Marie Curie, born more than 150 years ago, is still the only female scientist many people can name. The double Nobel Prize winner is most famous for her discovery of radioactivity, as well as the radioactive elements radium and polonium. She is less well known for encouraging a generation of women who worked in her lab and went on to work in research because of the path she paved. Though few women in science have reached Curie’s level of fame and name recognition, they continue to make gains in the field because of her life and example.
In the new book The Elements of Marie Curie: How the Glow of Radium Lit a Path for Women in Science (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2024), author (and Scientific American poetry editor) Dava Sobel chronicles Curie’s life and work, and sketches biographies of many of the women who worked with her. Sobel found that few people are familiar with the network of researchers she nurtured, as well as many other aspects of the famous chemist’s history. “Everybody knows her name, but hardly anybody knows anything about her,” Sobel says.
Scientific American spoke with Sobel about Marie Curie’s contributions to science, history and gender equality.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
How did you learn about the female scientists Curie worked with?
In 2020 I was asked to review a book called Women in Their Element, a collection of essays about female chemists. The only two names I recognized to begin with were Marie Curie and her daughter [Irène Joliot-Curie]. But then as I read, I was really struck by the number of women who had spent some time with her, either studying under her or working in her lab. By the fifth or sixth one, it really started to look like a network. And through the Curie Museum in Paris, I discovered there were really at least 45 women who passed through her laboratory. She was the first woman ever to teach at the Sorbonne. And then that made her a magnet for these other women. Also, she was already world-famous because she had won the Nobel Prize, and that spread her name everywhere. So I thought, well, this is something about Madame Curie that most people don’t know, and that’s how I got started.
How did Curie end up making the huge discoveries she made?
She had extraordinary drive to get herself out of Warsaw to Paris, to be able to get an advanced education, to believe in herself that much [in the face of strong resistance toward women in science at the time], and then to be willing and able to do the kind of laboratory work that she did. And then she married the right person. She and her husband Pierre Curie worked together when she started to do her doctoral research on this new discovery of [physicist Henri] Becquerel’s, uranic rays.
This was the radiation coming from uranium decay.
Right. This was a new thing, and nobody was paying attention to it because everybody was more interested in x-rays at the time [in 1896]. And [Curie] thought she’d go after the less exciting topic; there were 1,000 papers already written about x-rays, and nobody was doing anything with uranic rays. So that was the right time.
It’s amazing to me that she entered this field at this time and then had her first child just a year later, in 1897. I’d assumed, before I read the book, that the children came well after she’d established herself as a scientist.
This is a very female story. She had two children; she had a miscarriage; she had trouble nursing. Some of the women who came to her lab stopped working when they got married and had children. It’s been more than 100 years, and that’s still true for many women in science. I really wanted to meet those issues directly in the book because I think it’s so important for young women to read about other female scientists and how they managed.
Did Curie actively set out to recruit more women into science?
I don’t think she was specifically looking to hire women, but what was different about her was that she had nothing against hiring them. So that was big, and then again, she was so prominent that she attracted them and inspired them. There are a couple of women in the story who were much younger and grew up hearing about her, which made them think, “Oh, I could be a scientist, too.” And the amazing thing to me is how she still has that effect. She’s been dead for almost 100 years, but she is still an inspiration—and not just to women who go into science but women in a variety of fields.
What do you think most people get wrong about Marie Curie?
You’ll often hear that she didn’t really do anything: it was all Pierre, and she was just his assistant. Pierre himself was on record debunking that, but nobody listened.
Another criticism was, “She used her hands, but not her head. She was very involved in doing all of this very difficult chemical extraction, which required repetition of many steps, and that was what she was good at.” That is also a very familiar trope about women in science: that women do this grunt work, the boring things, and the men just have aha! moments 24 hours a day.
That kind of attitude is just one aspect of the type of resistance Curie faced. What was the climate like at the time for women in science?
She was operating in this environment of huge sexism. She was barred from the [French] Academy of Sciences. Even though she had a lot of support, they did not vote her in, and to be published in their weekly proceedings, to present your work, you had to be a member. So she was constantly having to ask friends to present the work of the people in her laboratory, which was an enormous embarrassment. She was the premier authority on her subject, and she didn’t have the standing in the professional community that she deserved. And then later, her daughter tried several times to get voted into the academy. She was also a Nobel Prize winner, and she couldn’t get in either. So yes, there was a lot of sexism, a lot of barricades, but she broke through most of them.
Beyond promoting individual women in science, how do you think Curie changed science for women after her?
We’re talking about the early 1900s, so physics altogether was at an inflection point, and she was, for three decades, the only woman in the room at these important Solvay Conference meetings [a groundbreaking series of physics congresses that begin in 1911]. So she knew all of the top physicists: [Ernest] Rutherford, [Albert] Einstein, [Enrico] Fermi, Niels Bohr, everybody. She knew them personally, and I think she normalized some of that for them—that “oh, yeah, women do this, too,” which might not have occurred to them. So I think, by her presence, she had an effect on her peers.
You are Scientific American’s poetry column editor. Is there any connection between Curie and poetry?
Well, being Polish and being in a family that was very nationalistic, very proud of their Polish heritage, she grew up on these three very famous Polish poets [Adam Mickiewicz, Zygmunt Krasiński and Juliusz Słowacki], and her family also had a tradition of writing verses on this or that occasion, and she wrote a couple of poems. She wrote about her life as a student when she was first in Paris. I don’t think she ever wrote any poems about her work. And there have been a lot of poems written about her. Even Adrienne Rich wrote a poem about Madame Curie.