💌 Weekly: She ignored a spam call...

It was the Nobel Committee

The Female Quotient
March 31, 2026 • Estimated Reading Time: 13 minutes

WHAT’S ON DECK

Tell Me More: The science of recognition…who gets the Nobel and why
FQ Leaders Spotlight: Angela Vranich, Co-founder & Chief Product Officer, Little Spoon
Dear FQ: How do I advocate for management to be more communicative without sounding entitled?
Poll the Pack: The most underrated way to get ahead at work

TELL ME MORE

Who gets credit for scientific breakthroughs?

At 1 a.m., Dr. Mary E. Brunkow did what most of us would do when an international number lights up our phone…she ignored it. It was the middle of the night, and she assumed it was spam. It wasn’t until later that morning, when she opened her door to find a photographer holding a press release, that the moment finally landed. She had just won the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Dr. Brunkow, alongside Fred Ramsdell and Dr. Shimon Sakaguchi, was honored for discoveries that revealed how the immune system knows not to attack the body. Their breakthroughs have reshaped our understanding of autoimmune diseases like lupus, arthritis, and Type 1 diabetes. Winning a Nobel Prize is extraordinary for anyone. But for women, it carries additional weight because of who has historically been left out.

The Nobel Prize was established in the will of Alfred Nobel, the Swedish chemist and inventor of dynamite, with the intention of honoring those who “shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” First awarded in 1901 across five categories, Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace, the prize later expanded to include Economic Sciences in 1968.

In its 125-year history, the numbers tell a troubling story. Just over 6% of all Nobel Prize winners are women, 67 women compared to 1,055 men. And of all the winners, they’ve been mostly white and mostly American. No Black person of either gender has ever won in any of the core categories for science.

At the very beginning, there was reason for optimism. In 1903, Marie Curie became the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, sharing the Physics award with Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel for their work on radiation. Eight years later, she won again, this time alone, for Chemistry, after discovering radium and polonium. In fact, Marie Curie is still the only person, man or woman, to have ever received the prize in two different science categories. Since her win in Physics, only four other women have claimed the same prize; in Chemistry, only eight. In 2018, when Donna Strickland became aware that she was only the third woman to win in Physics, she asked, “Is that all, really?” Really.

While women have had more representation in Literature and Peace, the sciences remain starkly unequal. Only 30 women, compared to over 650 men, have won Nobel Prizes in scientific fields. The imbalance has sparked international attention in recent years. Women were entirely absent from the list in 2012, 2016, 2017, 2021, and 2024, when only men were recognized in the science categories.

Even when women have made foundational discoveries, they’ve often been erased. Take DNA, objectively one of the most important scientific breakthroughs in history. Much of recorded history credits James Watson and Francis Crick, but actually, Rosalind Franklin played a huge role in cracking the code of life.

In the 1950s, Rosalind Franklin, a chemist and X-ray crystallographer, was researching the structure of DNA alongside Maurice Wilkins. Without her consent, Wilkins provided Francis Crick and James Watson with her X-ray diffraction photo of DNA (the infamous Photograph 51), as well as her unpublished research. This proved instrumental in their discovery of the double-helix nature of DNA. But when Watson and Crick published their papers in 1953, they excluded her name. In 1962, Wilkins, Crick, and Watson received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. It wasn’t until years later that she received recognition for her crucial contribution.

The process of choosing who wins a Nobel Prize is shrouded in secrecy. For any award, there is a 50-year moratorium on disclosing any information regarding the evaluations and nominations…meaning scrutiny and accountability are delayed by design.

It wasn’t until 2018 that the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and The Karolinska Institute explicitly encouraged nominators to consider gender and geography. It also took over a century for more women scientists to be invited to participate on Nobel Committees themselves. No wonder only 6% of all Nobel Prize winners have been women.

A study of the Nobel Prize awarding process found a 96% probability of bias against women. Historically, nominees have been evaluated based on their publications and leadership. With fewer women in leadership for the sciences, they are at a systemic disadvantage, making stories like Rosalind Franklin’s all the more common. That’s because in these fields, women were still considered an anomaly.

That imbalance begins early. Educational gendering starts in childhood, particularly in STEM. In one hiring experiment, researchers found that both men and women were biased against women’s math abilities. When shown only a candidate's photo, participants overwhelmingly chose men. Even when given real performance data, the bias persisted.

And while there has been progress, barriers remain. Women in STEM experience The Matilda Effect, where their work is cited less frequently, or worse, misattributed to men. Women are even at a disadvantage when it comes to publishing their findings. In economics, it takes a woman 6 months longer to successfully go through a review process, despite outperforming men when it comes to writing clarity.

