Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 427–466 | Cite as

Kristine Bonnevie, Tine Tammes and Elisabeth Schiemann in Early Genetics: Emerging Chances for a University Career for Women

  • Ida H. Stamhuis
  • Arve Monsen
Open Access
Article

Abstract

The beginning of the twentieth century saw the emergence of the discipline of genetics. It is striking how many female scientists were contributing to this new field at the time. At least three female pioneers succeeded in becoming professors: Kristine Bonnevie (Norway), Elisabeth Schiemann (Germany) and the Tine Tammes (The Netherlands). The question is which factors contributed to the success of these women’s careers? At the time women were gaining access to university education it had become quite the norm for universities to be sites for teaching and research. They were still expanding: new laboratories were being built and new disciplines were being established. All three women benefited from the fact that genetics was considered a new field promising in terms of its utility to society; in the case of Tammes and Schiemann in agriculture and in the case of Bonnevie in eugenics. On the other hand, the field of genetics also benefited from the fact that these first female researchers were eager for the chance to work in science and wanted to make active contributions. They all worked and studied in environments which, although different from one another, were positive towards them, at least at the start. Having a patron was generally a prerequisite. Tammes profited from her teacher’s contacts and status. Bonnevie made herself indispensable through her success as a teacher and eventually made her position so strong that she was no longer dependent on a single patron. The case of Schiemann adds something new; it shows the vulnerability of such dependency. Initially, Schiemann’s teacher had to rely on the first generation of university women simply because he was unable to attract ambitious young men to his institute. In those early, uncertain years of the new discipline, male scientists tended to choose other, better established, and more prestigious disciplines. However, when genetics itself had become an established field, it also became more attractive to men. Our case studies also demonstrate that a new field at first relatively open to women closes its doors to them once it becomes established.

Keywords

Elisabeth Schiemann history of genetics history of women in science Kristine Bonnevie Mendelian genetics patronage Tine Tammes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Annette Vogt (Max Planck Institute for History of Science in Berlin) who helped with literature and information on Elisabeth Schiemann. We thank Huib Zuidervaart for fruitful discussions and comments. We are grateful to Ab Flipse, Teun Koetsier, Frans van Lunteren, Cornelis de Pater and Wijnand Rekers for their comments during a discussion meeting. The comments of the anonymous referees and of Paul Farber are greatly appreciated. Thanks to Daniel Carroll and Ragini Werner for their corrections of the English.

