kate Zernike while telling Nancy Hopkins’ story, these changes were a long time coming and moved at the speed of molasses, but, once implemented, women finally received the credit they deserved. I might not think that women in science as a rarity but until the 1980s that is exactly what they were. Thanks to these brave women at MIT, female scientists are no longer considered to be the exceptions but the norm.
👩🔬 4 stars 🧬
Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy League schools did not fully admit women until the early 1970s. The old boys network believed that they were grooming the future leaders of America, all men. A few years ago, I read Yale Needs Women, which brought this story to light. On the other hand, MIT, the science school, had opened its doors to women as early as the 1870s. This fact might not have been public knowledge; but, the school was less of an old boys network than its Ivy League counterparts. Housing and encouragement for women in science was all but nonexistent, but women were never officially banned from attending the school. Getting on faculty at any of these schools, even after they went coed, was another story. The Ivys maintained their paternalistic old boys network view of society, whereas the prevailing belief at MIT, even as recently as fifty years ago, is that women had to have children by the age of thirty or they would be deemed as too old to bare children. Women had to choose between having a career or having and raising children. The societal view even as late as the 1970s is that once women had children, they would have to stop working in their chosen field and not return until their children were old enough to care for themselves. This is something that women still grapple with although the conditions of returning to work have changed since then. Women in science felt this dichotomy more so than in other fields. Their research that could ultimately lead to a PhD could take years, the same prime years for child baring. It is of little wonder that science departments at top university remained one of the last bastions of the old boys network in American society.
Nancy Hopkins attended Radcliffe pre Harvard integration and attended a lecture given by James Watson of DNA double helix fame. She was mesmerized and wanted a career in science, specifically studying repressor genes, which could lead to cancer in both animals and humans. Nancy’s mother had a cancerous scare when she was growing up, so preventing its onset was something she cared deeply about. In James Watson, Nancy found a mentor early in her career who encouraged her to go for a PhD in molecular biology at MIT. Most men at the time would have discouraged this but not James Watson, known as Jim in the book, who had previously worked with Rosalind Franklin on his double helix discovery. Today a woman studying molecular biology is not rare; I have a friend who got a PhD in biochemical engineering so I know firsthand that it’s done. In the 1970s, Nancy Hopkins had to choose between science and having children; in the end science won out. Even though she rose to the top of her field, being a woman left her with few opportunities for career growth. Nancy loved science for science’s sake but she would have appreciated the same respect as her peers. Early in her career, she wrote this off as “this is how it’s done.” Later in the her career, she began to question the old boys network. It started with a tape measure.
Title IX came into being in 1973. Most people associate this law with equality in sports, but law’s purpose was to provide equal opportunities to women at schools of all levels that received federal funds. Sports became a lightning rod because until 1973 women had almost zero opportunities to earn college scholarships; athletic scholarships were the bastion of men. The same could be said for women in tenure track positions in math and science at top colleges and universities. At MIT, there was one female professor. At the time, one could count the number of tenured female math professors on two hands. It did not matter how highly regarded a woman was in her given field; men regarded their female colleagues as girls and gave them little to no respect. Most of the men that Nancy worked with during her career went on to win the Nobel Prize for their work; women were not even considered as top candidates for the award until the 1980s. By that point, Title IX had reached ten years old. The generation that fought for yet did not win passage of the Equal Rights Amendment had entered the work force and slowly began to demand equal treatment at professions not necessarily regarded as being fields dominated by women. This included math and science, and, by the 1990s, one could see Title IX finally come of age. Both 1992 politically and 1996 athletically were dubbed the year of the woman. The time was ripe for women in STEM to speak out.
Nancy Hopkins sought out Mary Lou Pardue as another top rated woman biologist. It came to light that the two women had faced the same systemic discrimination throughout their careers. They sought out other women professors at MIT and came up with a group of sixteen ready to fight the old boys status quo. It would not be easy, but, if the university’s governing body listened to and met some of their demands, it would eventually lead to increased opportunities for women in science and math at both MIT and other universities nation wide. Kate Zernike is the daughter and granddaughter of scientists. She had been exposed to a scientific way of thinking for her entire life, and like me, was encouraged to pursue a career in STEM. She chose to be a journalist and won a Pulitzer for journalistic reporting in 2002 for her work on exposing ISIS as being the perpetrators of 9/11. When Nancy’s story broke at MIT, it was Kate who covered it, and she knew that the material would make for a great book. Nancy was skeptical at first. Even though her women’s committee had eventually won breakthroughs for women scientists and mathematicians, exposing her story to the public would cast many of her male colleagues in a poor light. Eventually, she agree to the book, realizing that her woman’s work would never be done, and her story lead to increased opportunities for women in math and science across the board. It is a story that women in all walks of life would benefit from reading so Kate and Nancy plowed on with this project.
At times, I thought that Zernike’s tone was a bit whiny, which took away from the accomplishments of these women who are at the top of their field. My mother is a feminist. She still has all her political buttons from NOW and wears her opinions on her sleeve. I grew up in this environment as well as with a father who told me I had a great engineering brain. By the time I was in high school, more women had entered into engineering, and it might have been fun to follow in his footsteps. Today I teach and enjoy math most. When I am in a fifth or sixth grade classroom, I tell girls that “I can’t is not in my vocabulary.” Try your best in math because it can take you places and I am happy to help you. Today I see girls in math and science three years above grade level. They are not as discouraged from applying themselves in STEM fields. Recently I saw a tenth grade girl construct a robot for a science Olympiad competition, and I have asked my female dentist when the profession changed from predominantly men to a field more indicative of the makeup of society. Women are no longer viewed as girls by their peers. They are respected for their discoveries and lauded for their achievements. According to Kate Zernike while telling Nancy Hopkins’ story, these changes were a long time coming and moved at the speed of molasses, but, once implemented, women finally received the credit they deserved. I might not think that women in science as a rarity but until the 1980s that is exactly what they were. Thanks to these brave women at MIT, female scientists are no longer considered to be the exceptions but the norm.
👩🔬 4 stars 🧬
April 14, 2025
As the Supreme Court recently determined race should no longer be considered for institutions of higher learning (lucky for me I live in Texas where it was done away with near the same time the women at MIT were fighting for equal pay and equal access), it seems like another reason to hang my head and sigh given how affirmative action is essentially seen as something not needed in the workplace or in any space. Interesting, given how much women gained because of affirmative action. These women were rising in their fields when affirmative action came into play in 1972.
Hopkins worked at MIT and encountered discrimination from the moment she stepped on campus. We would now call these microaggressions - they happened to her for the entirety of her career. It took Hopkins twenty years to label it discrimination (or marginalization). Even though Hopkins had tenure, women always felt "[their] work ... is not properly acknowledged, not received, not responded to, not published, her opinion is not asked for" and men held all of the positions of power. There were women that pursued degrees in STEM, but few were hired as tenured professors and given proper recognition or equal pay.
The men were helped with grants, loans for housing, given pay that was often times double that of their female counterparts. Many of the men remained unmoved by the grievances of the women on campus. Hopkins' whole fight began when two male colleagues were to take over a biology course required by all undergrads. The two male colleagues said Hopkins would not be needed to help with the course even though she created the curriculum. When pushed, it turned out the two men were going to publish a book USING THE CURRICULUM SHE CREATED.
As I read, I marked so many passages. This is a striking quote from an article in the New York Times in 1974: "compelling colleges and universities to hire more women and blacks is lowering standards and undermining faculty." Straight to the heart.
This is an engaging read and one that is so easy to read. Yes, there is a lot of science discussed, but always in a way that is easily understood. I loved it.
Hopkins worked at MIT and encountered discrimination from the moment she stepped on campus. We would now call these microaggressions - they happened to her for the entirety of her career. It took Hopkins twenty years to label it discrimination (or marginalization). Even though Hopkins had tenure, women always felt "[their] work ... is not properly acknowledged, not received, not responded to, not published, her opinion is not asked for" and men held all of the positions of power. There were women that pursued degrees in STEM, but few were hired as tenured professors and given proper recognition or equal pay.
