1 According to the National Council for Research on Women, in 1996 women received only 19 percent of undergraduate degrees in physics and 18 percent of undergraduate degrees in engineering. In 1997, only 22 percent of Ph.D.s in physics and 12 percent in engineering were earned by women. As of 2001, less than 10 percent of full professors in the physical sciences were women, and only 12 percent of scientists and engineers in business and industry were women. See the National Council for Research on Women website: www.ncrw.org/research/scifacts.htm (accessed March 19, 2004).Google Scholar

2 Focusing on undergraduate and doctoral programs from 1940–1972, Margaret Rossiter found that although federal officials occasionally called for greater female participation in scientific fields (ostensibly to strengthen the technical manpower of the nation amid the Cold War), most women were relegated to modest roles as science teachers or laboratory assistants. Margaret W. Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action 1940–1912 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), xv-xviii & 50–68. See also, Donna B. Jeffe, “About Girls’ ‘Difficulties’ in Science: A Social, Not a Personal, Matter,” Teachers College Record 97 (Winter 1995): 199–226; Jonathan R. Cole, Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community (New York: Free Press, 1979); and Londa L. Schiebinger, “The History and Philosophy of Women in Science: A Review Essay,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12 (Winter 1987): 305–332.Google Scholar

3 In suggesting that the biggest leak in the educational pipeline appears before girls begin college, Marsha Lakes Matyas’ study of 9–14 year old girls found a conflict between their perceptions of scientific careers as masculine (particularly in the physical sciences) and prevailing cultural perceptions of females as emotional, subjective, and dependent—qualities often considered incompatible with those needed for success in science. Similarly, James Daniel Lee discovered that popular impressions of science as individualistic, tough, unemotional, and inanimate conflicted with girls’ self-perceptions as “feminine” (soft, emotional, and wanting to work with people). Both found that the discrepancy between girls’ “self-concepts” and their perceptions of science careers diminished their professional aspirations in those areas. Marsha Lakes Matyas, “Factors Affecting Female Achievement and Interest in Science and Scientific Careers,” in Women in Science: A Report from the Field, ed. Jane Butler Kahle (Philadelphia: Falmer Press, 1985); James Daniel Lee, “Which Kids Can ‘Become’ Scientists? Effects of Gender, Self-Concepts, and Perception of Scientists,” Social Psychology Quarterly 61 (September 1998): 199–219. See also, Leslie A. Barber, “U.S. Women in Science and Engineering, 1960–1990: Progress toward Equity?” Journal of Higher Education 66 (March-April 1995): 213–234; Alice S. Rossi, “Women in Science: Why So Few?,” Science 148 (May 28, 1965, 674): 1196–1202; Lois Arnold, “Marie Curie Was Great, But…,” School Science and Mathematics 75 (November 1975): 577–584.Google Scholar

4 Rossiter's examination of the disjuncture between the lofty rhetoric and limited opportunities surrounding the call for greater “scientific womanpower” in the 1950s focuses largely on institutions of higher education. This paper builds on her analysis by focusing on a similar discrepancy that appeared earlier in the educational pipeline—in messages to high school girls.Google Scholar

5 This timeframe also allows me to analyze a nearly complete set of Science World issues: 100 out of the first 104 issues in volumes 1–13. The most complete set of issues of Science World can be found in the Adams Reading Room at the Library of Congress.Google Scholar

6 Rudolph, John L. Scientists in the Classroom: The Cold War Reconstruction of American Science Education (New York: Palgrave, 2002).Google Scholar

7 Tolley, Kim shows that female enrollments in the high school natural science courses far outpaced their participation in advanced mathematics and physical science courses from 1928–1955. She demonstrates that the same pattern was evident for high school boys and suggests that changing college admissions and life-adjustment education contributed to the relative unpopularity of advanced physical sciences. Tolley also notes that from 1960–1990, “the proportion of bachelor's degrees awarded to women in the physical sciences would more than triple,” which implies that female undergraduates had become more inclined and prepared to succeed in science majors, due in part to greater participation and preparation in high school. See Kim Tolley, The Science Education of American Girls: A Historical Perspective (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003), 177–208. Similarly, Barber found that the percentage of women who earned bachelors’ degrees in science and engineering rose from 16.0 percent to 40.2 percent from 1960–1989. In 1960, women received only 6.3 percent of all doctoral degrees; by 1990, this figure grew to 36.6 percent. See Barber, “U.S. Women in Science and Engineering, 1960–1990,” 213–234. As the statistics from the National Council for Research on Women indicate, however, a significant gender gap remains, particularly in the physical sciences and engineering. See also, David T. Burkam, Valerie E. Lee, and Becky A. Smerdon, “Gender and Science Learning Early in High School: Subject Matter and Laboratory Experiences,” American Educational Research Journal 34 (Summer 1997): 297–331.Google Scholar

8 A good deal of historical scholarship on the cultures of the postwar United States pointed to patterns of overt gender discrimination in the workplace and a prevalent belief that women could find fulfillment by creating a secure and materially abundant home for their children and husbands. In these accounts, the ideology of female domesticity permeated the thought and behavior of men and women until the landmark publication of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique in 1963. See William H. Chafe, The Paradox of Change: American Women in the 20th Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 191–193; Alice Kessler-Harris, Out To Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 300–305; Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 3–10; Eugenia Kaledin, Mothers and More: American Women in the 1950s (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1984), 47–52. More recently, Joanne Meyerowitz has questioned the prevalence of the domestic stereotype and contends that, although direct challenges to marriage and motherhood were rare, exhortations for women to remain confined to the home were equally uncommon. Similarly, Linda Eisenmann points to coexisting ideologies—patriotic, economic, cultural, and psychological—which delivered ambiguous messages about the roles women should occupy in contrast to the roles women actually assumed. See Joanne Meyerowitz, “Introduction, Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945–1960,” in Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945–1960, ed. Joanne Meyerowitz (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), 2–4; idem., “Beyond the Feminine Mystique: A Reassessment of Postwar Mass Culture, 1946–1958,” The Journal of American History 79(4) (March 1993): 1455–1482; Linda Eisenmann, “Educating the Female Citizen in a Post-War World: Competing Ideologies for American Women, 1945–1965,” Educational Review 54 (2) (June 2002): 131–141. See also, Susan Lynn, “Gender and Post World War II Progressive Politics: A Bridge to Social Activism in the 1960s U.S.A.,” Gender and History 4(2) (Summer 1992): 215–239; Susan M. Hartmann, “Women's Employment and the Domestic Ideal in the Early Cold War Years,” in Not June Cleaver, ed. Meyerowitz, 84–100; Leila J. Rupp and Verta Taylor, Survival in the Doldrums: The American Women's Rights Movement, 1945 to the 1960s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), vii-22 & 166–183.Google Scholar

9 Tolley, The Science Education of American Girls, 149–224.Google Scholar

10 According to Lee, “educational and career interests are, in part, the products of self-concepts and thoughts about career fields, and…all of these are shaped by interactional processes.” Lee, “Which Kids Can ‘Become’ Scientists?” 199.Google Scholar

11 Metraux, Mead and asked their participants if they could envision themselves as professional scientists, but they gave them the option of answering whether they could envision marrying a professional scientist. Most girls (and a few boys) answered the latter question.Google Scholar

12 Mead, Margaret Metraux, & Rhoda “Image of the Scientist among High-School Students,“ Science, 126 (30 August 1957): 384–390; Margaret Mead, “Closing the Gap Between the Scientists and the Others,” Daedalus 88 (Winter 1959): 139–146. Similarly, Stephen B. Withey found that most Americans esteemed scientists, but viewed them as distant and perhaps suspect people. See Stephen B. Withey, “Public Opinion about Science and Scientists,” The Public Opinion Quarterly 23 (Autumn 1959): 382–388. On the public's suspicion of American intellectuals in the postwar, see Merle Curti, “Intellectuals and Other People,” The American Historical Review LX (January 1955): 259–282; Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1962).Google Scholar

13 Metraux, Rhoda “A Scientist Is a Man (or Sometimes a Woman)…“ 17 March 1961, box 37, Papers of Rhoda Bubendey Metraux, Library of Congress.Google Scholar

14 LaFollette, Marcel “Eyes on the Stars: Images of Women Scientists in Popular Magazines,“ Science, Technology, & Human Values 13 (Summer & Autumn 1988): 262–275; idem., Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science 1910–1955 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 78–96. See also Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York: W.H. Freeman & Company, 1995), 17–19.Google Scholar

