Answer (1): Barium (boom-boom!)

Answer (2): Write their story on Wikipedia, especially if they were female.*

One of the best bits of my job is working with Ewan McAndrew, our excellent Wikimedian in Residence. Our Ada Lovelace Day and Innovative Learning Week editathons back in 2015 paved the way for a year long residency in 2016, and that was so successful that we extended the residency for another year. The focus of the second year of the residency is on using Wikimedia projects in the curriculum, building on excellent work in areas like Reproductive Biomedicine, Divinity, and Translation Studies.

Sometimes convincing our colleagues to engage can be hard. Stereotypes about the factual accuracy of Wikipedia, or concerns about the risks that come with working in the open can be difficult to counter. We spend a lot of time supporting our colleagues to engage in light-touch ways that help build confidence and interest.

Sometimes though we talk about Wikipedia with colleagues and they quickly get as passionate and engaged as we are. That happened again this week, when Ewan went to visit our colleague in Chemistry, Dr Michael Seery. A conversation about women in Chemistry, some ideas about Ada Lovelace Day 2017 and some attractive Histropedia timelines went down very well. Later that evening I spotted the Twitter thread below.

The Tilden Prizes were among the RSC prizes announced today, named after former President, Sir William Tilden.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

Tilden was an early advocate of admitting women as Fellows of the Chemical Society (now RSC). An attempt in 1892 was defeated by politicking

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

After Marie Curie’s admission as Foreign Fellow in 1904, a petition signed by 19 female chemists was lodged with the Society.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

"representing women engaged in chemical work in this country desire to lay before you an appeal for the admission of women to Fellowship"

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

Argument included the fact that over period 1873-1903, 150 women had authored 300 papers published by the Society.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

Council approved the adoption of the proposal. But at the EGM, of 2700 members, just 45 turned up to vote. 23 voted against.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

In his 1905 Presidential Address Tilden bemoaned fact that such an important matter only attracted 45 attendees.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

He stated that it was a form of unreasoning conservatism inconsistent with the principles of a Society existing for the promotion of science

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

Tilden tried another approach. He organised a petition signed by 312 distinguished Fellows of the Society. In 1908, he organised a 2nd poll.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

This led to a ballot, with members being provided with 6 reasons to vote in favour of admitting women, and 7 against.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

The journal Nature chimed in: “With…naiveté, the banging, barring and bolting people have revealed the true inwardness of their opposition

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

…It is the argument of the weak-kneed-of persons whose Zunfgeist has warped their judgement."

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

1094 of 2900 Fellows voted in favour. 642 opposed. When Tilden brought the result to Council, “a discussion ensued” but no notes were taken.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

A counter motion was raised to allow women to become “Subscribers” – a new category of the Society. It passed 15 to 7.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

Nature got back editorial writing, scathing about a “cabal of London chemists… set to thwart themselves against the wishes of the majority”.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

<Interruption: there’s an interesting side note here about the role of strong mothers of the men supporting the admission of women>

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

Where were we…? There was a backlash both ways. The 1909 AGM tried to fix the mess but was referred back to 1898 legal opinion.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

Then the women involved had to reject accusations of political motivation and say that their common bond was purely chemistry. (JFC!)

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

11 women availed of the “Subscriber” status. Most considered the decision to be Fellowship or nothing.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

In 1919 the Sex Disqualification (Removal) bill passed through Parliament. The Society was moved to act and the following motion was raised:

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

“That women should be admitted to the Society on the same terms as men.” The motion passed and 21 women were admitted as Fellows in 1920.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

This is a snapshot from the full saga recounted in “Chemistry was Their Life: Pioneering British Women Chemists, 1880-1949”.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

It's made me very mad. The same tricks of isolation are age-old. And when typing this a Tory campaign letter came through the door.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

Typing Twitter threads very stressful. I'm going back to the blog…

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

I'm inspired after meeting @emcandre today and I started reading (a little obsessively!) And yes let's do things.

— Michael Seery (@seerymk) May 9, 2017

This is what can happen if you are exposed to a Wikimedian in Residence…

 

* Only around 16% of biographies on Wikipedia are of women. This is a form of systemic bias and you should read more about the Wiki Women in Red project who do excellent work in this space.

 

https://storify.com/ammienoot/what-happens-after-a-wikimedian-in-residence-visit

(By Spudgun67 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons)