Noether was an innovative researcher who made several major advances in abstract algebra, including a new theory of ideals, the inverse Galois problem, and the general theory of commutative rings. She originated novel reasoning methods, especially one based on "chain conditions," which advanced invariant theory and abstract algebra; her insistence on generalization led to a unified theory of modules and Noetherian rings; some of her work anticipated modern category theory. Her invention of homology groups revolutionized topology.

I thought you might say that all science is for the betterment of humanity to which I will tell you an old joke.

So there you go

We know pythagarous, euclid, euler, blaise pascal but do we know?

In 1840, Florence Nightingale begged her parents "to let her study mathematics instead of doing worsted work and practicing quadrilles." Her mother "did not approve, home duties were not to be neglected for mathematics." She assumed that her daughter's destiny was marriage, "and what use were mathematics to a married woman?" Her father, who loved math and had communicated that love to his daughter, nevertheless urged her to study more appropriate subjects (for a woman), "history or philosophy, natural or moral." Florence expressed her preference for mathematics by saying, "I don't think I shall succeed so well in anything that requires quickness as in what requires only work." [1] Her parents finally granted permission. Years later, her mathematical approach saved the British army at Scutari during the Crimean war and provided the data that led to hospital reforms.....
As Nightingale demonstrated, statistics provided an organized way of learning and lead to improvements in medical and surgical practices. She also developed a Model Hospital Statistical Form for hospitals to collect and generate consistent data and statistics. She became a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society in 1858 and an honorary member of the American Statistical Association in 1874. Karl Pearson acknowledged Nighingale as a "prophetess" in the development of applied statistics.

Stephanie Kwolek was born in 1923 in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. She had a penchant as a child for exploring the natural world with her father, collecting wildflowers and seeds for her scrapbook. She also developed an interest in technology by making clothes. "When I was six," she recalled, "I loved to use my mother's sewing machine. I was forbidden to use the sewing machine, but I would sneak in when my mother went shopping." 34

In 1942, Kwolek enrolled at the Carnegie Institute of Technology (now Carnegie-Mellon University). She majored in chemistry and minored in biology, hoping to enter medical school after earning her bachelor's degree. With that in mind, she took a job at DuPont to build savings for her further education. She never carried out that plan, though.

"When I joined DuPont in 1946," Kwolek remarked, "women were having a very difficult time in science. Women who got jobs in the lab would stay only a few years; they were encouraged to move into so-called 'women's fields.' They were not promoted as rapidly as the men--women I know, even Ph.D. women, lasted about two or three years, and then went back to teaching, frequently at a women's college. But there were some of us who decided to stick it out, and I was one."

Kwolek's work focused on polymers, the long, chain molecules at the base of synthetic fibers like nylon. She concentrated on finding polymers that would dissolve at low heat so they could be spun into fibers at room temperature. When she was assigned to research extra strong and stable polymers in 1964, she turned to liquid crystal solutions in which all the molecules line up in one direction--like a string of pearls, as she often described it. Her experiments yielded a solution unlike any she'd ever seen. While most polymer solutions were thick and clear, like syrup, this was thin and hazy-looking. Its milky texture made the technician nervous about putting the solution into the fiber-making machine, called a spinneret. He thought there probably were solid particles that would clog up the spinneret's fine holes. But Kwolek convinced him that the solution was safe to spin, and the resulting fibers were exceptionally strong--much stronger than steel, in fact.

Today, Kevlar is found in a range of products, from bullet-resistant vests to ropes that anchor oil rigs to the ocean floor to skis. And Stephanie Kwolek, who retired in 1986 with 17 patents to her name and was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1995, doesn't regret not making it to medical school. "Most chemists," she said, "work all their lives . . . and are never able to participate in a discovery that has done so much good as Kevlar."

Diva, I missed the qutotation marks.

The point is there are women in science.

If not what we consider tradtionally science.

I would also, state that there is no inate ablity of either gender to preform mathmatical calcuations.

And eventually in the lab , things will balance out and women won't be 'come on to ' so much and finally not at all . This is evolution . The feminists knew this and risked a lot of ridicule to try to change the attitude of inequality between men and women . And it's finally working .

Women just plain aren't wired the same way men are.

check out the other posts in this science and philosophy forum and count how many men post here on various topics as opposed to women.

Let's put that against the millions of male inventors/scientists that didn't let their work kill them.

The fact that women are even trying to make the argument proves the lack of logic.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....

Sure, you can find women in these fields, but many are there to fulfill quotas and like I said there are always exceptions.

Sure, because of feminism there are a lot more sissified men who do just that, but that isn't the norm.

It blows my mind how propagandized people are today. Women just plain aren't wired the same way men are. It's as if people think our only differences are our genitalia. I can prove you all wrong right now - check out the other posts in this science and philosophy forum and count how many men post here on various topics as opposed to women.

In general, women aren't as good at making logical decisions.

At the University of Wisconsin, Janet Shibley Hyde has compiled meta-analytical studies on this topic for more than 10 years. By using this approach, which aggregates research findings from many studies, Hyde has boiled down hundreds of inquiries into one simple conclusion: The sexes are more the same than they are different.

At the University of Wisconsin, Janet Shibley Hyde has compiled meta-analytical studies on this topic for more than 10 years. By using this approach, which aggregates research findings from many studies, Hyde has boiled down hundreds of inquiries into one simple conclusion: The sexes are more the same than they are different.

In a 2005 report, Hyde compiled meta-analyses on sex differences not only in cognition but also communication style, social or personality variables, motor behaviors and moral reasoning. In half the studies, sex differences were small; in another third they were almost non-existent. Thus, 78 percent of gender differences are small or close to zero. What's more, most of the analyses addressed differences that were presumed to be reliable, as in math or verbal ability.

At the end of 2005, Harvard University's Elizabeth Spelke reviewed 111 studies and papers and found that most suggest that men's and women's abilities for math and science have a genetic basis in cognitive systems that emerge in early childhood but give men and women on the whole equal aptitude for math and science. In fact, boy and girl infants were found to perform equally well as young as six months on tasks such as addition and subtraction (babies can do this, but not with pencil and paper!)

The comments of Harvard University president Lawrence Summers have brought renewed attention to the participation of women in mathematics and science. A new study to be released on July 6 offers data showing that women are participating in mathematics in greater numbers than ever before.

The study, carried out by the American Mathematical Society in cooperation with three other national organizations, shows that women received close to one-third of all doctorates that were granted in the mathematical sciences in the U.S. during the academic year 2003-2004, the most recent year for which data are available. A total of 333 women received mathematical sciences PhDs that year, the largest number ever recorded since the AMS began gathering statistics on women PhDs more than 30 years ago.

These numbers reflect a longstanding trend of increasing participation by women in the mathematical sciences. The percentage of women receiving PhDs in the field has risen steadily, from around 15 percent in the early 1980s, to the low 20-percent range in the early 1990s, to around 30 percent in recent years.

What is more, women are excelling in the top mathematics departments in the nation. Using rankings published by the National Research Council, the study aggregates data from the 48 top mathematics departments. Women received 25 percent of all doctorates granted by these departments in 2003-2004, up from 21 percent the previous year.

There are other signs that women are making gains in mathematics. Since the early 1990s, women have been receiving around 45 percent of all bachelor's degrees in the subject. Recent years have seen substantial strides by female students in activities such as the Mathematical Olympiad, which is a highly challenging competition for high school students, and the Putnam Competition, which is aimed at undergraduate mathematics majors. In previous years, the high scorers in these competitions were all male.