The men were helped with grants, loans for housing, given pay that was often times double that of their female counterparts. Many of the men remained unmoved by the grievances of the women on campus. Hopkins' whole fight began when two male colleagues were to take over a biology course required by all undergrads. The two male colleagues said Hopkins would not be needed to help with the course even though she created the curriculum. When pushed, it turned out the two men were going to publish a book USING THE CURRICULUM SHE CREATED.
As I read, I marked so many passages. This is a striking quote from an article in the New York Times in 1974: "compelling colleges and universities to hire more women and blacks is lowering standards and undermining faculty." Straight to the heart.
This is an engaging read and one that is so easy to read. Yes, there is a lot of science discussed, but always in a way that is easily understood. I loved it.
June 21, 2023
Excellent.
February 28, 2023
I loved this book! It was well written and thoroughly researched. Even better was the story! Women have long been aware of discrimination in the workplace, but it took a group of well credentialed and respected female scientists to quantify what that discrimination looks like. The work of Nancy Hopkins and her colleagues took emotions and personality out of the argument and just focused on behaviors and impacts: salary, lab space, job assignments. Their worked helped the administration and coworkers to see that discrimination is not always intentional, but ingrained.
June 24, 2025
My thanks to libro.fm and Simon & Schuster Audio for an ALC of this book to listen to and review.
This book needed an editor’s red pen SO BADLY. Actually, a machete would have been good. It was WAY too long and repetitive. Boring and aggravating at the same time.
The narrator had good volume modulation, but pronounced some normal-to-me words in a weird to me way, so that kicked me out of the book on occasion.
I DNF’d at 91% because I just couldn’t take it anymore and I didn’t care enough to finish the last hour and a half of it. It saddens me, as this is a story that needs to be told, but not if it’s going to bore the reader to tears.
2, I seem to keep striking out with my audio books recently, stars.
This book needed an editor’s red pen SO BADLY. Actually, a machete would have been good. It was WAY too long and repetitive. Boring and aggravating at the same time.
The narrator had good volume modulation, but pronounced some normal-to-me words in a weird to me way, so that kicked me out of the book on occasion.
I DNF’d at 91% because I just couldn’t take it anymore and I didn’t care enough to finish the last hour and a half of it. It saddens me, as this is a story that needs to be told, but not if it’s going to bore the reader to tears.
2, I seem to keep striking out with my audio books recently, stars.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 14, 2023
This should be required reading for every male faculty member and administrator in higher education. If they roll their eyes or scoff, they should immediately be exiled to work for Ron DeSantis.
April 10, 2023
Being a woman in STEM as a female data scientist I felt like I couldn’t not read this book. It seemed like it was my duty. And while I expected to find this extremely relatable and hopefully inspiring, I did not expect it to drag on forever.
This book is mostly about the life of Nancy Hopkins, a scientist at MIT, culminating with MIT’s admittance of discrimination against their female scientists. As I mentioned, I expected to personally relate to this story and hoped to be inspired with how other women overcame discrimination. But this story did not live up to what I hoped it to be.
For one, this story was very, very long. For some reason it felt painstaking to make it through each page. I think it was because of the level of detail. So. Much. Detail. There was so much that was unnecessary to the point of this story and it took forever to move forward. And unfortunately, the end of the story was a huge let down. It ended with the article being published with barely any follow up on how it impacted the women’s lives or if it altered the lives and careers of women today. I just was very disappointed with the content of this book.
I was definitely shocked by some aspects of this book. To imagine a time when women could not be hired because men did not think they were intelligent or capable is jarring, and I’m reassured with how far things have come since then. But at the same time, it was disheartening how much seemed just as relevant today. The notion that women will end up quitting their careers to care for their families and therefore cannot be taken seriously as candidates is still very much applicable today. I might be naive to hope this book would offer some insight to a solution to this, but it was disappointing when I realized Hopkins did not end up becoming a mother, and therefore did not have to face this challenge herself. I was hoping to gather advice for overcoming this but all I seemed to get out of it was that balance does not exist if you want to do actual science. The few women who did raise families were basically unicorns who supposedly came to work days after giving birth - something I could not even fathom doing.
I really wanted to like this book because of what I believe it wanted to stand for, but it really let me down in terms of what it achieved and also in holding my interest. It was far too detailed to keep me intrigued and did not cover the points that I hoped it would.
Thank you to NetGalley and Scribner for an ARC of this book.
Read my full review here: https://www.between-bookends.com/2023...
This book is mostly about the life of Nancy Hopkins, a scientist at MIT, culminating with MIT’s admittance of discrimination against their female scientists. As I mentioned, I expected to personally relate to this story and hoped to be inspired with how other women overcame discrimination. But this story did not live up to what I hoped it to be.
For one, this story was very, very long. For some reason it felt painstaking to make it through each page. I think it was because of the level of detail. So. Much. Detail. There was so much that was unnecessary to the point of this story and it took forever to move forward. And unfortunately, the end of the story was a huge let down. It ended with the article being published with barely any follow up on how it impacted the women’s lives or if it altered the lives and careers of women today. I just was very disappointed with the content of this book.
I was definitely shocked by some aspects of this book. To imagine a time when women could not be hired because men did not think they were intelligent or capable is jarring, and I’m reassured with how far things have come since then. But at the same time, it was disheartening how much seemed just as relevant today. The notion that women will end up quitting their careers to care for their families and therefore cannot be taken seriously as candidates is still very much applicable today. I might be naive to hope this book would offer some insight to a solution to this, but it was disappointing when I realized Hopkins did not end up becoming a mother, and therefore did not have to face this challenge herself. I was hoping to gather advice for overcoming this but all I seemed to get out of it was that balance does not exist if you want to do actual science. The few women who did raise families were basically unicorns who supposedly came to work days after giving birth - something I could not even fathom doing.
I really wanted to like this book because of what I believe it wanted to stand for, but it really let me down in terms of what it achieved and also in holding my interest. It was far too detailed to keep me intrigued and did not cover the points that I hoped it would.
Thank you to NetGalley and Scribner for an ARC of this book.
Read my full review here: https://www.between-bookends.com/2023...
March 17, 2023
This book explodes the myth that, by the 1980s and 1990s, the battle had been won, and that women had equal opportunity in the sciences. I know that was what we female scientists thought at the time. This book demonstrates by multiple examples that women had to be truly exceptional to get in the door at highly ranked universities like MIT and, even then, they were subtly and not-so-subtly discriminated against. I left experimental science shortly after the events described in this book, in 2000, after being worn down by 7 years of "a thousand cuts" (some of which I did not realize at the time were a result of subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination). While reading this book, again and again, I said "this happened to me, too!" and "uh-huh!". For those of us who lived it, this is a good reminder that we were not alone in our experience. For those of you who didn't live it, this is an excellent account of why we need to remain committed to equity of all types and at all levels, not just in science, but in all life endeavors, since very substantial discrimination can be very subtle but still very devastating. The book was very easy to read (albeit a bit painful in places), and the story unfolded logically and was easy to follow.
March 7, 2023
As a woman in STEM, I was immediately drawn to this non-fiction book and excited when I received a copy. Overall, I think this is a great recounting of Nancy Hopkins fight for women at MIT. I hadn't heard of this particular story, so it was great to learn more about Hopkins and her contributions to women's rights in the workplace.
I listened to this book on audio and enjoyed the narration. I think it helped me stayed engaged in the book, as there were some parts that felt a bit long or less interesting than others. However, this was an overall great read, especially during Women's History Month!!
Thank you Scribner Books for the gifted e-book!