15 Generally speaking, people want to learn more about an occupation that falls within an initially preferred range of options, and they tend to search for information among convenient and trusted sources which often include parents, friends, and teachers. Linda S. Gottfredson, “Gottfredson's Theory of Circumscription, Compromise, and Self-Creation,” in Career Choice and Development, eds. Duane Brown & Associates (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002), 85–148. On how some high school girls negotiate the prospect of science careers, see Janis E. Jacobs, Laura L. Finken, Nancy Lindsley Griffen, and Janet D. Wright, “The Career Plans of Science-Talented Rural Adolescent Girls,” American Educational Research Journal 35 (Winter 1998): 681–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory (New York: Bowker, 1957 & 1963). There is some evidence to indicate that Science World began to target a younger audience by the late 1960s (primarily junior high school students), which could account for the rapid circulation growth in the mid to late 1960s. Marian H. Scott, Periodicals for School Libraries: A Guide to Magazines, Newspapers, and Periodical Indexes (Chicago: American Library Association, 1969 & 1973).Google Scholar

17 Lauber, Patricia “The Evolution of a Science Writer,“ in Using Nonfiction Trade Books in the Elementary Classroom: From Ants to Zeppelins, eds. Freeman, Evelyn B. & Goetz Person, Diane, (ERIC Document, ED346468, 1992); Brodie, Carolyn S., “50 Years Writing Children's Nonfiction: Patricia Lauber,” School Library Media Activities Monthly 20:6, February 2004: 45–47.Google Scholar

18 Saxon, Wolfgang “Eric Berger, 88, Former Top Editor With Scholastic,“ New York Times 3 May 1995, D21.Google Scholar

19 Kopelman, Milton “A Brief History of the Bronx High School of Science,“ http://www2.bxscience.edu/alum/bhss/history.htm (accessed January 5, 2005).Google Scholar

20 “A new idea,” Science Teacher's World 1(1), 5 February 1957, 1–T.Google Scholar

21 Tolley, The Science Education of American Girls, 177 & 200; LaFollette, “Eyes on the Stars,” 262–265.Google Scholar

22 “Fish Sleuth—Dr. Evelyn Shaw (p. 20),” Science Teacher's World 7 (1), 3 February 1960, 2–T.Google Scholar

23 Gudemann, Frances “Dr. Evelyn Shaw…Fish Sleuth,“ Science World 7 (1), 3 February 1960, 20.Google Scholar

24 Rossiter, Women Scientists in America, 34 76, 78, 81–82, 97–105, 128–131, 152, and 196; Tolley, The Science Education of American Girls, 196–208; Burkam et al., “Gender and Science Learning Early in High School,” 298–300.Google Scholar

25 “Atomic Explorer,” Science Teacher's World 7(3), 2 March 1960, 2–T.Google Scholar

26 Ibid.Google Scholar

27 “Today's Scientists (p. 22),” Science Teacher's World 7(6), 20 April 1960, 3-T.Google Scholar

28 “Astronomy for Girls,” Science World 11(1), 7 February 1962, 26.Google Scholar

29 Bleifeld, Maurice “Careers in Science (p. 26) Astronomy for Girls,“ Science Teacher's World 11 (1), 7 February 1962, 7–T.Google Scholar

30 “Using Science World. Today's Scientists (pp. 18–19) Dr. Nancy Roman—Astronomer in Space,” Science Teacher's World 11(6), 18 April 1962, 4-T.Google Scholar

31 “They put chemistry to work,” Science World, 2(3), 22 October 1957, 22.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., 23.Google Scholar

33 Harvey, E.H. Jr., “Explorers of the body,” Science World 4 (2), 14 October 1958, 21. See also Gudemann, “Dr. Evelyn Shaw…Fish Sleuth,” 29.Google Scholar

34 “Science in the woods,” Science World 2(2), 8 October 1957, 22–23; “They study what we eat,” Science World 2(4), 5 November 1957, 26–27; “They clean up our environment,” Science World 3(3), 6 March 1958, 3(3), 20–21; “Watchdogs of the weather,” Science World 3(5), 3 April 1958, 22–23; E.H. Harvey, Jr., “Men to man the missiles,” Science World 4(1), 25 September 1958, 20–21; “Sea life but no sea,” Science World 4(8), 20 January 1959, 22–23; “Careers for Young People,” Science World 7(4), 16 March 1960, 24.Google Scholar

35 “They study what we eat,” 27.Google Scholar

36 Rossiter, Women Scientists in America; Tolley, The Science Education of American Girls, 196–208.Google Scholar

37 “Wanted: Young Scientists,” Science World. 2(3), 22 October 1957, 21.Google Scholar

