Slashdot Mirror


Katherine Johnson: NASA's Pioneering Female Physicist (thenewstack.io)

destinyland writes: Tuesday's State of the Union address included a shout-out to Katherine Johnson, the pioneering African American mathematician and physicist who calculated the trajectory of Alan Shepherd's 1961 space trip. "Her reputation was so strong that John Glenn asked her to recheck the calculations made by the new electronic computers before the mission on which he became the first American to orbit the Earth," notes one technology reporter. NASA policy at the time was to not acknowledge the female contributors to scientific papers, though "She literally wrote the textbook on rocket science," according to one NASA official, noting that her impact literally reaches all the way to the moon. At a ceremony in November, Johnson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the 97-year-old pioneer continues to encourage young people to also pursue careers in technology, science, engineering and math.

4 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. "Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by l2718 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article says "The practice in 1960 would have been not to list the female Computers as formal co-authors". The blurb above replaces "Computers" with "contributors", painting a false and offensive picture.

    Today in many fields it is common to only include as authors of a paper those who have had creative scientific input. A common example is research assistants who collate data, or technical staff who build lab equipment, but the example of someone who did a numerical computation for the author is not uncommon. Most "computers" simply did the computations, which was certainly an important contribution to the research, but not necessarily the kind of contribution that makes one an author of a paper.

    1. Re:"Policy not to acknowledge" quote is offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, what they often had were women who were brilliant mathematicians who never got any credit for doing the heavy lifting and actively participating in the process.

      They didn't "simply do the calculations", they did the highly advanced maths and got no credit for it.

      The practice was to take people who did as much, if not more, than the people who got the credit and leave them off it because they were women.

      Pretending like these women were the unskilled labor is the offensive part.

  2. Not an abberation by Theovon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If only we as a society can now stop thinking of these people as abberations just on the basis of gender and other genetic factors. Geniuses in general are rare, so if you’re looking for them, the last thing you want to do is summarily exclude any segment of any population, simply because YOU believe some of their characteristics correlate less with genius.

    I was reading a journal paper from the 1970’s or something that presented average IQs for different genetic groups. They found the average Asian IQ to be higher tna the average Caucasian IQ, which was higher than the average African IQ. However, in every case, the standard deviation was very high. This guarantees that geniuses would be found in large populations. (Of course, none of this accounts for aspects of intelligence not considered by IQ, like social ability.)

    Of course, racism isn’t really about IQ. IQ is sometimes used as an *excuse* for racism, but if that were not a factor, racists would find another excuse. Bigotry in general is about deciding that someone is incompetent or inferior on the basis of superficial traits. It becomes *criminal* when you actively interfere with someone’s life on the basis of a prejudgement like this.

    I’m hoping that highlighting women and other marginalized groups and their contributions to science and society as a whole will gradually enlighten the human race.

  3. Re:We now get Monday "White Male Guilt" articles? by Theovon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In 100 years, you’ll be right.

    We still live in a society that needs to be *reminded* that race and gender are socially worthless predictors of one’s abilities. In the 1960’s, people could be openly bigoted and sexist. Today, they’ve all just moved into the closet. Moreover, there are some bigoted and sexist ideas that are so deeply embedded in our culture that people aren’t even aware of it. Personally, when I was in the 7th grade and was bussed to a school in the middle of the ghetto, I developed a very negative impression of black people. I have to remind myself that if I’d gone to the 7th grade in a school that was in the middle of a trailor park, that I would have an equally bad impression of white people. Technically, people should be free to harbor bigoted thoughts, but as a society, we have to make it clear that *acting* on those feelings is as criminal as discrimination on the basis of *any* superficial characteristic.