Vox Meditantis

Elizabeth Wagner Reed (1925–1996) transformed genetics through her pioneering work on Drosophila speciation and intellectual disability whilst simultaneously excavating the buried histories of forgotten women scientists. Her dual legacy as a researcher who measured fruit fly evolution and documented the “Matilda Effect” decades before it was formally named makes her a unique figure in both scientific discovery and historical scholarship. From her early work establishing population genetics using fruit flies to her later books reclaiming nineteenth-century women’s contributions to science, Reed demonstrated that the most profound scientific insights often emerge from studying what others have overlooked.

Dr Reed, it’s wonderful to speak with you today. I understand your path into science began in rather unusual circumstances – born in the Philippines in 1912, growing up on an Ohio farm. How did those early experiences shape your scientific perspective?

Well, you must understand, growing up picking raspberries “from dawn to dusk,” as my son William liked to put it, taught me something fundamental about observation and patience. In the Philippines, my mother Catherine was working as a nurse – that was unusual for women then – and my father was in construction. I saw early on that work requiring precision and care wasn’t limited by conventional boundaries. When we settled on that farm in Carroll, Ohio, I spent countless hours watching things grow, noting which plants thrived and which struggled. That’s really where I learned to see patterns in living systems.

The scholarship that got me through Ohio State – along with washing dishes in the cafeteria – made me appreciate how hard-won scientific opportunities could be. I wasn’t going to waste a single moment of laboratory time.

Your early work focused on plant physiology, but you became known for pioneering research with fruit flies. How did that transition happen?

The shift came through tragedy, I’m afraid. After earning my doctorate in plant physiology in 1936, I was working with my first husband Jim Beasley on plant genetics at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. We were studying cotton genetics – important work during wartime. But when Jim was killed in the war, I found myself a widow with a toddler. I couldn’t continue that research alone.

I supported us by teaching at five different universities whilst maintaining my research interests. It was at Harvard in 1946 that I met Sheldon Reed. He was working on Drosophila speciation using innovative techniques – measuring wing beat frequencies with stroboscopes to separate species physiologically rather than just morphologically. The precision required reminded me of my plant work, but the evolutionary implications were far more immediate.

Can you walk us through your Drosophila research methodology? What made your approach distinctive?

Certainly. Previous researchers like Dobzhansky and Patterson were separating Drosophila strains based on chromosomal inversions visible in salivary glands. Sheldon and I wanted to develop physiological methods – ways to distinguish species by their behaviour and function, not just their chromosomes.

We used what Sheldon called “population bottles” – two half-pint milk bottles connected by radiator hose with cotton plugs for ventilation. This might sound crude, but it allowed us to study competition between genotypes under controlled conditions. We could track natural selection in real time, measuring how different genetic variants performed over multiple generations.

My particular contribution was the statistical analysis of minute morphological differences in the Drosophila genus. I would measure hundreds of specimens, looking for patterns that revealed evolutionary relationships. The data required extraordinary precision – differences of fractions of millimetres that could indicate reproductive isolation between populations.

One study that particularly excited me involved examining hybrid male sterility between Drosophila mojavensis and D. arizonae. We discovered substantial intraspecific polymorphism for genetic factors contributing to sterility – essentially catching speciation in the act. Some hybrid males had motile sperm but still couldn’t reproduce. This was the first documented example of such variation, giving us a window into the earliest stages of species formation.

That work helped establish population genetics as a field. But you also shifted toward human genetics. What drove that transition?

When Sheldon became director of the Dight Institute for Human Genetics at the University of Minnesota in 1947, it opened new possibilities. The university was one of the few institutions with a genetics programme then. We realised the same principles we’d studied in fruit flies – patterns of inheritance, population dynamics, statistical analysis of genetic variation – could illuminate human genetic disorders.

Of course, there were institutional barriers. The nepotism rules meant that although I had a workstation at the institute, I wasn’t officially listed as staff until the 1970s. I was doing the research but couldn’t hold the title. Rather familiar territory for women scientists, I’d say.