I listened to this book on audio and enjoyed the narration. I think it helped me stayed engaged in the book, as there were some parts that felt a bit long or less interesting than others. However, this was an overall great read, especially during Women's History Month!!
Thank you Scribner Books for the gifted e-book!
May 28, 2023
I was fairly disappointed by this book. Much of the writing was dull and overly detailed, and the message was surprisingly not as inspiring as I thought it would be based on the other reviews and the book’s promotion. As a scientist currently at MIT, I ask authors to do better.
First, Zernicke goes into way too much early-life detail about the women she profiles. It ends up adding excessive length to the book without adding much meaningful color to the stories. There were many times the book felt as though it were droning on unnecessarily.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the author venerates when women (and in this case, exclusively white women) “ignore” harassment and only focus on the science. Each of these women were completely fine just being research techs, but “decided to become faculty just so they could keep doing research.” And they would only care about doing science - nothing else mattered in their personal lives, their relationships, etc. This mindset is absolutely poisonous. We should be past the days where we praise when people who claim to not be feminists. We should all be feminists! And you CAN be a scientist and a person at the same time. This book portrays those two things as mutually exclusive, and they absolutely are not.
I learned that the author never even interviewed Nancy Hopkins when writing this - she just relied on journal entries. How could she capture Nancy’s experiences adequately this way, especially considering that at the time the journals were written, she may not have even had the LANGUAGE yet to express what she was going through (i.e. terminology like imposter syndrome, harassment, etc.)
The only redeeming part of this book (that bumped it up from 2 to 3 stars) was the ending. I was excited and interested in the story of Nancy and the other women at MIT that fought to drive change. I wish the book had focused more on that, and given context on the ramifications of their fight, since it ended pretty abruptly and I was curious about how their changes had endured & got very few answers on that from this book.
I want to be clear - this is by no means any sort of dig at the women featured in the book. They are all brilliant, amazing, and change-driving women that are inspirational as they are. I just wish the author could have written about them in the best way possible— in the way that they deserved.
First, Zernicke goes into way too much early-life detail about the women she profiles. It ends up adding excessive length to the book without adding much meaningful color to the stories. There were many times the book felt as though it were droning on unnecessarily.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the author venerates when women (and in this case, exclusively white women) “ignore” harassment and only focus on the science. Each of these women were completely fine just being research techs, but “decided to become faculty just so they could keep doing research.” And they would only care about doing science - nothing else mattered in their personal lives, their relationships, etc. This mindset is absolutely poisonous. We should be past the days where we praise when people who claim to not be feminists. We should all be feminists! And you CAN be a scientist and a person at the same time. This book portrays those two things as mutually exclusive, and they absolutely are not.
I learned that the author never even interviewed Nancy Hopkins when writing this - she just relied on journal entries. How could she capture Nancy’s experiences adequately this way, especially considering that at the time the journals were written, she may not have even had the LANGUAGE yet to express what she was going through (i.e. terminology like imposter syndrome, harassment, etc.)
The only redeeming part of this book (that bumped it up from 2 to 3 stars) was the ending. I was excited and interested in the story of Nancy and the other women at MIT that fought to drive change. I wish the book had focused more on that, and given context on the ramifications of their fight, since it ended pretty abruptly and I was curious about how their changes had endured & got very few answers on that from this book.
I want to be clear - this is by no means any sort of dig at the women featured in the book. They are all brilliant, amazing, and change-driving women that are inspirational as they are. I just wish the author could have written about them in the best way possible— in the way that they deserved.
December 5, 2024
The Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in Science by investigative journalist Kate Zernike, is, by equal measures, extraordinary and infuriating. Extraordinary because this amazing group of MIT female scientists finally realized their power (especially in numbers) and banded together to present a factually scientific argument for how their experiences, as women, differed so greatly from their male counterparts.
Infuriating because even when confronted with raw scientific data (essentially their religion) so many of the male scientists continued to dismiss their argument. Most of the men discussed in Zernicke’s book seemed genuinely confused and didn’t come across as blatant misogynists: problematically, women have always convinced themselves that they’re “overreacting” or that they’re not experiencing discrimination; this is just how things are.
Unfortunately, very real implicit or explicit bias lends to women being underpaid and less valued for the exact same job position as their male counterparts, resulting in dismal salaries and very little - if any - promotions - and no woman wants to be the only one crying foul. This would go for any career, I imagine. You have to believe that higher wages and better positions are the result of carefully reviewed performance metrics.
The alternative is to realize that you’re actually suffering from discrimination and to have to do something about it is terrifying (especially when doing so alone). That’s what made this story so powerful. It’s not often you see women come together like this to promote true equality.
It wasn’t as though this story occurred in the 1960s, where, horrible as it still was, we were all aware of the harassment women were forced to silently endure. No, this happened in 1999… ironically, TIME magazine’s so-called “Year of the Woman.” Although an article from that time period - the 60s - in MIT’s own student newspaper, still seemed pertinent in the year (1999) the university admitted to discrimination against its female faculty:
”MIT men have never ceased to wonder - and they are not alone - how a woman can cling to her equality and her femininity at the same time. How many times has a lab technician tripped over his test tubes, trying to open the door of the refrigeration room for some female colleague, deliberately overladen in hopes of just such service? How many millions of bacteria have been murdered by contamination with nail polish?”
It goes on to tell us that ”The status quo was working well for men in science, as the head of the biophysics department at Penn State indicated in a 1964 article in a scientific journal about how to remain in the lab while also leading a department.”
The scientist’s suggestion? ”You must have a laboratory assistant, preferably female. A female is better because she will not operate quite so readily on her own, and this is exactly what you want.”
Yet women of science, well-renowned for their mental capabilities and sound logic still were unable to convince their male colleagues by the approaching 21st century that discrimination had been holding them back for too long. It’s ridiculous just how much the women in this book had to fight for a small extra bit of lab space for their research, equal living conditions, the ability to not only be allowed to teach the course they themselves created - but to fight against two male colleagues attempting to monetize off her work by publishing it as a book - without informing her of this venture, naturally (fortunately she found out in time, but it was still an uphill battle for her to stop its publication - the publication of her stolen work).
No matter how many times they assured most men that either they don’t believe them to be among the ones openly discriminating, or, at worst, have only done so unwittingly - no matter how much evidence they’d provide to show men how much worse their situation was, how it never improved no matter if they were shown to have better SAT scores, better university grades, more published academic articles - and hence more coveted research grants and better exposure for the university) - the men would still tell them to just let it go; it wasn’t “that big of a deal”, it was something they all had to contend with.
When two female scientists argued with MIT administrators in the late 1970s that the number of women admitted to the university could be increased by making admissions gender-blind, male administrators and professors hit back with the argument that ”women couldn’t keep up in class or wouldn’t be able to find jobs, and if they did, they would earn less than men - wouldn’t this weaken alumni fundraising?”
However, the women won the battle (yet not the war - never the war): women would now be evaluated by the same criteria as men. After the increase of 73 women in 1969’s freshman year class, in 1973, there were 122. While men tried to claim that the increase was from lowering standards for women, the two female faculty members pointed out ”if this were true, it was only because the standard for men had been lower all along.”
Sadly, this book is titled “the Exceptions” in a way I don’t believe the author intended to make explicit, but that I’m sure she’s thought about nonetheless: these women were/are the exceptions, because it is so incredibly uncommon for women to band together in this way and present the evidence in a well-versed, logical light.
Take for instance, the book’s main protagonist: Nancy Hopkins. Her mentor, Jim Watson (one of the two men credited with discovering the DNA as a double helix in its form) served as a consistent teacher/role model, friend, sounding board, and advocate for Nancy’s advancing career. Yet he still treated other women in dismissive ways, with Nancy accepting his opinion of the woman (or women) he’d speak of as fact.