References

  1. Abir-Am, Pnina. (1996). Women in Modern Scientific Research: A Historical Overview. In Harding S., E. McGregor (Eds.), The Gender Dimension of Science and Technology. World Science Report, Paris, 48–56Google Scholar
  2. Abir-Am, Pnina G., Dorinda Outram (Eds.) (1987). Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives: Women in Science, 1787–1979. New Brunswick: Rutgers University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Addens, N.G. (1960). De Vereeniging voor Hooger Landbouwonderwijs te Groningen. Historisch Overzicht naar Aanleiding van haar Vijftigjarig Bestaan. Groningen: J.B.WoltersGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonnevie, Jacob Aall. (1880). Om den Kvindelige Uddannelse; Navnlig i de Høiere Samfunnsklasser. Trondhjem: A. Bruns boghandelGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonnevie, Kristine. (1901). Über Chromatindiminution bei Nematoden. Jenaischen Zeitschrift fÜr Naturwissenschaft 36, 275–288Google Scholar
  6. Bonnevie, Kristine. (1902). Abnormitäten in der Furchung von Ascaris lumbriocoides. Jenaischen Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 37, 83–104Google Scholar
  7. Bonnevie, Kristine. (1906). Untersuchungen über Keimzellen. I. Beobachtungen an den Keimzellen. Jenaischen Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 41, 229–428Google Scholar
  8. Deichmann, Ute. 1997. “Frauen in der Genetik. Forschung und Karriere bis 1950.” Aller Männerkultur zum Trotz. Frauen in Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften, Hg. Renate Tobies, Frankfurt/M.: Campus, 221–251; on Schiemann 232–236Google Scholar
  9. Føyn, Bjørn. 1950. “Minnetale over Professor Kristine Bonnevie, holdt i den Mat.-Naturv. Klasses møte den 30te September 1949.” I Det Norske Vitenskaps-Akademi i Oslo. Årbok 1949. Oslo: 71–84Google Scholar
  10. Harwood, Jonathan. (1993). Styles of Scientific Thought. The German Genetics Community 1900–1933. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp 200–203, esp. footnote 13Google Scholar
  11. Hertwig, Paula. (1956). Elisabeth Schiemann zum 75. Geburtstag. Zeitschrift für PflanzenZüchtung 36, 129–132Google Scholar
  12. Hjort, Johan and Bonnevie, Kristine. 1895. Ueber die Knospung von Distaphia magnilarva. Anatomischen Anzeiger, Jena 10, 389–394Google Scholar
  13. van der Hoeven, J. 1934. “Necrologie van J.W. Moll”. Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen over 1934, 93–95Google Scholar
  14. Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen van 1905. Johannes Müller 1906. AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacobs, Aletta. 1996. Memories: My Life as an International Leader in Health, Suffrage, and Peace. Edited by Harriet Feinberg. Historical afterword by Harriet Pass Freidenreich. Literary afterword by Harriet Feinberg. New York: Feminist PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Kerling. 1969. Phytopathologisch Laboratorium “Willie Commelin Scholten.” Google Scholar
  17. Kuckuck, Hermann. (1961). Elisabeth Schiemann zum 80. Geburtstag am 15. August 1961. Der Züchter 31, 117–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuckuck, Hermann. (1980). Elisabeth Schiemann 1881 bis 1972. Berichte der Deutsche Botanische Gesellschaft 93, 517–537Google Scholar
  19. Kvindelige studenters jubilæumsskrift 1882–1907 Google Scholar
  20. Kvinnelige Realister. Kvinnelige Studenter 1882–1932. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk ForlagGoogle Scholar
  21. Lang, Anton. (1987). Elisabeth Schiemann. Life and Career of a Woman Scientist in Berlin. Englera 7, 17–28Google Scholar
  22. Lang, Anton. (1990). Elisabeth Schiemann. Leben und Laufbahn einer Wissenschaftlerin in Berlin. In: Claus Schnarrenberger, Hildemar Scholz (eds) Geschichte der Botanik in Berlin. Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, pp 179–189.Google Scholar
  23. Lie, Thore: “Fra Origin of Species til Arternes oprindelse – darwinisme og utviklingslære i Norge (1861–1900).” In: Nils Chr. Stenseth and Thore Lie (eds.), Evolusjonsteorien. Status i norsk forskning og samfunnsdebatt. Oslo, 1984Google Scholar
  24. Linnert, G. (1972). Nachruf für Frau Prof. Dr. E. Schiemann. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenzüchtung 68, 171–172Google Scholar
  25. Norgdgård, O. (1918). Michael og Ossian Sars: ChristianiaGoogle Scholar
  26. Programma van de Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen te Haarlem voor het jaar 1907. Google Scholar
  27. Richmond, Marsha L. (2001). Women in the Early History of Genetics: William Bateson and the Newnham College Mendelians, 1900–1910. Isis 92, 55–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Richmond, Marsha L. (2006). The Domestication of Heredity: The Familial Organization of Geneticists at Cambridge University, 1895–1910. Journal of the History of Biology 39, 565–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rossiter, Margaret. (1993). The Matilda Effect in Science. Social Studies of Science 23, 325–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sapp, Jan. 2003. Genesis. The Evolution of Biology. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Sch, J.C. 1934. “In Memoriam. Prof. Dr. J.W. Moll.” Groningsche Volksalmanak over 1934, 198–203Google Scholar
  32. Scheich, Elvira. 1997. “Science, Politics, and Morality. The Relationship of Lise Meitner and Elisabeth Schiemann.” Osiris, 143–168Google Scholar
  33. Scheich, Elvira. 2002. Elisabeth Schiemann (1881–1972). Patriotin im Zwiespalt. In Suzanne Heim (ed) Autarkie und Ostexpansion. Pflanzenzucht und Agrarforschung im Nationalsozialismus. Wallstein Verlag, 250–229Google Scholar
  34. Schiemann, Elisabeth. 1912. Über Mutationen bei Aspergillus Niger van Tiegh, Thesis at the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universität BerlinGoogle Scholar
  35. Schiemann, Elisabeth. (1935). Erwin Baur. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 52, 51–114Google Scholar
  36. Schiemann, Elisabeth. (1949). Tine Tammes zum Gedächtnis. Der Züchter 19, 181–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schiemann, Elisabeth. 1959a. “Autobiographie.” Nova Acta Leopoldina Nummer 143, Band 21, 291–292Google Scholar
  38. Schiemann, Elisabeth. 1959b. “Freundschaft mit Lise Meitner.” Neue Evangelische Frauenzeitung 3, Heft 1, 3 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Schiemann, Elisabeth. 1960. Erinnerungen an meine Berliner Universitätsjahre. In Studium Berolinense. Gedenkschrift der Westdeutschen Rektorenkonferenz und der Freien Universität Berlin zur 150. Wiederkehr des Grundungsjahres der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin. Berlin: 845–856Google Scholar
  40. Stamhuis, Ida H. (1995a). A Female Contribution to Early Genetics: Tine Tammes and Mendel’s Laws for Continuous Characters. Journal of the History of Biology 28, 495–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stamhuis, Ida H. (1995b). The ‹Rediscovery’ of Mendel’s laws was not Important to Hugo de Vries (1849–1935): Evidence from his Letters to Jan Willem Moll (1851–1933). Folia Mendeliana 30, 13–30Google Scholar
  42. Stamhuis, Ida H. (2004). Historical Considerations on ‹Women Scholars and Institutions. In: Soňa Štrbáňová, Ida H. Stamhuis, Kateřina Mojsejová (eds) Women Scholars and Institutions Volume 13. Prague: Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities, pp 17–48Google Scholar
  43. Tammes, Tine. 1907. “Der Flachsstengel. Eine Statistisch-Anatomische Monographie.” Natuurkundige Verhandelingen Hollandsche Maatschappij van Wetenschappen 3, VI.␣4. Haarlem, 285 ppGoogle Scholar
  44. Tammes, Tine. 1911. “Das Verhalten Fluktuierend Variierender Merkmale bei der Bastardierung.” Recueil des Travaux Botaniques Néerlandais 8, 201–288. Reprinted in Genetica 22, 1941, 25–88Google Scholar
  45. Vogt, Annette. 1999. “Schiemann, Elisabeth.” In Wissenschaftlerinnen in Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten A-Z. Veröffentlichungen aus dem Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Band 12, Berlin, 125–126Google Scholar
  46. Vogt, Annette. (2004). Women Scholars at German Universities - or Why did this Story Start so Late? In: Soňa Štrbáňová, Ida H. Stamhuis, Kateřina Mojsejová (eds) Women Scholars and Institutions Volume 13. Prague: Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities, pp 159–186Google Scholar
  47. Vries, Hugo de (1889). Intracellulare Pangenesis. Jena: Gustav FischerGoogle Scholar
  48. de Vries, Hugo. 1901 and 1903. Die Mutationstheorie. Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Arten in Pflanzenreich, 2 volumes. Leipzig: VeitGoogle Scholar
  49. Wijnaendts Francken-Dyserinck, W. 1941. “Prof. Dr. Tine Tammes Zeventig jaar. Een Vrouw van Overmatige Bescheidenheid.” Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 22/6Google Scholar
  50. Westerdijk, Johanna. 1937. “Prof. Tine Tammes.” Mededeelingen van de Nederlandsche Vereeniging van Vrouwen met een Academische Opleiding 8, July, 12–13Google Scholar
  51. Westerdijk, Johanna. 1948. “In Memoriam Prof. Tine Tammes 1871–1947.” Mededeelingen van de Nederlandsche Vereeniging van Vrouwen met een Academische Opleiding 14, March, 2–3Google Scholar
  52. de Wilde, Inge E. 1998. “Nieuwe Deelgenoten in de Wetenschap.” Vrouwelijke Studenten en Docenten aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 1871–1919. Thesis University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for the History and Social Studies of Science, Faculty of SciencesVrije Universiteit, De BoelelaanAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Museum of Cultural HistoryUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations