“Congratulations to our 2024 Nobel Prize in Medicine, Victor Ambros. This morning he celebrated the news of his award with his colleague and wife Rosalind Lee, who was also the first author of the paper. cell 1993 cited by the Nobel committee. These two short sentences, accompanied by a photo of the couple, were published last Monday at noon on the social network X by the Nobel Prize organization (@NobelPrize).
Since then, criticism of sexism has increased against the Swedish academy, which has a long history of injustice towards women scientists, whom it has systematically left and continues to leave aside. “If Rosalind was the first author of this article, perhaps she should also be one of the winners,” ask some researchers to whom this message from the academy seemed “sexist and discouraging”. “She is the author of all her works,” underlines another message. “It sounds like the story of Rosalind Franklin.”
Outrage for the “wrong” reason
Some of the scientists consulted by elDiario.es agree that the tweet is inappropriate and sexist and that the criticism against the machismo of the Nobel Prize winners is justified, although in this case they occur for the reason deceived. Because being “first author” does not have the same meaning in all scientific fields nor is it what can be interpreted from outside this world. “In biomedicine, the last author is usually the oldest, the one who had the big idea and the first author is the one who did the experiment and did the material work,” explains Sara Rodríguez Heras, microRNA specialist at the University. of Granada (UGR). The Nobel Prize is usually awarded to someone who had the idea and got people to demonstrate it, he points out, but this case also reflects a situation that repeats itself and continues to occur: these are the women who work in the laboratory and he leads the group.
For Sonia Guilhead of the RNA and Chromatin Regulation Group at the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute, the controversy, as raised, is unfounded. “Ambros was the one who led the research group in the 1993 paper,” he says. “As far as I know, there is no doubt about his leading role in the investigation of that and subsequent years and therefore about this well-deserved award.” “This does not mean,” he clarifies, “that in other cases the role of women may have been neglected or not valued as it deserved, but it does not seem to me that this is the case “.
A price for more than two?
Other scholars express serious doubts about the missed opportunity to recognize Rosalind Lee, co-author of all the relevant works in Victor Ambros’ career, the only one of the couple to have been recognized. In fact, both shared a previous award with the same level of recognition. The work of Rosalind Lee, in collaboration with postdoctoral researcher Rhonda Feinbaum – who appears in the famous 1993 work – was essential in generating the strains of C. elegans which were used to study microRNAs in the laboratory and characterize their function, merit enough to have received the Nobel Prize.
“There have been many people like that in my career, including my wife, Rosalind Lee, who works in my laboratory and has contributed enormously to my success,” Ambros himself admitted in an interview. “It was she and a postdoctoral researcher in my laboratory, Rhonda Feinbaum, who cloned and characterized the first microRNA, linen-4while I was at Dartmouth.
Women out of the picture
For some, the reminiscences are clear with the case of Rosalind Franklin, who was overshadowed by Watson and Crick even though her work was essential to the discovery of the structure of DNA. “The approach to the controversy, by appealing to her status as ‘first author’, makes no sense, but given the contribution of Rosalind Lee, it seems that this woman could have shared the Nobel Prize”, believes César Tomé, specialist in the history of science and coordinator of the UPV/EHU Scientific Culture Notebook. “The academy should justify why this lady is not rewarded, but not because she is the “first author” of the paperbut because it appears to have contributed significantly to the results.
The academy should justify why this lady is not being awarded, not because she is the “first author” of the article, but because it appears that she contributed significantly to the conclusions.
Cesar Tomé
— Coordinator of the UPV/EHU Scientific Culture Notebook
“If the prize is awarded for the article of cell of 1993 that they cite, the three authors should receive the Nobel Prize, not only Ambros and Lee, but also the third signatory,” he says. Gemma Marfanyprofessor of genetics at the University of Barcelona (UB). But this rarely happens, he admits, even if there are precedents in which the boss and his doctoral student are recognized, as happened with Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider in 2009. Even if it would be necessary to know precisely to what extent Lee participated in the discoveries before qualifying the Nobel decision as sexist, Marfany defends, “taking into account the fact that it is also sexist in all his significant works, it seems to me that it’s more unfair I forget, because all the good that Ambros has brought to the field is also thanks to her.
He groundhog day sexist
Marta Macho, mathematician and editor of digital spaces Women with science, He believes that it was certainly not the Nobel committee that left out Rosalind Lee, but rather the people or entities who nominated Ambros. The fact that Lee did the lab work, he believes, was judged by many to be secondary. “Roles and power relations become entrenched and are difficult to invalidate, even in the scientific environment, which is very hierarchical,” he emphasizes. “Unfortunately, this leads to the perception that he is leading and she is collaborating.”
Whatever the merits of the issue, the Nobel tweet puts one fact on the table: the Royal Swedish Academy’s recalcitrant lack of sensitivity to the issue of equality and the need for a certain balance in a long list of exclusively male recognitions. And this new episode is revealing because it reflects a situation of asymmetry in research between men and women which is part of the landscape, a stereotype in which they are the bosses and they do the hard and discreet work from behind.
You have a married couple who are dedicated to science in which he is the famous person, even though she is the one who runs the laboratory. This is happening in Spain and has been happening for many years.
Gemma Marfany
— Professor of Genetics at the University of Barcelona (UB)
“This asymmetry exists, what happens is that it wears out over time, there are more and more women who are principal researchers, laboratory heads,” indicates César Tomé. “Today we are rewarding work that comes from a time when the vast majority of principal investigator positions were still occupied by men. I want to think that in 30 years, when the things that are currently being researched are rewarded, the situation will change and there will be a greater number of women rewarded.
Meanwhile, although it may seem unbelievable, the wheel that excludes women from awards and recognition continues to turn. “A well-known case in genetics is that of Okazaki fragments,” recalls Gemma Marfany. “We always talk about him as the creator, but they were two researchers and the contribution was made by both of them.” According to him, this is a huge injustice that happens quite often. “You have a married couple who are dedicated to science and he’s the famous person, even though she’s the one who runs the lab,” he describes. “This is happening in Spain and has been happening for many years.”
This kind of “Groundhog Day” where so many brilliant women still don’t get the recognition they undoubtedly deserve is disheartening and infuriating.
Marta Macho
— Mathematician and editor of the digital space ‘Women with Science’
For Marta Macho, sexism crosses all stages of the nomination for a prize, from the decision of who is proposed for recognition, through the intermediate resolutions, to the final moment of the decision of the Nobel committee, in the case of this price. “This is why so many women are left behind, because they are left behind at every stage,” she concludes. “And that’s why this sort of ‘Groundhog Day’ in which so many brilliant women continue without getting the recognition they undoubtedly deserve is disheartening and infuriating. “The systematic forgetting of women’s achievements is neither fair nor acceptable. »
