Female naturalists and the patterns of suppression of women scientists in history: the example of Maria Sibylla Merian and her contributions about useful plants

BACKGROUND: This work reunites many women naturalists who registered knowledge about native flora in scientific expeditions around the globe between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Since male naturalists are more recognized in this period of time, we aimed to list female naturalists that published plant descriptions and observations, focusing on the work of Maria Sibylla Merian and to analyze her trajectory as an example to discuss the patterns of the suppression of women scientists. A second aim was to inventory the useful plants described in Maria Sibylla’s Metamorphosis Insectorum Surinamensium and find pharmacological evidence about the traditional uses described for those plants cited as medicinal and toxic. METHODS: A survey of female naturalists was carried out by searching information in Pubmed, Scielo, Google Scholar and Virtual Health Library. Once Maria Sibylla published her book Metamorphosis Insectorum Surinamensium by her own, without male co-authors, and also this book is one of the only to have text and illustrations altogether and there are reports indicating information on useful plants in this work, she and her book were chosen as subject of this research. All the information was tabulated by dividing the plants into food, medicinal, toxic, aromatic or other uses. Finally, with the combinations of the scientific name of medicinal and toxic plants with information about their popular uses, a search was carried out in databases in order to indicate current pharmacological studies that reported evidences about the traditional uses described. RESULTS: We found 28 women naturalists who participated in scientific expeditions or trips, or in a curiosity cabinet, or who were collectors of Natural History between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. All these women illustrated botanical species and/or recorded their everyday or medicinal use or reported their observations in the form of a published work, letters or diaries. Also, the trajectory of Maria Sibylla Merian revealed that her scientific relevance has been neglected from the eighteenth century by mechanisms of suppression, most of the time by male depreciation, which can be seen as a pattern for suppression of women in science. However, Maria Sibyllas’ contributions have been valued again in the twenty-first century. In Maria Sibylla’s work, 54 plants were identified, 26 of them used for food, 4 of them aromatic, 8 medicinal, 4 toxic and 9 other uses. CONCLUSION: This study evidences that there are female naturalists whose work could be an important source for ethnopharmacological studies. Researching about women scientists, talking about them and highlighting the gender bias present in the scientific academy about the way the history of science is told is essential for the construction of a more diverse and richer scientific academy. The traditional use of 7 of 8 medicinal plants and 3 of 4 toxic plants reported was correlated with pharmacological studies, highlighting the importance of this historical record and its potential to direct strategic research in traditional medicine.