Our human genetics work focused on intellectual disability and congenital disorders. We conducted two major longitudinal studies – one following 549 probands and roughly 80,000 descendants of their grandparents, another examining 18,000 relatives of 99 probands with psychotic disorders. My role involved collecting life histories and IQ data, tracking inheritance patterns across generations.

Your 1965 book “Mental Retardation: A Family Study” was groundbreaking. Can you explain your findings?

That study resolved what we called “Cattell’s paradox”. Previous research had shown a negative correlation between family size and children’s average IQ, leading to concerns about declining intelligence in the population. But earlier studies had never included childless members of each generation – a classic ascertainment bias.

When we included everyone, the differential fertility disappeared. The data showed that 80% of individuals with psychotic illness had normal parents, and those with severe conditions didn’t reproduce at rates high enough to sustain the population prevalence. This suggested environmental factors and new mutations played larger roles than simple genetic inheritance.

The scientific press congratulated “Dr and Mrs Reed” despite my being first author. Rather typical, wouldn’t you say? The content was rigorous – we’d demonstrated that intellectual disability arose through complex interactions between genetic and environmental factors, making us early proponents of genetic counselling based on understanding rather than prohibition.

You began studying sexism in science remarkably early – your 1950s work predated most feminist scholarship by decades. What prompted this research?

Well, I was living it every day. I had my doctorate, I was publishing papers, I was contributing to fundamental discoveries, yet I wasn’t officially employed. I watched talented women leave science not because they lacked ability, but because the system made their work invisible.

I conducted a systematic study of 70 female scientists, examining their productivity and working conditions. The patterns were clear: women faced barriers at every stage – admission to programmes, access to equipment, recognition for discoveries, opportunities for advancement. But their research output, when they could pursue it, was often exceptional.

I published these findings because silence served no one. If we were to increase women’s participation in science, we needed data demonstrating both the problem and women’s capabilities. The work was ahead of its time – most people weren’t ready to acknowledge that scientific institutions themselves might be biased.

Your later historical work seems like a natural extension. How did you begin recovering the histories of forgotten women scientists?

The connection was direct. If contemporary women scientists were being overlooked, how many more had been erased from history entirely? I started researching nineteenth-century American women who’d published scientific work before the Civil War.

The most remarkable discovery was Eunice Newton Foote. In 1856, she conducted experiments with different gases in cylinders, measuring how they absorbed heat from sunlight. She demonstrated what we now call the greenhouse effect, writing that “an atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature” – an extraordinarily prescient conclusion.

A male scientist presented her paper at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and it was quickly forgotten. John Tyndall received credit for “discovering” the greenhouse effect three years later with similar but more elaborate experiments.

Your 1992 book documented 22 such women. What patterns did you observe in how they were erased?

Several mechanisms operated simultaneously. Sometimes women’s work was attributed to male relatives or colleagues. Sometimes their papers were republished under men’s names. Often, they were simply forgotten – no obituaries, no mentions in scientific histories, their discoveries credited to men who came later.

This wasn’t accidental neglect. It was what the historian Margaret Rossiter later called the “Matilda Effect” – systematic denial of credit to women scientists. I was documenting this phenomenon in the early 1990s, before it had a formal name.

The women I studied weren’t working in isolation. They formed networks, corresponded with each other, built on each other’s discoveries. But those networks were invisible to historians focused on “great men” narratives. Recovering their stories required detective work – tracing correspondence, checking attribution records, following references that led to women whose names had been dropped from later accounts.

You’ve mentioned mistakes and failed experiments. Can you share an example of where your work went astray?

Oh my, where shall I begin? Early in our Drosophila work, I spent months carefully measuring wing structures that I was convinced would reveal evolutionary relationships. The statistical analysis showed no significant patterns whatsoever – weeks of meticulous work that contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding.