He and his partner for the double helix discovery, Francis Crick, were guilty of not crediting a female scientist they’d long worked with who was responsible for the photo which led to “their” groundbreaking discovery (had she not left the lab early, she very likely would have been immortalized in history along with Watson and Crick). Yet, she trusted her colleagues to inform her of any potential breakthroughs in the research during her absence.
Nancy was all too ready to dismiss the female colleague whom James had described to her as “abrasive”, arrogant, not easy to work with - simply based on her mentor’s attitude towards the woman.
This is a common problem that I feel will forever make gender inequality an issue. If we’re unwilling to acknowledge the ordeals of our fellow women, refusing to acknowledge that many of the same stereotypes are wielded against us to discourage us from pursuing better opportunities, how can we ever expect men to do the same?
While this book was undoubtedly a fantastic read, my only complaint is that it was a bit disorganized at times - probably why it took so long for me to finish this review. This review has been (and probably still is) kinda all over the place. There were a lot of times when the years shifted without the reader being informed and having to deduct the information for themselves, for instance. I understand that not all stories need to be told in a linear fashion, but it would have served a useful and more practical purpose to have done so in this case.
Still, a must-read IMO. 4 stars, rounded up to 4 1/2.
Infuriating because even when confronted with raw scientific data (essentially their religion) so many of the male scientists continued to dismiss their argument. Most of the men discussed in Zernicke’s book seemed genuinely confused and didn’t come across as blatant misogynists: problematically, women have always convinced themselves that they’re “overreacting” or that they’re not experiencing discrimination; this is just how things are.
Unfortunately, very real implicit or explicit bias lends to women being underpaid and less valued for the exact same job position as their male counterparts, resulting in dismal salaries and very little - if any - promotions - and no woman wants to be the only one crying foul. This would go for any career, I imagine. You have to believe that higher wages and better positions are the result of carefully reviewed performance metrics.
The alternative is to realize that you’re actually suffering from discrimination and to have to do something about it is terrifying (especially when doing so alone). That’s what made this story so powerful. It’s not often you see women come together like this to promote true equality.
It wasn’t as though this story occurred in the 1960s, where, horrible as it still was, we were all aware of the harassment women were forced to silently endure. No, this happened in 1999… ironically, TIME magazine’s so-called “Year of the Woman.” Although an article from that time period - the 60s - in MIT’s own student newspaper, still seemed pertinent in the year (1999) the university admitted to discrimination against its female faculty:
”MIT men have never ceased to wonder - and they are not alone - how a woman can cling to her equality and her femininity at the same time. How many times has a lab technician tripped over his test tubes, trying to open the door of the refrigeration room for some female colleague, deliberately overladen in hopes of just such service? How many millions of bacteria have been murdered by contamination with nail polish?”
It goes on to tell us that ”The status quo was working well for men in science, as the head of the biophysics department at Penn State indicated in a 1964 article in a scientific journal about how to remain in the lab while also leading a department.”
The scientist’s suggestion? ”You must have a laboratory assistant, preferably female. A female is better because she will not operate quite so readily on her own, and this is exactly what you want.”
Yet women of science, well-renowned for their mental capabilities and sound logic still were unable to convince their male colleagues by the approaching 21st century that discrimination had been holding them back for too long. It’s ridiculous just how much the women in this book had to fight for a small extra bit of lab space for their research, equal living conditions, the ability to not only be allowed to teach the course they themselves created - but to fight against two male colleagues attempting to monetize off her work by publishing it as a book - without informing her of this venture, naturally (fortunately she found out in time, but it was still an uphill battle for her to stop its publication - the publication of her stolen work).
No matter how many times they assured most men that either they don’t believe them to be among the ones openly discriminating, or, at worst, have only done so unwittingly - no matter how much evidence they’d provide to show men how much worse their situation was, how it never improved no matter if they were shown to have better SAT scores, better university grades, more published academic articles - and hence more coveted research grants and better exposure for the university) - the men would still tell them to just let it go; it wasn’t “that big of a deal”, it was something they all had to contend with.
When two female scientists argued with MIT administrators in the late 1970s that the number of women admitted to the university could be increased by making admissions gender-blind, male administrators and professors hit back with the argument that ”women couldn’t keep up in class or wouldn’t be able to find jobs, and if they did, they would earn less than men - wouldn’t this weaken alumni fundraising?”
However, the women won the battle (yet not the war - never the war): women would now be evaluated by the same criteria as men. After the increase of 73 women in 1969’s freshman year class, in 1973, there were 122. While men tried to claim that the increase was from lowering standards for women, the two female faculty members pointed out ”if this were true, it was only because the standard for men had been lower all along.”
Sadly, this book is titled “the Exceptions” in a way I don’t believe the author intended to make explicit, but that I’m sure she’s thought about nonetheless: these women were/are the exceptions, because it is so incredibly uncommon for women to band together in this way and present the evidence in a well-versed, logical light.
Take for instance, the book’s main protagonist: Nancy Hopkins. Her mentor, Jim Watson (one of the two men credited with discovering the DNA as a double helix in its form) served as a consistent teacher/role model, friend, sounding board, and advocate for Nancy’s advancing career. Yet he still treated other women in dismissive ways, with Nancy accepting his opinion of the woman (or women) he’d speak of as fact.
He and his partner for the double helix discovery, Francis Crick, were guilty of not crediting a female scientist they’d long worked with who was responsible for the photo which led to “their” groundbreaking discovery (had she not left the lab early, she very likely would have been immortalized in history along with Watson and Crick). Yet, she trusted her colleagues to inform her of any potential breakthroughs in the research during her absence.
Nancy was all too ready to dismiss the female colleague whom James had described to her as “abrasive”, arrogant, not easy to work with - simply based on her mentor’s attitude towards the woman.
This is a common problem that I feel will forever make gender inequality an issue. If we’re unwilling to acknowledge the ordeals of our fellow women, refusing to acknowledge that many of the same stereotypes are wielded against us to discourage us from pursuing better opportunities, how can we ever expect men to do the same?
While this book was undoubtedly a fantastic read, my only complaint is that it was a bit disorganized at times - probably why it took so long for me to finish this review. This review has been (and probably still is) kinda all over the place. There were a lot of times when the years shifted without the reader being informed and having to deduct the information for themselves, for instance. I understand that not all stories need to be told in a linear fashion, but it would have served a useful and more practical purpose to have done so in this case.
Still, a must-read IMO. 4 stars, rounded up to 4 1/2.
January 13, 2023
The Exceptions is a powerful recounting of the uphill battle women have had to face in being treated equally, specifically in higher education at some of the most prestigious universities in the country. Zernike does a fantastic job of tracing Nancy Hopkins’ career and that of several of her female peers over the decades as they fought, over and over and over again to be respected for their dedication and contributions in their fields.
The story is incredibly compelling and deeply personal-which means that when it was speaking to the barriers these women faced, it made me deeply angry. How do you decide when you love something so much that you’re willing to put up with things that you shouldn’t have to? How deeply do you have to care about something that it’s worth the stress, anxiety, and disrespect you’re likely to face your entire career? How good do you have to be in your field, how many hours do you have to put in to study and work, just to be tolerated-not respected or even venerated?
The culmination of this novel is in 1999, when Nancy when public with the battle she and other women faced at MIT. It might have been a step in the right direction, but it was still only a step in the right direction. This was two years before I started at college. I’d been on computers since I was a child; I had a grandfather who worked for IBM. I loved computers, and loved my programming classes in high school. I went into college as a computer science major. It only took one semester for me to figure out that my love for computers and programming was not enough for me to put up with the micro aggressions and discrimination I experienced-and I certainly wasn’t willing to do it for the rest of my life. Nancy’s passion for various fields in genetics was clearly more than mine in a different STEM field, and possibly she stuck around longer because she didn’t feel outright mistreated from the very beginning. By the time she realized there was a serious problem and it wasn’t just her, she was decades into her career.
