Two Out of Sixteen: The Nobel Committee’s 124-Year Accountability Problem

An Editorial Perspective from SheSight

When the final Nobel Prize of 2025 was announced over the last week, the numbers told a familiar story: two women among sixteen laureates. Just 12.5%. Another year, another reminder that the highest echelons of recognition in science, literature, and peace remain overwhelmingly male domains.

We celebrate Mary E. Brunkow and María Corina Machado—we absolutely do. Their achievements are extraordinary, their contributions undeniable. But as an editorial board committed to advancing women’s voices and visibility, we must ask the harder questions: Why, in 2025, are we still having this conversation? And more importantly, what does this tell us about the systems that claim to reward merit?

The Women Who Broke Through

Let’s begin where celebration is due. Mary E. Brunkow’s work on peripheral immune tolerance has opened revolutionary pathways in treating cancer and autoimmune diseases. Her research, conducted alongside Fred Ramsdell and Shimon Sakaguchi, fundamentally reshaped our understanding of how the immune system distinguishes friend from foe. This isn’t just academic—it’s work that will save lives, that will change the trajectory of medicine for generations.

María Corina Machado stands as a different kind of revolutionary. The Venezuelan opposition leader received the Nobel Peace Prize for keeping “the flame of democracy burning amid a growing darkness.” In a world where authoritarian regimes are resurgent and democratic backsliding feels inevitable, Machado’s courage isn’t merely symbolic—it’s existential. She was barred from running for president in her own country. She faces persecution. Yet she persists.

These women didn’t win consolation prizes. They didn’t benefit from affirmative action or diversity initiatives. They earned their Nobel Prizes through decades of exceptional work, often accomplished against odds their male colleagues never faced.

And that’s precisely the point.

The Numbers Don’t Lie—But They Don’t Tell the Whole Story Either

Twelve point five percent. Let that sink in.

When we survey the complete 2025 laureates—John Clarke, Michel H. Devoret, and John M. Martinis in Physics; Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson, and Omar M. Yaghi in Chemistry; László Krasznahorkai in Literature; Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt in Economics—we see accomplished men who undoubtedly deserve recognition.

But we also see a pattern that has persisted since the Nobel Prize’s inception in 1901: women comprise only about 6% of all Nobel laureates in history. In 2025, we managed to double that historic average. Should we celebrate? Or should we be asking why, 124 years later, this is still remarkable?

The standard defense goes something like this: “The Nobel Prize recognizes the best work, regardless of gender. If only 12.5% of winners are women, perhaps that reflects who did the best work.” It’s a seductive argument—meritocracy is comforting. It tells us the system works, that cream rises to the top, that excellence is gender-blind.

Except the data doesn’t support this narrative.

The Myth of Pure Meritocracy

Consider the pipeline. Women now earn approximately 50% of biology PhDs. Yet in 2025, only one woman won in Physiology or Medicine—sharing the prize with two men. In physics, where women earn about 30% of PhDs (lower, yes, but not negligible), zero women won. In economics, zero. In literature, zero. In chemistry, zero.

If this were pure meritocracy, we’d expect some variation, some years where women’s representation exceeds their field participation, balancing years where it falls short. Instead, we see consistent underrepresentation across decades, across disciplines, across every metric that matters.

This isn’t tokenism—the women who win aren’t diversity hires. But neither is it pure competition. It’s something more insidious: a system that looks meritocratic while systematically disadvantaging women at every turn.

The Invisible Barriers

Here’s what we know from decades of research on women in STEM and leadership:

The Attribution Gap: When men and women collaborate on research, credit disproportionately flows to male colleagues. Women’s contributions are minimized, their ideas attributed to men in the room, their leadership questioned. By the time Nobel committees are looking at decades-old research, these attribution errors have calcified into “fact.”

The Network Effect: Nobel nominations come from select networks—previous laureates, academy members, distinguished professors. These networks are overwhelmingly male. Not because of conspiracy, but because senior positions in science are overwhelmingly male. Who you know matters as much as what you know, and women are systematically excluded from these networks.

The Confidence Gap That Isn’t: Studies show women scientists are just as confident as men about their own work. What’s different? They’re less likely to be believed. They’re interrupted more in meetings. Their grant applications are scrutinized more harshly. Their papers take longer to publish and are cited less frequently—even when controlling for quality and impact.

The Motherhood Penalty: The years when scientists typically do their Nobel-worthy work—late 30s through 50s—coincide exactly with prime childbearing and child-rearing years. Women who take time for family pay a career price that men simply don’t face. Not because they’re less committed, but because institutions haven’t adapted to support scientists who are also mothers.

The Rosalind Franklin Effect: We name it after the most famous example, but it’s pervasive: women who do groundbreaking work that male colleagues then get credit for. Franklin’s X-ray crystallography was essential to discovering DNA’s structure, yet Watson, Crick, and Wilkins won the Nobel. How many modern Rosalind Franklins are we missing?

What This Means for SheSight Readers

If you’re a young woman considering a career in science, what message does 12.5% send? That you’ll have to be twice as good to be recognized? That even if you make groundbreaking discoveries, credit might go to your male lab director? That the highest honors in your field go to people who don’t look like you?

If you’re a woman already in the pipeline—grinding through your PhD, fighting for postdoc funding, navigating the tenure track—does this feel like a fair fight? When you see sixteen Nobel laureates and only two are women, does that reflect your experience of who’s doing brilliant work in your lab, your department, your field?

If you’re a parent deciding whether to encourage your daughter’s passion for physics or chemistry or economics, does 12.5% representation at the pinnacle of these fields give you confidence she’ll have equal opportunity?

The answer matters because representation isn’t about feel-good diversity initiatives. It’s about whether we’re actually identifying and rewarding the best work, or just the work that fits existing power structures.

The Way Forward Isn’t Mysterious

We know what works. Not because it’s theoretical, but because institutions that have implemented these practices show measurable improvement:

Transparent evaluation criteria eliminate subjective bias in hiring, funding, and promotion decisions. When committees must justify decisions against objective metrics, gender disparities shrink.

Blind review processes for grants and papers reduce bias. When evaluators don’t know the applicant’s gender, women’s success rates increase.

Diverse selection committees make better decisions. Homogeneous groups suffer from groupthink and reproduce their own image. Diverse committees identify excellence in more forms.

Family-friendly policies that actually work—not just on paper but in practice. Tenure clock extensions, childcare support, part-time research positions that don’t end careers.

Mentorship and sponsorship programs that connect women with the networks they need to advance. Not because women need more help, but because informal networks have always been where men gain advantage.

Credit attribution systems that accurately track who contributed what to collaborative research. Technology makes this possible; we just need the will to implement it.

A Challenge to the Nobel Committees

The Nobel Prize committees operate in secrecy, which makes change difficult. But here’s what we know: they could do better. They could examine their nomination processes for bias. They could actively seek diverse nominators. They could look at whether their criteria inadvertently favor certain types of work over others—work that men are more likely to do because men are more likely to have the resources, time, and support to do it.

And they could stop pretending that recognizing two women among sixteen laureates represents adequate progress.

Our Commitment

At SheSight, we will continue spotlighting women’s achievements—not as “women’s accomplishments” separate from “real accomplishments,” but as integral parts of human progress. We will continue investigating the systems that hold women back, not to make excuses, but to dismantle barriers.

Mary E. Brunkow’s work on immune tolerance deserves every bit of recognition it received. María Corina Machado’s courage in defending democracy deserves to be celebrated worldwide. These women earned their place in history.

But they shouldn’t be exceptional for being women who achieved exceptional things. In a truly equitable world, two out of sixteen would be a statistical anomaly, not another year’s expected outcome.

Until that world exists, we’ll keep counting. We’ll keep questioning. And we’ll keep pushing for the day when a woman winning a Nobel Prize is newsworthy for her discovery, not for her gender.

---

The SheSight Editorial Board is committed to advancing women’s voices in science, leadership, and society. We welcome your thoughts on this perspective at [email protected]

If you are here, reading this article, you are probably interested in elevating your aspirations, taking bold leadership and leading a more meaningful life. At ShePower Club, we offer worldwide sisterhood for driven women like you! – A platform to connect, develop and amplify your voice

Come, Join the ShePower Movement!