Caregiving expectations compound the problem. Many women have to choose between their career and family life. If you want proof, just look at the women who have won a Nobel Prize. They are 63% less likely than male laureates to be married and 55% less likely to have kids.

While more women are pursuing STEM disciplines than ever before, there remains a glass ceiling that has yet to be cracked. If science truly values discovery, progress, and truth, it may be time to pull a meta move: study itself.

FQ LEADERS SPOTLIGHT

These Troublemakers don’t fit the mold, and they don’t try to.

Angela Vranich is literally feeding the next generation. She is the Co-Founder and Chief Product Officer of Little Spoon, a subscription-based service offering fresh, nutritionally-optimized food for babies and kids. While she began her career in food-related TV production, Angela decided to follow her passion for organic food. She saw an opportunity to reinvent baby and kids’ food. Most recently, Forbes Magazine ranked Little Spoon as #1 for Best Kids Meal Delivery Services.

What’s the worst career advice you’ve gotten?

When I chose marketing as my college major, my mom told me I should pick accounting instead because there would always be a need for accountants. She wasn’t wrong, but I would’ve made a terrible accountant. Thankfully, I passed up the calculator and followed my gut and creativity instead.

What’s the best piece of non-obvious career advice you’ve gotten?

Don’t build in a bubble. It’s easy to fall in love with your own ideas, but the best products come from really listening to your customers. At Little Spoon, we’ve built a direct relationship with our community. We consistently ask questions and gather feedback. That open dialogue has shaped everything from our product innovation to our digital experience.

What was a heartbeat moment for you in your career?

It was after a milestone year when we surprised our entire team with a company-wide retreat to Mexico. It was a full-circle moment seeing employees’ reactions and realizing we had built something that not only nourished families, but also created a culture worth celebrating.

Who is one person you’d love to give flowers to from your career that influenced your journey? What advice or lesson did you learn from them?

I’d give flowers to Ben Lewis. He’s not only my husband, but a Co-Founder of Little Spoon. Starting a business with your partner isn’t for everyone, but we always challenge and support one another to think bigger. He’s taught me that optimism and rigor can coexist, and that you can dream big and still sweat the details.

Where have you caused some good trouble in your career?

By bringing transparency to baby food. We voluntarily aligned our safety testing with EU standards, because the U.S. system wasn’t enough. Parents deserve to know what’s in their kids’ food. That kind of disruption doesn’t make you popular in every room, but it’s the kind of “good trouble” I’m proud to keep causing.

Want to nominate a “Troublemaker” you admire? You can do so here.

DEAR FQ

Your burning career questions answered

Sydney Kramer of The Female Quotient weighs in:

It’s completely reasonable to want transparency. Your psychological safety depends on it. The key is how you ask. The goal isn’t to sound entitled: “I deserve to know because I work here.” The goal is to come from a place of strategy: “I would like information earlier so I can do my job well.”

A check-in might sound like this: “I want to make sure I’m prioritizing appropriately. If there are any conversations happening that could shift our goals, I’d appreciate a heads-up so I can focus on other projects while decisions are being finalized.” That language shows respect for the decision-making process and a focus on the bigger picture. Remember, it’s all about doing great work, not office politics.

And for leaders, this is the other half of the equation. You don’t need to have all the answers to communicate. Silence creates more anxiety than honesty ever will. When information is withheld, teams feel uncertain. Transparency, even when things are still unfolding, signals trust.

When employees and leaders communicate with clarity and intention, teams stay focused, effective, and grounded, even when the path forward is still taking shape.

P.S. Got a burning career question? Serve it up here to Dear FQ to score advice from a powerhouse leader in our network.

POLL THE PACK

Career advancement is a team sport

When people think about advancing at work, they usually focus on performance, execution, and professional development. Those things matter, but they’re not the whole story. One of the most underrated drivers of growth is relationships.

Nearly 46% of employees say connecting across teams is what actually helps them move forward. That’s because progress doesn’t come from staying in your lane; it comes from understanding how the lanes intersect. People who build relationships across functions gain context, trust, and influence. They know how decisions get made, who to involve, and how to move ideas forward.

Consistency matters too. 30% of employees point to simply showing up. That means being reliable, prepared, and present, choosing sustained dependability over performative hustle.

The leaders organizations trust are defined by relationships built over time, supporting one another, and being someone people can count on.

To giving credit where it's due and taking it when it’s yours.

Xo,

The FQ

Don’t forget to let us know what you think of The FQ Newsletter here.