The question always gets asked about why women grow disinterested in STEM fields. The argument is made that it’s difficult to have more equal representation if more women and minorities don’t pursue those fields. Why is there a drop off between undergraduates with STEM degrees and graduates and post docs pursuing careers in the industry. It’s because there is STILL a problem with the way non-white individuals are treated when they express interest in these areas.
This book mainly takes place in the latter half of the twentieth century, but these issues are still a problem today-making this an incredibly important topic. I envy and cheer the women that had cheerleaders that were both women and men that helped them advance in STEM fields. I appreciate the fact that even though Zernike focuses primarily on Nancy and other women in this book, that she also addresses men that were supportive, not just detrimental. It’s a reminder that it takes people that have the power having the willingness to relinquish some of it to elevate others deserving of their dues. THAT is how the world becomes a better place.
As a disclaimer (not a spoiler), the book follows Nancy’s career, which is in biology and more specifically in various disciplines of genetics. It helps to have at least a basic understanding of the fundamentals of genetics to better understand the science being done in the book, but certainly won’t stop anyone from understanding Nancy’s uphill battle for respect, inclusion and equality. There were times where I wished that she had been more aggressive in fighting for her rights than she was, instead of pursuing incremental change, but I also, personally, recognize the difficulty in doing so after my own experience. This book is not only a great read, but a necessary one. A complimentary copy of this book was provided by the publisher. All thoughts and opinions are my own.
The story is incredibly compelling and deeply personal-which means that when it was speaking to the barriers these women faced, it made me deeply angry. How do you decide when you love something so much that you’re willing to put up with things that you shouldn’t have to? How deeply do you have to care about something that it’s worth the stress, anxiety, and disrespect you’re likely to face your entire career? How good do you have to be in your field, how many hours do you have to put in to study and work, just to be tolerated-not respected or even venerated?
The culmination of this novel is in 1999, when Nancy when public with the battle she and other women faced at MIT. It might have been a step in the right direction, but it was still only a step in the right direction. This was two years before I started at college. I’d been on computers since I was a child; I had a grandfather who worked for IBM. I loved computers, and loved my programming classes in high school. I went into college as a computer science major. It only took one semester for me to figure out that my love for computers and programming was not enough for me to put up with the micro aggressions and discrimination I experienced-and I certainly wasn’t willing to do it for the rest of my life. Nancy’s passion for various fields in genetics was clearly more than mine in a different STEM field, and possibly she stuck around longer because she didn’t feel outright mistreated from the very beginning. By the time she realized there was a serious problem and it wasn’t just her, she was decades into her career.
The question always gets asked about why women grow disinterested in STEM fields. The argument is made that it’s difficult to have more equal representation if more women and minorities don’t pursue those fields. Why is there a drop off between undergraduates with STEM degrees and graduates and post docs pursuing careers in the industry. It’s because there is STILL a problem with the way non-white individuals are treated when they express interest in these areas.
This book mainly takes place in the latter half of the twentieth century, but these issues are still a problem today-making this an incredibly important topic. I envy and cheer the women that had cheerleaders that were both women and men that helped them advance in STEM fields. I appreciate the fact that even though Zernike focuses primarily on Nancy and other women in this book, that she also addresses men that were supportive, not just detrimental. It’s a reminder that it takes people that have the power having the willingness to relinquish some of it to elevate others deserving of their dues. THAT is how the world becomes a better place.
As a disclaimer (not a spoiler), the book follows Nancy’s career, which is in biology and more specifically in various disciplines of genetics. It helps to have at least a basic understanding of the fundamentals of genetics to better understand the science being done in the book, but certainly won’t stop anyone from understanding Nancy’s uphill battle for respect, inclusion and equality. There were times where I wished that she had been more aggressive in fighting for her rights than she was, instead of pursuing incremental change, but I also, personally, recognize the difficulty in doing so after my own experience. This book is not only a great read, but a necessary one. A complimentary copy of this book was provided by the publisher. All thoughts and opinions are my own.
March 15, 2023
I know many of the people and places in this book. I entered Yale as a biology graduate student two years after Mary Lou Pardue, who figures prominently. Mary Lou and Joe Gall found how to do in situ hybridization when I was there. Mary Lou was going to work with Don Brown at the Carnegie Institution of Embryology in Baltimore. I did a sabbatical at Carnegie with Don, and Joe Gall had moved there. In retirement, I live 2 miles from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, where Nancy Hopkins was a postdoc with James Watson. Finally, both Bob Birgeneau, who played a prominent positive role as the Dean of Science at MIT, and Kate Zernike, the author of the book, graduated from the University of Toronto, where I was a Professor for 30 years. I was leaving just when Birgeneau arrived to become President. Given all this, my review will be quite personal.
The book is a very interesting account of women scientists at MIT fighting to gain proper recognition. Besides the usual academic fights over lab space, course teaching, and salary, Nancy Hopkins and her women colleagues accumulated evidence that their work and abilities were not given the same attention as their male colleagues. In a long and tortuous fight, MIT accepted their arguments and worked to make academic life more equitable for female scientists.
Many prominent male MIT biologists are cast in a harsh light, including David Baltimore, Philip Sharp, Harvey Lodish, Eric Lander, Richard Hynes, and Frank Solomon. Zernike acknowledges help and interviews with the first four, but not with Hynes and Solomon. Will they be suing? Lander may just be a bull in the china shop. He also appears as the heavy in Walter Isaacson's book on Jennifer Doudna "The Codebreakers". There Lander argues for Wang and Church to receive the Nobel Prize instead of Doudna and Charpentier. Was he arguing against women or simply promoting scientists at his and a neighboring institution?
The male MIT professors are presented as a hyper-competitive, aggressive, opinionated lot. In my more than 40 years as a biology professor, I was never exposed to that atmosphere. I worked at excellent universities but not elite ones, so that could be a reason. Another reason could be that this was an unusual cohort. They made some of the core discoveries in molecular biology between the formulation of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953 and completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003. The latter was a hyper-competition between Craig Ventner and Francis Collins, with James Watson playing a prominent role. Hence, the MIT male molecular cohort may be an outlier. That view is mentioned in the book by Ursula Goodenough who said that Nancy Hopkins was engaged in "an extremely rarefied and competitive scientific field" (p. 175).
In support of Goodenough's opinion, Hopkins felt relief when she changed her lab's focus from viruses to developmental biology, the field that I was in. Women biologists are prominent in developmental biology, particularly in the analysis of mammalian embryos. It is striking that Phil Sharp had never heard of Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, before this developmental biologist won the Nobel Prize (p.228).
The book, however, makes me wonder whether I also was unaware that I was discounting women biologists. Running through the composition of my lab over the years, my scientific collaborations, and my administrative interactions, I think I always respected the abilities and accomplishments of women in biology. It is probably too much in the past, but it may be interesting to hear from the women that I worked with. I hope I would not be surprised.
The book is a very interesting account of women scientists at MIT fighting to gain proper recognition. Besides the usual academic fights over lab space, course teaching, and salary, Nancy Hopkins and her women colleagues accumulated evidence that their work and abilities were not given the same attention as their male colleagues. In a long and tortuous fight, MIT accepted their arguments and worked to make academic life more equitable for female scientists.
Many prominent male MIT biologists are cast in a harsh light, including David Baltimore, Philip Sharp, Harvey Lodish, Eric Lander, Richard Hynes, and Frank Solomon. Zernike acknowledges help and interviews with the first four, but not with Hynes and Solomon. Will they be suing? Lander may just be a bull in the china shop. He also appears as the heavy in Walter Isaacson's book on Jennifer Doudna "The Codebreakers". There Lander argues for Wang and Church to receive the Nobel Prize instead of Doudna and Charpentier. Was he arguing against women or simply promoting scientists at his and a neighboring institution?
The male MIT professors are presented as a hyper-competitive, aggressive, opinionated lot. In my more than 40 years as a biology professor, I was never exposed to that atmosphere. I worked at excellent universities but not elite ones, so that could be a reason. Another reason could be that this was an unusual cohort. They made some of the core discoveries in molecular biology between the formulation of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953 and completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003. The latter was a hyper-competition between Craig Ventner and Francis Collins, with James Watson playing a prominent role. Hence, the MIT male molecular cohort may be an outlier. That view is mentioned in the book by Ursula Goodenough who said that Nancy Hopkins was engaged in "an extremely rarefied and competitive scientific field" (p. 175).
In support of Goodenough's opinion, Hopkins felt relief when she changed her lab's focus from viruses to developmental biology, the field that I was in. Women biologists are prominent in developmental biology, particularly in the analysis of mammalian embryos. It is striking that Phil Sharp had never heard of Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, before this developmental biologist won the Nobel Prize (p.228).
The book, however, makes me wonder whether I also was unaware that I was discounting women biologists. Running through the composition of my lab over the years, my scientific collaborations, and my administrative interactions, I think I always respected the abilities and accomplishments of women in biology. It is probably too much in the past, but it may be interesting to hear from the women that I worked with. I hope I would not be surprised.
March 3, 2023
This book took me on a journey. In the beginning I was extremely frustrated with the author for passing off Nancy’s multiple SAs and minimal mentions of Rosa Franklin and Henrietta Lacks while Watson and Crick were featured prominently. However, as I continued it became clear that the author was charting Nancy’s own evolution as a feminist and scientist. In the end, this book made me angry (in a good way) for both the major grievances and “the minutia of sexism”. But it also made me proud of Nancy and her fellow scientists fighting for equality.
July 14, 2025
Always love reading about women that changed the American landscape
April 4, 2025
Did I want to punch something multiple times while reading this? Yes. Do I think it’s amazing to read? Yes. Do I wish I was doing science like 30 years ago? Maybe a little bit because there were so many more discoveries
December 4, 2023
As a fellow woman in STEM who has experienced many instances of sexism in my career, reading Zernicke's compelling retrospective of the career of Dr. Nancy Hopkins (as well as other talented and Nobel Prize-winning female scientists of her era) made me both angry and grateful: angry that Dr. Hopkins and her female colleagues were treated as they were, and that shades of this behavior still exist in STEM careers today, and grateful that the courageousness of female scientists in earlier generations helped pave the way for the situation to improve to enable me to have the kind of career I do today.
Further reading:
A Lab of One's Own: One Woman's Personal Journey Through Sexism in Science by Rita Colwell, PhD, and Sharon Bertsch McGrayne
A Portrait of the Scientist as a Young Woman by Lindy Elkins-Tanton
The Autobiography of a Transgender Scientist by Ben Barres, PhD
Between Grit and Grace: The Art of Being Feminine and Formidable by Sasha Shillcut, MD
Through the Glass Ceiling to the Stars: The Story of the First American Woman to Command a Space Mission by Eileen Collins and Jonathan Ward
Sally Ride: America's First Woman in Space by Lynn Sherr
Whistleblower: My Journey to Silicon Valley and Fight for Justice at Uber by Susan Fowler
Further reading:
A Lab of One's Own: One Woman's Personal Journey Through Sexism in Science by Rita Colwell, PhD, and Sharon Bertsch McGrayne
A Portrait of the Scientist as a Young Woman by Lindy Elkins-Tanton
The Autobiography of a Transgender Scientist by Ben Barres, PhD
Between Grit and Grace: The Art of Being Feminine and Formidable by Sasha Shillcut, MD
Through the Glass Ceiling to the Stars: The Story of the First American Woman to Command a Space Mission by Eileen Collins and Jonathan Ward
Sally Ride: America's First Woman in Space by Lynn Sherr
Whistleblower: My Journey to Silicon Valley and Fight for Justice at Uber by Susan Fowler
April 19, 2023
4.5 ⭐️ An interesting, well research, infuriating yet inspiring read on the discrimination of women throughout the history of MIT and the strides that have been made for equality for women in STEM. This book mainly follows the life and career of Nancy Hopkins, a molecular geneticist and cancer researcher and her uphill battle against sometimes blatant and other times subtle forms of sexual discrimination and in the end what she finally did about it.
Quotes:
‘A large part of education to the future lives of women is, in fact, the education of men’
‘Until children are considered a family responsibility for two consenting adults, women cannot have equal opportunities in employment. Only when social roles require comparable efforts from professional men and women can equality of opportunity be said to exist.’
‘The male perception of talented, ambitious women is at best ambivalent, a mixture of admiration, resentment, confusion, competitiveness, attraction, skepticism, anxiety, pride, and animosity.’
Nancy Hopkins - ‘She could try to innovate, try to be the best, try to please everyone, it would not matter. A woman’s work would never be valued as highly as a man’s. -It had taken her twenty years to see it - she’d understood it about other women before she realized it was true for her, too. She had taken all of this personally, but she now realized it didn’t have much to do with her. These men barely saw her; she was a nonentity.’
‘The key conclusion that one gets from the report is that gender discrimination in the 1990’s is subtle but pervasive, and stems largely from unconscious ways of thinking that have been socialized into all of us, men and women alike. This makes the situation better than in previous decades where blatant inequalities and sexual assault and intimidation were endured but not spoken of. We can all be thankful for that. But the consequences of these more subtle forms of discrimination are equally real and equally demoralizing.’
‘The study has significant social value, because it documents with unusual clarity how pervasive and destructive discrimination can be even when there is no blatant harassment or intimidation.’
Quotes:
‘A large part of education to the future lives of women is, in fact, the education of men’
‘Until children are considered a family responsibility for two consenting adults, women cannot have equal opportunities in employment. Only when social roles require comparable efforts from professional men and women can equality of opportunity be said to exist.’
‘The male perception of talented, ambitious women is at best ambivalent, a mixture of admiration, resentment, confusion, competitiveness, attraction, skepticism, anxiety, pride, and animosity.’
Nancy Hopkins - ‘She could try to innovate, try to be the best, try to please everyone, it would not matter. A woman’s work would never be valued as highly as a man’s. -It had taken her twenty years to see it - she’d understood it about other women before she realized it was true for her, too. She had taken all of this personally, but she now realized it didn’t have much to do with her. These men barely saw her; she was a nonentity.’
‘The key conclusion that one gets from the report is that gender discrimination in the 1990’s is subtle but pervasive, and stems largely from unconscious ways of thinking that have been socialized into all of us, men and women alike. This makes the situation better than in previous decades where blatant inequalities and sexual assault and intimidation were endured but not spoken of. We can all be thankful for that. But the consequences of these more subtle forms of discrimination are equally real and equally demoralizing.’
‘The study has significant social value, because it documents with unusual clarity how pervasive and destructive discrimination can be even when there is no blatant harassment or intimidation.’
March 27, 2023
LOVED THIS STORY SO MUCH (both the book and the true story that it told….)I can’t believe I’d never heard about these women, and that historical moment in time?!! I loved the way the book built the tension, really slowly laying out the egregious and compounding gender discrimination across DECADES, by focusing on multiple characters in depth. While that really helped the reader understand the magnitude of time and scale of the harassment/sexism, it sometimes felt a little slow as a plot, if that makes sense. But in general WOW, my full body was in chills as I read the ending, when it all came together. It’s astonishing how the discrimination was decades-long, and then as soon as it’s out publicly, everything happens FAST. Such an incredible story; the bravery of the MIT 16, particularly Nancy, cannot be overstated.
June 2, 2025
"Reality is by far the greater part of the balance"
The women scientists actions demonstrate that most effective response is (was) to take the scientific approach, measure, collect data, and establish undeniable patterns that make reality impossible to debate.
The most significant barrier to progress for marginalized group is the refusal by others to acknowledge lived experiences of discrimination. The first step often requires convincing of the very existence of the lived discrimination, a debate controlled by those who benefit from maintaining the status quo.
The women scientists actions demonstrate that most effective response is (was) to take the scientific approach, measure, collect data, and establish undeniable patterns that make reality impossible to debate.
The most significant barrier to progress for marginalized group is the refusal by others to acknowledge lived experiences of discrimination. The first step often requires convincing of the very existence of the lived discrimination, a debate controlled by those who benefit from maintaining the status quo.
May 22, 2025
While I no longer work in academia in the science field, it was my first career and I will always have a soft spot for it.
Collecting data from the field, analyzing samples in the lab, forming a community with other academics who just love research and teaching.
But, I also faced discrimination in my academic career. When in a room of male scientists, being the only one introduced by my first name and not "Dr." as the men were, being asked if I were the graduate student or a lab assistant, being the only one tasked with taking notes or getting coffee.
While those things seem small and are easy to brush off and simple misunderstandings or oversights, it is symbolic of the sex discrimination that continues to persist in some professions.
And that was in the 2010s. I cannot even imagine what it was like in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Nancy Hopkins doesn't need to imagine it, she lived it.
Despite being in science and now living in Boston where I drink my morning coffee on my balcony looking directly over the Charles and onto the MIT campus, I am ashamed to say I didn't know more about this story at MIT.
The book follows primarily Nancy Hopkins, though also a larger cast of female scientists as well, as she breaks social expectations to get her PhD, get a professorship, and run her own highly successful lab.
Hopkins always heard about discrimination, heard stories from the generation of women ahead of her (of which there were a mere handful and there was no such thing as two generations of women ahead of Hopkins), but never thought she herself was discriminated against. Never questioned the actions of male colleagues, many of whom she considered friends. Always assumed that the university was supporting every one equally.
Until a seemingly simple dispute over needing more lab space for tanks to house the zebrafish serving as the model organism for her groundbreaking genetics research led her to take out her tape measure to physically measure the space of her lab compared to her comparable male colleagues.
I think we all know what she found.
Hopkins joined the "women's work" (her words, not mine) late in her career, after she was established, successful, and lauded. But her efforts, along with 15 other tenured female scientists at MIT managed to achieve the unthinkable -- they got MIT to not only cease many of its discriminatory policies, but to publicly admit they were discriminating.
This book made me angry. It made me see absolute red at how Hopkins and her female colleagues were treated, it made me sick to my stomach that many of the lines hurled at her in the 80s were the same that I heard in 2010.
It made me dumbfounded that somehow MIT came out looking like the heroes for admitting they had a problem -- all the more so because the white male university president at the time got the gold star for taking a stand and not the women who worked tirelessly to not only combat the daily death by a million papercuts but to bring it to the president's attention and convince him to do something!
My one star (really half star) deduction is on me, not the author. I went into this book thinking that it would primarily be about Hopkins's time at MIT and her fight against discrimination. But, instead, it was more a biography of Hopkins with substantive forays into the personal and professional lives of other female scientists, and the fight against MIT was just a handful of chapters at the end.
It was still unbelievably compelling and readable, but I think I would have had a different mindset when starting.
Either way, everyone should read this book to better understand the not-so-distant (and still often present) challenges that face female scientists in academia.
Collecting data from the field, analyzing samples in the lab, forming a community with other academics who just love research and teaching.
But, I also faced discrimination in my academic career. When in a room of male scientists, being the only one introduced by my first name and not "Dr." as the men were, being asked if I were the graduate student or a lab assistant, being the only one tasked with taking notes or getting coffee.
While those things seem small and are easy to brush off and simple misunderstandings or oversights, it is symbolic of the sex discrimination that continues to persist in some professions.
And that was in the 2010s. I cannot even imagine what it was like in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Nancy Hopkins doesn't need to imagine it, she lived it.
Despite being in science and now living in Boston where I drink my morning coffee on my balcony looking directly over the Charles and onto the MIT campus, I am ashamed to say I didn't know more about this story at MIT.
The book follows primarily Nancy Hopkins, though also a larger cast of female scientists as well, as she breaks social expectations to get her PhD, get a professorship, and run her own highly successful lab.
Hopkins always heard about discrimination, heard stories from the generation of women ahead of her (of which there were a mere handful and there was no such thing as two generations of women ahead of Hopkins), but never thought she herself was discriminated against. Never questioned the actions of male colleagues, many of whom she considered friends. Always assumed that the university was supporting every one equally.
Until a seemingly simple dispute over needing more lab space for tanks to house the zebrafish serving as the model organism for her groundbreaking genetics research led her to take out her tape measure to physically measure the space of her lab compared to her comparable male colleagues.
I think we all know what she found.
Hopkins joined the "women's work" (her words, not mine) late in her career, after she was established, successful, and lauded. But her efforts, along with 15 other tenured female scientists at MIT managed to achieve the unthinkable -- they got MIT to not only cease many of its discriminatory policies, but to publicly admit they were discriminating.
This book made me angry. It made me see absolute red at how Hopkins and her female colleagues were treated, it made me sick to my stomach that many of the lines hurled at her in the 80s were the same that I heard in 2010.
It made me dumbfounded that somehow MIT came out looking like the heroes for admitting they had a problem -- all the more so because the white male university president at the time got the gold star for taking a stand and not the women who worked tirelessly to not only combat the daily death by a million papercuts but to bring it to the president's attention and convince him to do something!
My one star (really half star) deduction is on me, not the author. I went into this book thinking that it would primarily be about Hopkins's time at MIT and her fight against discrimination. But, instead, it was more a biography of Hopkins with substantive forays into the personal and professional lives of other female scientists, and the fight against MIT was just a handful of chapters at the end.
It was still unbelievably compelling and readable, but I think I would have had a different mindset when starting.
Either way, everyone should read this book to better understand the not-so-distant (and still often present) challenges that face female scientists in academia.
March 23, 2025
4⭐️ Lately I’ve been feeling disheartened about *things* but especially the state of science and healthcare. I might complain a little (a lot) but I genuinely love my job and I’m so passionate about the work we do. And I hope we can continue to do it.
This book showed up in my mailbox ages ago (thank you @scribnerbooks) and I want to kick myself for waiting so long to pick it up but I also think it was exactly what I needed to read right now.
In 1999 MIT publicly admitted to discriminating against women on their faculty. Why did they make this admission? Because of the tireless work of sixteen incredibly educated and highly successful yet extremely undervalued and overlooked women.
This book was equally fascinating and frustrating. While things for women have definitely changed for the better since the 1970s, it’s been 25 years since this story broke and we still have an incredibly long way to go.
You definitely don’t need to be a scientist to appreciate THE EXCEPTIONS but you do need to be interested in the subject matter. It does dive into some pretty brainy discussions (in a super approachable manner) but the bulk of the book is about these incredible women. The writing is phenomenal and after a few chapters it’s very clear why Kate Zernike is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist.
🎧the audiobook was extremely well done and definitely made the material much easier to digest!
This book showed up in my mailbox ages ago (thank you @scribnerbooks) and I want to kick myself for waiting so long to pick it up but I also think it was exactly what I needed to read right now.
In 1999 MIT publicly admitted to discriminating against women on their faculty. Why did they make this admission? Because of the tireless work of sixteen incredibly educated and highly successful yet extremely undervalued and overlooked women.
This book was equally fascinating and frustrating. While things for women have definitely changed for the better since the 1970s, it’s been 25 years since this story broke and we still have an incredibly long way to go.
You definitely don’t need to be a scientist to appreciate THE EXCEPTIONS but you do need to be interested in the subject matter. It does dive into some pretty brainy discussions (in a super approachable manner) but the bulk of the book is about these incredible women. The writing is phenomenal and after a few chapters it’s very clear why Kate Zernike is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist.
🎧the audiobook was extremely well done and definitely made the material much easier to digest!
