After a long career at the National Center for Health Statistics, I retired and joined the Stanford Prevention Research Center as an unpaid associate. I was once described by a former US Food and Drug Administration commissioner as “one of the great epidemiologists.” The chair of the Harvard nutrition department, speaking on National Public Radio, once described my research as “rubbish.” Both may be exaggerations. Here I address some of the events that led to these contrasting descriptions. I also address the extent to which the so-called Matilda effect may have influenced my career. Are women in science on an equal footing with men? The Matilda effect suggests not. Unlike the Matthew effect for scientists, whereby those of higher prestige accrue a disproportionate share of recognition and rewards, the Matilda effect proposes that women scientists are systematically undervalued and underrecognized. I could never get a faculty job and was often treated like an underling. Nonetheless I persevered to publish highly cited research on several high-profile and sometimes controversial topics. Though overt sexism in science and workplaces has diminished over the course of my career, progress toward eliminating unconscious bias has been slower. The Matthew and Matilda effects are still powerful forces that distort incentives and rewards in science.

中文翻译：

---

女性从事研究工作

在国家卫生统计中心工作了很长时间后，我退休并作为一名无薪助理加入了斯坦福预防研究中心。美国前食品和药物管理局局长曾形容我为“伟大的流行病学家之一”。哈佛营养系主任在国家公共广播电台讲话时曾将我的研究描述为“垃圾”。两者都可能有些夸张。在这里，我将阐述一些导致这些截然不同的描述的事件。我还谈到了所谓的玛蒂尔达效应可能在多大程度上影响了我的职业生涯。女性在科学领域与男性享有平等地位吗？玛蒂尔达效应表明并非如此。与科学家的马太效应不同的是，那些享有较高声望的科学家获得了不成比例的认可和奖励，而玛蒂尔达效应则表明女性科学家被系统性地低估和认可。我永远无法找到一份教职，而且经常被当作下属对待。尽管如此，我仍然坚持发表了关于几个备受瞩目且有时有争议的主题的被高度引用的研究。尽管在我的职业生涯中，科学和工作场所中明显的性别歧视有所减少，但消除无意识偏见的进展却较慢。马太效应和玛蒂尔达效应仍然是扭曲科学激励和奖励的强大力量。