On the stature of Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin

Abstract

Having recently published a book11. S. Calvin, Beyond Curie: Four Women in Physics and Their Remarkable Discoveries, 1903 to 1963, Morgan & Claypool (2017). with a chapter on Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, I read with interest David Weintraub’s review of What Stars Are Made Of: The Life of Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, Donovan Moore’s new book on the prominent astrophysicist (Physics Today, April 2020, page 46). Although I have not yet read Moore’s book, aspects of Weintraub’s review took me aback.I concur with Weintraub’s claim that Payne-Gaposchkin “should have been Harvard University’s first female recipient of a PhD in astronomy.” But that understates her importance: It was due to Payne-Gaposchkin that Harvard established an astronomy department in the first place. She should have been the first person, male or female, to receive a PhD in astronomy from Harvard.In addition, Weintraub comments on Payne-Gaposchkin’s “Forrest Gump–like habit of running into some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.” Gump careened from one famous encounter to another, as an outsider even when inadvertently influencing an event. Payne-Gaposchkin, on the other hand, was a first-rate scientist. Attending physics classes at Cambridge University provided her with the connections and training to land a fellowship at Harvard—should we be surprised that she encountered eminent physicists along the way? Would we ever characterize a male contemporary (say, J. Robert Oppenheimer) in that way?Then there is the thorny matter of Payne-Gaposchkin’s discovery that stars are made mostly of hydrogen. Several aspects of that history are not in dispute: that Payne-Gaposchkin made the discovery, that in later years it was often incorrectly attributed to Henry Norris Russell, and that Payne-Gaposchkin’s gender was the primary reason for her lack of credit. But if we are to correct such injustices and prevent them from recurring, it is crucial to understand the mechanism by which they occur.Much ink has been spilled on how Payne-Gaposchkin’s discovery ended up credited to Russell; in my book, I examine six distinct explanations, all advanced at one time or another. Weintraub’s review, however, includes several claims that are not backed up by the historical record.That Payne-Gaposchkin’s “accomplishments were initially pooh-poohed by her field’s most eminent scientists” is incorrect. Her conclusion that the Sun was made mostly of hydrogen was indeed dismissed by Russell, but he and others consistently praised her accomplishments. In fact, Payne-Gaposchkin was one of only 250 scientists added to the 1927 edition of American Men of Science, which had last been updated in 1921.Russell did not “[force] her to change the conclusion of her dissertation”; he made the suggestion that she change it, and she accepted his assessment. Saying that she was forced takes agency away from Payne-Gaposchkin, who in other contexts demonstrated that she was not afraid to challenge authority figures—including Russell—when she was sure of herself.Weintraub also writes that Payne-Gaposchkin should have received a Nobel Prize, “but because of Russell, that was not to be.” Although Payne-Gaposchkin’s work was of Nobel caliber—hers is one of the most important doctoral dissertations in the history of astronomy—astrophysicists were not generally considered for Nobels in the first half of the 20th century. Thus, neither Payne-Gaposchkin nor Russell would have been considered serious candidates regardless of who received credit for Payne-Gaposchkin’s discovery.There is a long history of praising female scientists for their discoveries and abilities and then denying them the tangible benefits of such accomplishments, including fair pay, sufficient research funding and the ability to direct it, and such positions of authority as department chair. To the extent that we mischaracterize the historical record, I am concerned that we will not learn the lesson that recognition of accomplishment is not enough to prevent unfair treatment.ReferenceSection:ChooseTop of pageReference <<CITING ARTICLES1. S. Calvin, Beyond Curie: Four Women in Physics and Their Remarkable Discoveries, 1903 to 1963, Morgan & Claypool (2017). Google ScholarCrossref© 2020 American Institute of Physics.