April 4, 2024
Why can't we turn this into a TV mini-series instead of Lessons in Chemistry? These women literally paved a way for other women in science and I owe them so much. Their story is engaging, at times infuriating, and overall just so inspiring.
October 28, 2024
This was another one of the books I bought for the library with Justin memorial funds, thinking it was something he might have picked up off the shelves to read. I listened to the audio version while I drove around town this fall, imagining the conversations we'd have about our outrage and incredulity at the strange differences in the way women and men are treated in science, from childhood on. I would have told him about how my dad turned down roles in his mathematics career because he realized a woman colleague was also suited for the job.
There's power in the way we retell stories, and at times this story was hard to listen to- basically DECADES of being overlooked and underpaid- it was tiresome! Glad I stayed with it though.
There's power in the way we retell stories, and at times this story was hard to listen to- basically DECADES of being overlooked and underpaid- it was tiresome! Glad I stayed with it though.
May 29, 2023
I can't yet write a descriptive review of this book because I'm still screaming inside. However, the book is very much fact and doesn't linger much on feeling. The feelings however are hard to ignore. As a woman in science, with a mother in science, with a father also in science who was less ambitious and less successful than my mother, I can briefly summarize the problems highlighted in this book (and add a few comments):
1) every woman in science can write a hundred-page book on all the times they've been told women are not as good as men, their success is only temporary or due to their gender (or other status such as immigrant or ethnic/racial background) every single time they outcompeted men. Which happens often.
2) If we didn't waste our time trying to just be left alone to do our job properly we would accomplish so much more; and we already accomplish a lot more than most men in similar positions.
3) The USA and Western Europe is really far behind at including women in science and other jobs. Discrimination is still pretty nasty in Eastern Europe, but female role models abound in former communist countries. My assumption is that the isolationist political and economic approach of mid 20th century communism didn't afford the countries to import talent from elsewhere, so we had to work with our own talent. Thus women could not be ignored, and right now, with the genie out of the bottle , it's much harder to force it back. Still, bias is baked in Eastern European culture as well.
4) This book is torture to read for a woman in STEM, but you should read it if you are one. It takes time to unlearn the self-doubt you has been fed YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. Think of this as a surgery to remove a tumor that's been cutting off blood supply to essential organs. The tumor may grow back. But if you don't remove it, it will surely suffocate you and your ambitions.
Quick anecdote from my time as a PhD student in Heidelberg Germany. I was waiting for a train and a mathematician from India stroke a conversation with me. Upon finding out that I was Romanian he asked me "What do you guys do in Romania, that makes you have so many really talented female mathematicians. I've worked with a few already." He thought it was something genetic. I answered: "We just don't discourage women as much as they do in other places." In Germany hiring personnel told me to my face they will not hire a female who is married and had just turned 30 because she will likely go on mat leave. In Romania they dislike women going on mat leave as well; we just can't fill all the spots available at a job without women, so they are allowed in. And competitions plus anecdotes like the one I just relaid prove that the women were exceptional. If something as simple as slightly more permissive hiring practices can cause such a change in demographics, we need to stop turning to genetics or biology as the default explanation for why women are underrepresented at work world wide. And it should be a relief: genetics is much harder to change. Society can be changed in 1-2 generations. It already has. We are currently facing more unconscious than overt bias at work. That is progress.
However, we can't stop here. More progress is needed. Not for the sake of representation. But for the sake of quality and fairness.
1) every woman in science can write a hundred-page book on all the times they've been told women are not as good as men, their success is only temporary or due to their gender (or other status such as immigrant or ethnic/racial background) every single time they outcompeted men. Which happens often.
2) If we didn't waste our time trying to just be left alone to do our job properly we would accomplish so much more; and we already accomplish a lot more than most men in similar positions.
3) The USA and Western Europe is really far behind at including women in science and other jobs. Discrimination is still pretty nasty in Eastern Europe, but female role models abound in former communist countries. My assumption is that the isolationist political and economic approach of mid 20th century communism didn't afford the countries to import talent from elsewhere, so we had to work with our own talent. Thus women could not be ignored, and right now, with the genie out of the bottle , it's much harder to force it back. Still, bias is baked in Eastern European culture as well.
4) This book is torture to read for a woman in STEM, but you should read it if you are one. It takes time to unlearn the self-doubt you has been fed YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. Think of this as a surgery to remove a tumor that's been cutting off blood supply to essential organs. The tumor may grow back. But if you don't remove it, it will surely suffocate you and your ambitions.
Quick anecdote from my time as a PhD student in Heidelberg Germany. I was waiting for a train and a mathematician from India stroke a conversation with me. Upon finding out that I was Romanian he asked me "What do you guys do in Romania, that makes you have so many really talented female mathematicians. I've worked with a few already." He thought it was something genetic. I answered: "We just don't discourage women as much as they do in other places." In Germany hiring personnel told me to my face they will not hire a female who is married and had just turned 30 because she will likely go on mat leave. In Romania they dislike women going on mat leave as well; we just can't fill all the spots available at a job without women, so they are allowed in. And competitions plus anecdotes like the one I just relaid prove that the women were exceptional. If something as simple as slightly more permissive hiring practices can cause such a change in demographics, we need to stop turning to genetics or biology as the default explanation for why women are underrepresented at work world wide. And it should be a relief: genetics is much harder to change. Society can be changed in 1-2 generations. It already has. We are currently facing more unconscious than overt bias at work. That is progress.
However, we can't stop here. More progress is needed. Not for the sake of representation. But for the sake of quality and fairness.
April 26, 2024
I received a copy of this book in a Goodreads giveaway - thank you to both Goodreads and the publisher.
2.5 stars rounded up based on the writing, not the story it aims to tell.
While the subject of this book is incredibly important, and the women it features should be household names, the book does not do these women or their stories justice. I hate to use the word slog- but this book truly felt like wading through the mud to get to the heart of things. The number of names provided in this book is baffling, there should be an index. You will go tens or hundreds of pages without hearing about someone and need to flip back to remember who they were and why they were important. I saw one reviewer took notes to keep track, and what a shame that you really have to in order to follow along.
There are so many details provided that aren’t important to the overall story, just random pieces of information that don’t help add context or meaning. It’s obvious that the author didn’t actually meet with Nancy Hopkins. She really isn’t fleshed out as a person despite being the primary scientist in the book. This could be weeded down significantly and presented in a much more clear way.
I assume the importance of the story told is what has granted this book so many positive reviews. What these women went through and the steps they took to make science a better place for women to work is incredible. So what a shame to make it so inaccessible and tedious to read.
I plan to seek out another source about Nancy Hopkins and the other women so I can really learn their stories and remember them - it will be hard for me to retain the important bits here among all the noise.
2.5 stars rounded up based on the writing, not the story it aims to tell.
While the subject of this book is incredibly important, and the women it features should be household names, the book does not do these women or their stories justice. I hate to use the word slog- but this book truly felt like wading through the mud to get to the heart of things. The number of names provided in this book is baffling, there should be an index. You will go tens or hundreds of pages without hearing about someone and need to flip back to remember who they were and why they were important. I saw one reviewer took notes to keep track, and what a shame that you really have to in order to follow along.
There are so many details provided that aren’t important to the overall story, just random pieces of information that don’t help add context or meaning. It’s obvious that the author didn’t actually meet with Nancy Hopkins. She really isn’t fleshed out as a person despite being the primary scientist in the book. This could be weeded down significantly and presented in a much more clear way.
I assume the importance of the story told is what has granted this book so many positive reviews. What these women went through and the steps they took to make science a better place for women to work is incredible. So what a shame to make it so inaccessible and tedious to read.
I plan to seek out another source about Nancy Hopkins and the other women so I can really learn their stories and remember them - it will be hard for me to retain the important bits here among all the noise.
March 7, 2023
Marvelous book!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 529 reviews