  Until this century, the number of working female scientists has been
indeterminate. Prevailing wisdom indicates that women, historically, have not
excelled in the mathematics and sciences, for various reasons. These range from
societal pressures to marry and bear children, to a lack of systematic
scientific education for females, to the lack of opportunity in institutions
and industry. Women, until comparatively recently, were not in control of their
own financial lives, and were therefore dependent upon the goodwill of a
husband, father or brother, should they attempt to enter academic life. Many
times, their accomplishments, and the accomplishments of these collaborating
relatives, become so merged as to become indistinguishable. Nevertheless, with
all these factors working against them, history records an occasional bright
star. Their diaries, memoirs and correspondence detail both the similarities
and the differences between their roles and the roles of modern female
scientists, in their own minds, and in the estimation of those closest to them.
There exists, in science, a dichotomy between the desire to understand one's
universe, and the desire to change the understanding of others. These two
fundamental desires lead future scientists to the discipline. Historically, the
role of women has largely been interpretive, rather than innovative, by their
own estimation. But is interpretation the "natural" role of women scientists?