38 Woodburn, John H. “Messages from other worlds,“ Science World 3 (2), 20 February 1958, 21; “Project: Sliding Friction,” Science World 9(3), 1 March 1961, 20–21; “Project: Seismology,” Science World 7(4), 16 March 1960, 32–34; John H. Woodburn, “Exploring metallurgy,” Science World 3(8), 15 May 1958, 23.Google Scholar

39 Tolley, The Science Education of American Girls, 196–203.Google Scholar

40 Woodburn, John H. “Cancer and mice,“ Science World, 2 (3), 22 October 1957, 21. See also, idem., “Nature's chemical indicators,” Science World 2(4), 5 November 1957, 15; idem., “Johanna Phay's Phayco,” Science World 2(5), 19 November 1957, 24; idem., “Irradiated Guppies,” Science World 1(7), 30 April 1957, 15.Google Scholar

42 “Will a sweet potato sprout from either end?” Science World 1(1), 5 February 1957, 15.Google Scholar

43 It is important to acknowledge, however, that some philosophers of science have argued that seemingly gender-neutral qualities such as self-motivation and skepticism are, in fact, masculine constructs of scientific inquiry. See, for instance, Evelyn Fox Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Lorraine Code, What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

44 “Project: Studies of a Root Growth Factor from Seedlings,” Science World 9(3), 1 March 1961, 19–20; Peggy Porsch, “The Isolation and Identification of Antibiotic-Producing Actinomycetes,” Tomorrow's Scientists 2(3), December 1957, 3.Google Scholar

45 Woodburn, “Irradiated guppies,“ 15.Google Scholar

46 Woodburn, “Messages from other worlds,“ 21.Google Scholar

47 Metraux, Mead & “Image of the Scientist among High-School Students,“ 387.Google Scholar

48 “Project: Life Cycle of Coturnix, A New Laboratory Animal,” Science World 8(2), 21–23.Google Scholar

49 Woodburn, “Messages from other worlds,“ 21. See also Woodburn, “Cancer and Mice,” 21.Google Scholar

50 Woodburn, “Johanna Phay's Phayco,“ 24.Google Scholar

51 Woodburn, John H. “Good to the last glass,“ Science World 3 (6), 17 April 1958, 21.Google Scholar

52 Metraux, “A Scientist Is a Man (or Sometimes a Woman)…“Google Scholar

53 Woodburn, John H. “Rewards for young scientists,“ Science World 3 (3), 6 March 1958, 22. Fourteen of the 29 students profiled were winners of either the Science Talent Search or Science Achievement Awards for Students; three others were recognized for their research in science fairs and congresses. See, for instance, “Scholarships awarded science contest winners,” Science Teacher's World 1(6), 16 April 1957, 1-T; Theodore Benjamin, “Originality in Projects,” Science World 5(7), 5 May 1959, 20–21 & 23; “Project: Light Sensitivities of the Earthworm,” Science World 6(1), 21; “Project: Amino Acids in Anatomical Structure of Grasshopper,” Science World 11(3), 7 March 1962, 21–23.Google Scholar

54 For more on the Westinghouse Science Talent Search and science fairs, see for example: Joseph Berger, The Young Scientists: America's Future and the Winning of the Westinghouse (Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley, 1994); Tom K. Phares, Seeking—And Finding—Science Talent: A 50-Year History of the Westinghouse Science Talent Search (Pittsburgh: Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1990); P.F. Brandwein, “Science Talent: The Play of Exemplar and Paradigm in the Science Education of Science-Prone Young,” Science Education 76 (April 1992): 121–139; Rena F. Subotnik and Cynthia L. Steiner, “Adult Manifestations of Adolescent Talent in Science,” Roeper Review 15 (Feb.-Mar. 1993): 164–169; Scott Huler, “Nurturing Science's Young Elite: Westinghouse Talent Search,” Scientist 5 (15 April 1991): 20–22; Gail Jones, “Gender Differences in Science Competitions,” Science Education 75:2 (1991): 159–167; Teresa Arambula Greenfield, “An Exploration of Gender Participation Patterns in Science Competitions,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32 (September 1995): 735–748.Google Scholar

55 Woodburn, “Cancer and mice,“ 21.Google Scholar

56 Woodburn, “Exploring metallurgy,“ 23.Google Scholar

57 Woodburn, “Rewards for young scientists,“ 22.Google Scholar

58 “Careers for young people,” 24.Google Scholar

59 “Women in white,” Science World. 2(7), 17 December 1957, 24–25.Google Scholar

60 Gudemann, “Dr. Evelyn Shaw…Fish Sleuth,“ 29.Google Scholar

61 “They put chemistry to work,” 22.Google Scholar

62 Harvey, Jr. “Explorers of the body,“ 20.Google Scholar

63 “They put chemistry to work,” 23.Google Scholar

64 Gudemann, “Dr. Evelyn Shaw…Fish Sleuth,“ 29.Google Scholar

65 Gudemann, Frances “Dr. Joanne Malkus: Cloud Explorer,“ Science World, 7 (6), 20 April 1960, 28.Google Scholar

66 Ibid.Google Scholar

67 Meyerowitz, “Beyond the Feminine Mystique,“ 1465, 1460.Google Scholar

68 LaFollette, “Eyes on the Stars,“ 267.Google Scholar

69 Gottfredson, “Gottfredson's Theory of Circumscription, Compromise, and Self-Creation,“ 94–101.Google Scholar

70 Land, Barbara “Dr. Janice Button: Atomic Explorer,“ Science World, 7 (3), 2 March 1960, 27.Google Scholar

71 Button-Shafer, “Janice “ Marquis Who's Who (2004). Reproduced in Biography Resource Center (Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale, 2004). http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC (accessed December 15, 2004). Evelyn Shaw assumed various positions as a research associate and eventually became an adjunct professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. American Men and Women of Science 14th Edition (New York: R.R. Bowker, 1979), 4604.Google Scholar

72 Simpson, Joanne “Meteorologist,“ Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 208 (15 March 1973): 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 Gudemann, Frances “Dr. Harry F. Harlow: Exploring Behavior,“ Science World 7 (2), 17 February 1960, 45; “Selman A. Waksman, Man Against Microbes,” Science World 6(7), 9 December 1959, 20 & 29; Frances Gudemann, “Dr. James Ebert—Heartbeat Hunter,” Science World 8(3), 12 October 1960, 22 & 29–30.Google Scholar

74 Blum, Deborah Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, 2002), 67 & 120–132 & 246–247. This account of Harlow's life also reveals that his two older sons felt so estranged from their father that they subsequently changed their last name to that of their stepfather.Google Scholar

75 “They hunt for cancer,” Science World 3(7), 1 May 1958, 22–23; “Disease-battling biologists,” Science World 3(4), 20 March 1958, 22–23.Google Scholar

76 “Dr. Nancy Roman—Astronomer in Space,” Science World 11(6), 18 April 1962, 30.Google Scholar

77 “They put chemistry to work,” 22.Google Scholar

78 Randal, Judith “Dr. Lisbeth M. Kraft—Virus Expert,“ Science World 12 (2), 26 September 1962, 28–29 & 34.Google Scholar

79 “Should you be a Physicist?” Science World 8(4), 26 October 1960, 24–25.Google Scholar

80 Harvey, Jr. “Men to man the missiles,“ 21.Google Scholar

81 “Sea life but no sea,” 23.Google Scholar

82 “Science in the woods,” 23.Google Scholar

83 Science World, 1(1), 5 February 1957, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

84 Science World 2(2), 8 October 1957, 29.Google Scholar

85 Science World 3(2), 20 February 1958, 31. See also Science World 1(7), 30 April 1957, 23; Science World 1(7), 30 April 1957, 27. According to Jim Hampton, public relations director for the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, women now comprise 18 percent of the school's enrollment. Courtesy of telephone conversation with Jim Hampton, 14 January 2005.Google Scholar

86 “Disease-battling biologists,” 23; Gudemann, “Dr. Joanne Malkus,” 28; “The atomic frontier,” Science World 1(8), 14 May 1957, 20; “They put chemistry to work,” 23; “They predict how solids will behave,” Science World 1(5), 2 April 1957, 20. Rossiter makes this same point in her chapter on “Scientific Womanpower. See Rossiter, Women Scientists in America, 50–68.Google Scholar

87 There is some evidence to suggest, moreover, that fewer girls than boys read Science World, or at the very least, took an interest in writing a letter to the editor: only 70 out of the 300 letters in this sample (23 percent) were submitted by female high school students.Google Scholar