European universities have been informally and formally closed to women from their founding in the twelfth century until the late nineteenth century. A few, exceptional women scientists received Ph.D.s and taught in these institutions before 1900: Laura Bassi served as lecturer in physics at the University of Bologna from 1732 to 1778 and held the chair in experimental physics at the prestigious Istituto delle Scienze from 1776 until her death in 1778 (Findlen 1993; Ceranski 1996). Anna Morandi Manzolini replaced her husband as lecturer in anatomy at the University of Bologna in 1755 (Messbarger 2001). Dorothea von Schlözer, daughter of the renowned Göttingen historian, received a doctoral degree for her work in mineralogy in 1787 (Schiebinger 1989, 257–60). These intermittent positions awarded to women were unique to Italy and Germany; none were granted women in England or France. Nowhere in Europe did women gain regular access to universities until the late nineteenth century.

Argument

A recent comparative study of women in science has revealed that the situation in the Netherlands is worse than in other European countries. This raises the question whether there is a “Dutch case” concerning women’s standing in science. We argue that the cause is not to be found in a special brand of Dutch Protestantism, with its strong emphasis on motherhood and the family, and impact on labor patterns and social organization. Rather, we should take another look at religion, and especially at the specific Dutch segmentation of society along religious and political lines, called verzuiling, literally “pillarization.” From about 1880 until far into the 1950s the personal and social life of the Dutch (from schools to sports and ladies' organizations) was organized into four recognized pillars (a Protestant, Catholic, socialist and a liberal pillar), which at the top were represented in political parties. This article brings to light the often overlooked fact that between 1880 and 1945 state institutions, such as universities, were thoroughly pillarized, which strongly influenced recruitment and selection for those institutions. That is to say, no woman was appointed to the rank of full professor at any state university until after 1945. The Dutch case might also be explained by the many reorganizations and down-sizings of universities of more recent years that occurred simultaneous with the expansion of academic feminism. In addition, a newly configured “pillarization” has driven deep divides between gender studies scholars, equal opportunities officers, and women scientists.

But even in the long-industrialized European countries, the story has not been one of automatic growth and progress. Thus … in the Netherlands … there too the situation for women academics has deteriorated over the past two decades. Where in 1970 there were 2.7 per cent women professors, by 1980 this was down to 2.2 per cent and by 1988 to 2.1 per cent. (Rose 1994)

Argument

In France 15 per cent of university professors are women. Though this percentage is not high, France ranks among the top European countries in this regard. We argue that the “relatively favorable” situation of French women scientists is related to the social structure of French society, in particular its child-care system, and to the stable permanent positions in academia, where people are hired in their early thirties. French women scientists experience less difficulty than other European colleagues to manage both a private and a professional life. We also argue that the weak position of French gender studies stems from its lack of institutionalization, and from the isolation of the single researchers in their specialized disciplines. Finally we argue that the French recent interest in the issue of women and science is specifically related to the general interest, since the mid-1990s, in the political parity problem.

Argument

Science is more sex-segregated in Germany than in other European countries or in the United States. Female students and faculty were admitted to German universities 30 to 50 years after they were admitted to universities elsewhere. This article analyzes why this was so. First, since the nineteenth century, science has enjoyed great prestige in Germany: German higher education was systematized at that time and has since then been run by the government. In addition, the early professionalization of science in Germany put in place demands for high levels of qualification and research, which made academic careers in science attractive to Germany’s social elites. Germany lacked a strong feminist movement. For many years women were excluded from the academic labor market. Even after women were admitted to universities, female representation in faculty positions was sporadic. Exclusionary strategies, often demanded by male academics, were implemented throughout the interwar years, culminating in the anti-feminist policies of the Nazi regime, and the expulsion and persecution of “non-Aryans.” After World War II this legacy of a conservative, often anti-feminist, faculty persisted. As a result, academic careers opened to women only after the tremendous expansion of universities in the 1970s. New feminist movements have finally motivated the government to introduce programs in the 1990s aimed at greater sexual equality.

Argument

Contemporary debates around Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the most common form of drug treatment, Ritalin, are rarely placed in the context of the social-scientific history of diagnosis and drug treatment. This is possibly due to the fact that brain talk and brain imagery have replaced earlier theories about children’s psychopathology that had mainly focused on the toxic effects of the mother. These theories and their psychoanalytic roots are considered somewhat embarrassing and certainly unscientific in a contemporary light, and modern biological psychiatry has worked hard to demonstrate that physiological and genetic factors underpin this contested disorder. Such theories have tended to make the history of ADHD and Ritalin seem irrelevant to scientific progress and understanding of disorder, as well as to public understanding and acceptance of disorder and drug treatment. Examining this history, however, clarifies the relation between social, cultural, and scientific values in constructing a need for medical intervention within the domestic realm. When Ritalin came on the United States market in 1955, neither psychiatric diagnosis of children’s behaviors, nor drug treatments for children’s behavior were commonplace. Mothers especially were located in the center of active political, moral, and scientific debates over boys’ normative behaviors. These debates helped codify an intimate association between a problem boy and his problematic mother in relation to ADHD diagnosis and Ritalin treatment. The story I tell here suggests that this association may have supported mothers’ acceptance of medical intervention and drug treatment for their boys’ troublesome, but arguably not pathological, behaviors. In the concluding sections I argue that the lack of attention to these social-scientific roots means that we miss seeing their potential relevance to the contemporary predicament of rising ADHD diagnoses and Ritalin use.