More seriously, I initially underestimated the complexity of intellectual disability inheritance patterns. My early models assumed simpler genetic mechanisms than actually operate. The 1965 study was much more sophisticated because we’d learned from those earlier oversimplifications.

And I’ll admit something that might surprise you: I was sometimes too generous in my historical work. I wanted so desperately to recover women’s contributions that I occasionally overstated their significance or attributed discoveries to them when the evidence was ambiguous. My daughter Catherine had to remind me that accuracy served women scientists better than enthusiastic advocacy.

Contemporary critics argued that your focus on gender discrimination diverted attention from “pure” science. How do you respond?

Pure science? That’s rather like claiming pure objectivity whilst ignoring half the available talent pool, isn’t it?

The critics missed something fundamental: studying bias in science is scientific work. It requires hypothesis formation, data collection, statistical analysis, peer review. My research on women scientists used the same methodologies as my genetics research – careful observation, quantitative analysis, hypothesis testing.

Furthermore, understanding how knowledge gets produced and attributed is crucial for scientific progress. If we’re systematically overlooking contributions from half the population, we’re making science less rigorous, not more so. The “purity” argument was really about maintaining existing power structures, not advancing knowledge.

Looking at genetics today – CRISPR, genome sequencing, precision medicine – how do you see your early work reflected in these developments?

The fundamental principles we established remain central. Population genetics, statistical analysis of inheritance patterns, understanding genetic variation within and between populations – these are the foundations for everything you’ve mentioned.

What’s remarkable is how the technological advances have vindicated our early insights about complexity. The simple Mendelian inheritance we studied in Drosophila has revealed itself as just the beginning. Epigenetics, gene-environment interactions, the role of regulatory networks – all these complexities we suspected but couldn’t measure directly.

The human genetics work, particularly our emphasis on genetic counselling based on understanding rather than prohibition, has become standard practice. The idea that genetic information should empower informed decision-making rather than dictate social policy – that was quite radical in our time.

Your dual legacy – both advancing genetics and documenting women’s erasure from science – seems prophetic given current discussions about equity in STEM. What advice would you offer?

Data remains our strongest ally. Document the patterns, measure the disparities, publish the findings. Personal anecdotes can be dismissed as exceptional cases, but systematic evidence demands institutional response.

But don’t wait for institutions to change on their own. Build networks, support each other’s work, cite women’s contributions, nominate deserving colleagues for recognition. The women I studied in the nineteenth century understood this – they created their own systems of mutual support when formal institutions excluded them.

Most importantly, do excellent science. The best response to claims about women’s capabilities is exceptional work that can’t be ignored. Though I’ll add – make sure you get proper credit for it! Don’t let your contributions be attributed to male colleagues, no matter how well-meaning.

Finally, how would you like your work to be remembered?

I hope people remember that science is about uncovering truth, whether that truth concerns fruit fly genetics or the hidden histories of brilliant women. Both endeavours require the same qualities: careful observation, rigorous analysis, willingness to challenge conventional wisdom.

If my Drosophila work helped establish population genetics as a field, and if my historical work helped resurrect forgotten scientists like Eunice Foote, then I’ve contributed to expanding our understanding of the world. That’s what any scientist hopes for – adding genuine knowledge to human understanding.

The erasure I documented wasn’t just unfair to individual women – it impoverished science itself. Every lost discovery, every uncredited contribution, every brilliant mind discouraged from pursuing research represents knowledge we might have gained. Making science more inclusive isn’t just morally right; it’s scientifically essential.

You know, I spent years mapping genetic variations in fruit flies, tracking inheritance patterns across generations. But perhaps the most important patterns I identified were the ones that showed how talent and discovery have been systematically overlooked. Both required the same tools: careful measurement, statistical analysis, and the courage to report findings that challenged prevailing assumptions.

The data showed that women belonged in science from the beginning. They simply needed the opportunity to prove it.

Letters and emails

Following our conversation with Dr Elizabeth Wagner Reed, we’ve received an overwhelming response from readers eager to explore her remarkable journey further. We’ve selected five thoughtful letters and emails from our growing global community – spanning from Toronto to Lagos to Seoul – whose questions probe deeper into her technical innovations, ethical considerations, and wisdom for those walking in her footsteps today.

Natalie Brooks, 34, Science Journalist, Toronto, Canada:
Dr Reed, you mentioned using stroboscopes to measure Drosophila wing beat frequencies – that sounds incredibly innovative for the 1940s. How did you and Sheldon actually calibrate those measurements, and were there competing technologies you considered? I’m curious whether modern high-speed cameras have revealed anything you missed about fly behaviour that might have changed your species classification work.

Oh my, that takes me back to some rather exciting days in the laboratory! You’re quite right that the stroboscopes were rather novel for genetic work in the 1940s. Sheldon had borrowed the idea from industrial applications – they were using similar equipment to study rotating machinery, if you can believe it. We adapted a General Radio stroboscope, Model 631-B, which could flash at frequencies up to several thousand cycles per second.

The calibration was absolutely crucial, and frankly, it took us months to get it right. We had to synchronise the strobe frequency with a known standard – we used tuning forks initially, then graduated to electronic frequency generators as they became available. The tricky bit was ensuring the flies were positioned correctly under controlled temperature conditions. Drosophila wing beat frequency changes dramatically with temperature, you see, so we had to maintain our observation chamber at exactly 25 degrees Celsius, plus or minus half a degree.

We did consider other approaches. Some researchers were using phonographic equipment to record wing beats as sound, but the acoustic method couldn’t distinguish between different species reliably – too much background noise and mechanical vibration. The stroboscopic approach let us observe the actual wing motion patterns, not just frequency. We could see differences in wing stroke amplitude and coordination between forewings and hindwings that sound recording missed entirely.

As for what we might have missed – well, that’s the eternal question for any researcher, isn’t it? I suspect your modern high-speed cameras reveal far more detail about wing articulation and flight mechanics than we could observe. But I’d venture that our species classifications remain sound because we were measuring the right parameters for reproductive isolation. Wing beat frequency correlates directly with mating recognition – males and females must synchronise their courtship behaviours, and that includes acoustic signals.

The real limitation wasn’t our equipment – it was statistical. We had to measure hundreds of specimens by hand, recording each observation in laboratory notebooks. Today’s automated systems could process vastly more data, certainly. But I wonder if researchers today take time to really observe their subjects the way we did. There’s something to be said for spending hours watching flies court and mate, learning their individual behaviours. You notice patterns that might get lost in large datasets.

The principles we established about physiological species barriers remain valid, I believe. The technology has certainly improved, but good science still requires careful observation and thoughtful interpretation.

Ignacio Cabrera, 28, Bioinformatics PhD Student, São Paulo, Brazil:
What if you had access to today’s genomic sequencing technologies during your fruit fly research? Do you think having complete genome data would have accelerated your understanding of speciation, or might it have actually obscured some of the population-level patterns you discovered through your more observational approach?

What a fascinating question, young man! You know, I’ve watched genetics transform from Morgan’s fly room at Columbia to today’s molecular marvels, and I must say, each generation of tools reveals new layers of complexity we never suspected.

If we’d had genome sequencing in the 1940s? Well, it might have saved us considerable time mapping chromosomal inversions, that’s certain. Dobzhansky spent years examining salivary gland chromosomes under the microscope – painstaking work that your DNA sequencers could accomplish in hours. But here’s what gives me pause: would we have developed the same intuitive understanding of population dynamics?

Our approach was necessarily holistic. We observed whole organisms – their behaviour, their mating preferences, their survival rates in competition bottles. We tracked allele frequencies across generations, watching natural selection operate in real time. That perspective shaped our understanding of speciation as a process involving multiple biological systems working together.

Complete genome data might have led us down different paths entirely. We’d have been tempted to focus on individual genes rather than population-level phenomena. Look at how molecular biology developed in the 1960s and 70s – brilliant work, but initially quite reductionist. Researchers became fascinated with single gene functions, sometimes losing sight of how organisms actually live and reproduce in populations.

The danger with powerful new tools is that they can seduce you into thinking the most detailed data automatically provides the deepest understanding. We discovered reproductive isolation by watching flies choose mates, measuring wing beat frequencies, tracking hybrid fertility across multiple generations. That behavioural context was essential – it told us which genetic differences actually mattered for species formation.

I suspect genomic data would have accelerated certain discoveries, absolutely. We might have identified the molecular basis for hybrid male sterility much sooner. But would we have recognised the importance of environmental factors in gene expression? Population genetics taught us that the same genotype can produce different phenotypes depending on context – temperature, nutrition, population density.

Here’s what I find most intriguing: today’s researchers are rediscovering the importance of population thinking. Your field of bioinformatics, from what I understand, requires exactly the statistical approaches we pioneered – tracking variation within and between groups, understanding how genetic diversity changes over time.

Perhaps the ideal would have been both approaches simultaneously. Detailed molecular data grounded in careful population studies. But science rarely works that way, does it? We build on what came before, and each generation of tools reveals new questions we didn’t know to ask.

Zainab Bello, 41, Medical Geneticist, Lagos, Nigeria:
Your work on intellectual disability genetics was groundbreaking, but I wonder about the ethical frameworks of that era. When you were collecting family histories and IQ data in the 1950s and 60s, how did you navigate questions of consent and privacy? Did you ever worry that your research might be misused to justify discriminatory practices, even though your findings actually challenged eugenic thinking?

My dear, you’ve touched on something that kept me awake many nights, I can tell you. The ethical landscape in the 1950s was quite different – we didn’t have institutional review boards or formal consent protocols. Much of what we did would be unthinkable today, and rightly so.

When we began our family studies, the prevailing approach was rather paternalistic. Families were grateful that medical professionals were taking interest in their situations – intellectual disability carried tremendous stigma then, and most families felt isolated and blamed. We explained our research goals, certainly, but “informed consent” as you understand it today simply didn’t exist as a formal concept.

I confess, we sometimes gathered information through what you might call social networks rather than direct family contact. School records, medical files, conversations with neighbours – sources that wouldn’t pass modern ethical review. The families we interviewed directly were usually eager to participate, hoping our research might help their children or prevent similar conditions in future generations.

But your concern about misuse was absolutely prescient. The eugenics movement was still influential in American medicine – forced sterilisation laws remained on the books in many states. I watched colleagues draw troubling conclusions from genetic data, advocating policies that would have violated basic human dignity. Buck v. Bell hadn’t been overturned, remember. The idea that “feeblemindedness” was simply inherited was deeply embedded in medical thinking.

Our findings actually challenged eugenic assumptions, which created some tension. When we demonstrated that most intellectual disability arose from environmental factors and new mutations rather than simple genetic inheritance, certain colleagues were, shall we say, less than enthusiastic. Some questioned whether our work should be published at all.

I worried constantly that our data might be twisted to justify discriminatory practices. We tried to frame our conclusions carefully – emphasising complexity, environmental influences, the importance of support rather than prohibition. But once research is published, you lose control over how it’s interpreted.

The families themselves taught me the most about ethics. They shared their most private struggles, their fears, their hopes for their children. That trust was sacred. I came to believe that our primary obligation was to these families – to ensure our work served their interests, not institutional agendas.

Looking back, we should have been more explicit about confidentiality protections and long-term data use. We should have involved families more directly in interpreting findings. But given the constraints of our time, I believe we tried to conduct research that honoured human dignity, even when formal ethical frameworks didn’t yet exist.

Leon Schmidt, 52, Philosophy of Science Professor, Berlin, Germany:
Your transition from bench science to historical scholarship represents a fascinating epistemological shift – from studying what exists to studying what has been forgotten. Did this change how you think about the nature of scientific knowledge itself? Do you see your historical detective work as equally ‘scientific’ as your genetics research, and what does that say about how we define science?

Professor Schmidt, you’ve identified something I’ve pondered for decades – whether my shift from laboratory bench to historical archive represented a fundamental change in how I approached knowledge, or merely applied the same investigative instincts to different materials.

When I began studying forgotten women scientists in the 1980s, I initially thought I was leaving science behind. But the more I worked in archives, the more I recognised familiar patterns. Hypothesis formation, evidence gathering, careful analysis of data – whether that data consisted of Drosophila wing measurements or nineteenth-century correspondence, the intellectual process remained remarkably similar.

Consider my work on Eunice Foote. I started with a hypothesis: that women had made significant scientific contributions before the Civil War that had been overlooked. Then I gathered evidence – searched through scientific journals, checked attribution records, traced citations and references. I analysed patterns of publication, compared discoveries to later work by men who received credit. The methodology was thoroughly scientific, even if the subject matter was historical.

But you raise a deeper question about the nature of scientific knowledge itself. My genetics research revealed what existed – allele frequencies, inheritance patterns, species relationships. My historical work revealed what had been erased – discoveries attributed to others, contributions forgotten, entire careers written out of the record.

This taught me that scientific knowledge isn’t simply discovered; it’s constructed through social processes of recognition, attribution, and memory. The “scientific method” we learned about in graduate school – objective observation leading to universal truths – proved more complicated when I saw how systematically certain observations had been ignored or misattributed.

I came to believe that studying the social construction of knowledge is as scientific as studying natural phenomena. Both require rigorous methods, careful documentation, willingness to follow evidence wherever it leads. My historical detective work used the same statistical thinking I’d applied to population genetics – looking for patterns, testing hypotheses against available data, drawing conclusions based on weight of evidence.

The epistemological shift you mention was really about expanding my definition of what constitutes legitimate scientific inquiry. Understanding how knowledge gets produced, transmitted, and sometimes lost seemed as important as producing new knowledge. Perhaps more important, actually – if we don’t understand these processes, we remain blind to our own biases and limitations.

So yes, I consider my historical scholarship genuinely scientific work. It revealed reproducible patterns about how scientific institutions function, how credit gets assigned, how certain kinds of contributions become invisible. That knowledge has practical applications – it can help us create more inclusive, more accurate scientific communities.

The archive and the laboratory turned out to be remarkably similar territories for exploration.

Sora Kim, 26, Science Policy Researcher, Seoul, South Korea:
You’ve experienced both the excitement of scientific discovery and the frustration of gender-based exclusion. If you could speak to young women today who are considering leaving STEM fields due to similar barriers, what would you tell them? Has the fundamental nature of institutional resistance changed, or are we still fighting the same battles with different language?

Oh my dear, what a question to ask an old geneticist! You know, I’ve watched several generations of brilliant young women face these same struggles, and it breaks my heart that we’re still having this conversation in your time.

The fundamental nature of institutional resistance? I’m afraid it’s rather like those genetic traits we studied – it persists across generations, though it may change its outward expression. In my day, the barriers were quite explicit. Nepotism rules that prevented wives from holding positions alongside their husbands. Department heads who simply stated that women weren’t suited for serious research. Journals that credited discoveries to male colleagues automatically.

Today’s barriers seem more subtle from what I observe, but perhaps no less effective. I hear about “pipeline problems” and “work-life balance” as if these were natural phenomena rather than institutional choices. The language has certainly become more sophisticated – no one says women can’t do science anymore, they just create conditions that make it extraordinarily difficult.

But here’s what I’d tell those young women considering leaving: your very presence changes everything, whether you recognise it or not. When I started graduate school in 1932, I was often the only woman in my courses. By the time I retired, that had shifted considerably. Not because institutions suddenly became enlightened, but because women like you and me simply refused to disappear.

