Rosalind Franklin stands alone. The pioneering chemist whose X-ray diffraction images unlocked the structure of DNA is the sole female scientist explicitly named in the GCSE and National 5 science specifications taught across the United Kingdom, according to a major new analysis of exam board content.
Researchers from the University of Cambridge, collaborating with colleagues in the United States and Australia, audited the syllabuses of six major qualification providers. They found that of the 86 individual scientists referenced in Key Stage 4 biology, chemistry, physics, environmental science, geology and astronomy courses, not a single other woman appears by name.
A persistent absence at every level
The disparity does not end at 16. At Key Stage 5 — encompassing A-levels, Scottish Highers and Advanced Highers — the picture improves only marginally. Three women are cited among 181 named scientists. Alongside Franklin, who features in Cambridge OCR’s GCSE Biology and Scottish Highers Biology, the only other female names belong to Marie Tharp, the American cartographer who mapped the Atlantic ocean floor, and Inge Lehmann, the Danish seismologist who discovered the Earth’s solid inner core. Both appear exclusively in Cambridge OCR’s A-level Geology specification.
Franklin’s inclusion is itself narrow. She is credited for Photograph 51, the famous X-ray diffraction image that allowed Francis Crick and James Watson to deduce the double-helix structure in 1953. Watson, Crick and Franklin’s colleague Maurice Wilkins received the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Franklin had died of ovarian cancer four years earlier, aged 37. Nobel rules prohibit posthumous awards.
Historical imbalance reflected in modern curricula
The study, published in the British Educational Research Journal, argues that exam specifications act as a mirror for a deeper historical bias. “Many of the scientific discoveries and explanations were developed in the 1800s and early 1900s, a period when scientific and mathematical practice was largely, but not solely, dominated by men,” the paper states. “Our findings confirm that the UK science specifications reflect this historical imbalance: although women made significant contributions to major scientific breakthroughs, this fact is rarely acknowledged.”
The authors identify several “major scientific breakthroughs” in the curriculum where women played pivotal roles but go uncredited. They recommend that Franklin be included in every specification covering DNA structure. They also urge boards to name Marie Curie — the only person to win Nobel Prizes in two different sciences — and Lise Meitner, the physicist who co-discovered nuclear fission, among others.
The role model deficit
Stephanie Buttigieg, one of the paper’s authors, warned that the omission has tangible consequences for the pipeline of future scientists. “Relatable role models can help keep more girls in STEM by strengthening their sense of belonging in science and fostering positive attitudes towards scientific careers,” she said.
The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ), representing AQA, Cambridge OCR, CCEA, WJEC and Pearson, acknowledged the gap. A spokeswoman said exam boards recognise “a clear need for greater representation in science qualifications, and this is an area they will be focusing on as these qualifications are reformed.”
Qualifications Scotland pointed to its Curriculum Improvement Cycle as an opportunity to address gender representation in future assessments. The Department for Education in England said it was “committed to improving the school curriculum over the coming years, and as part of that will make sure every girl can see where their learning can take them.” The Scottish Government pledged to “carefully consider the findings of this research” as part of its drive to close the gender gap in STEM.
Why it Matters
Specifications are more than administrative documents; they define the canon of school science. When a 15-year-old opens a textbook and sees 85 men and one woman, the message is unambiguous: scientific genius is male. Correcting that record is not about tokenism — it is about accuracy. Curie, Meitner, Tharp, Lehmann and countless others did not merely assist discovery; they drove it. Writing them back into the curriculum tells girls that there is a place for them at the bench, and it tells boys that science has always been a collective human endeavour. The exam boards have acknowledged the problem; the test now is whether the next round of reforms delivers more than warm words.