The work itself – the pure joy of discovery, of understanding how living systems function – that hasn’t changed one bit. When I was measuring wing beat frequencies or tracking inheritance patterns, the science was so compelling that institutional nonsense became background noise. Find that passion, that curiosity that makes you forget everything else exists, and hold onto it fiercely.

Build networks. The women I studied in the nineteenth century understood this instinctively – they corresponded with each other, shared resources, cited each other’s work. They created their own systems of support when formal institutions excluded them. Find your tribe, support each other’s research, celebrate each other’s successes.

And document everything. Keep records of your contributions, publish under your own name, insist on proper attribution. The historical erasure I studied happened partly because women were too modest, too willing to let others take credit. Don’t make that mistake.

Most importantly, remember that excellent science is the best response to doubt. When people question your capabilities, let your research speak for itself. I may have been excluded from official positions, but nobody could argue with my data.

The barriers are real, dear, but so is your talent. Don’t let them steal that from you.

Reflection

Elizabeth Wagner Reed passed away on 13th July 1996 at the age of 84, leaving behind a dual legacy that exemplifies the very invisibility she spent her later years documenting. Through our conversation, Reed emerged not merely as a scientist who happened to study women’s erasure, but as someone whose personal experience of institutional exclusion became the foundation for groundbreaking historical scholarship.

What strikes me most profoundly is Reed’s quiet persistence – working for decades without official recognition whilst producing research that would influence both population genetics and feminist science studies. Her account of being credited as “Mrs Reed” despite being first author reveals the casual mechanisms through which women’s contributions vanished from the scientific record. These weren’t dramatic acts of suppression, but mundane editorial choices that accumulated into historical erasure.

Reed’s perspective diverges from some biographical accounts in her emphasis on the technical precision required for her Drosophila work and her frank acknowledgement of methodological limitations. The historical record remains contested regarding the exact nature of her institutional status at Minnesota, though her influence on human genetics counselling appears more substantial than early accounts suggested.

Her rediscovery of forgotten scientists like Eunice Foote presaged today’s efforts to recover marginalised voices in STEM history. Reed’s documentation of what she called “patterns of exclusion” provided crucial groundwork for scholars like Margaret Rossiter, whose concept of the “Matilda Effect” formally named the phenomenon Reed had been studying since the 1950s.

Perhaps most remarkably, Reed’s work anticipated contemporary discussions about bias in scientific institutions and the importance of diverse perspectives in research. Her insistence that studying scientific bias was itself rigorous scientific work feels remarkably prescient given today’s data-driven approaches to understanding inequality in STEM.

Reed mapped both genetic variations and historiographical absences with equal precision, proving that the most transformative science often emerges from studying what others have chosen to overlook. Her legacy reminds us that true scientific progress requires not just technical innovation, but the courage to question whose contributions we choose to remember.

Who have we missed?

This series is all about recovering the voices history left behind – and I’d love your help finding the next one. If there’s a woman in STEM you think deserves to be interviewed in this way – whether a forgotten inventor, unsung technician, or overlooked researcher – please share her story.

Email me at voxmeditantis@gmail.com or leave a comment below with your suggestion – even just a name is a great start. Let’s keep uncovering the women who shaped science and innovation, one conversation at a time.

Editorial Note: This interview represents a dramatised reconstruction based on extensive historical research into Elizabeth Wagner Reed‘s life and work. While grounded in documented facts about her scientific contributions, personal circumstances, and historical context, the dialogue and specific anecdotes are imaginatively constructed to bring her story to life for contemporary readers. Reed’s actual voice, opinions, and recollections may have differed from this portrayal. We have strived for historical accuracy whilst acknowledging the creative licence inherent in reconstructing conversations with figures from the past. This approach aims to honour Reed’s legacy whilst making her remarkable contributions accessible to modern audiences.

Bob Lynn | © 2025 Vox Meditantis. All rights reserved. | 🌐 Translate