In 1897 Max Planck wrote the following about the question of whether women should be allowed to study at German universities: “If a woman has a special gift for the tasks of theoretical physics…I do not think it right, both personally and impersonally, to refuse her the chance and means of studying for reasons of principle.” But then he added: “On the other hand, I must keep to the fact that such a case must always be regarded just as an exception. Generally, it cannot be emphasized enough that nature herself prescribes to a woman her function as mother and housewife.”

Lise Meitner (1878-1968) had to fight hard her entire life to be recognized in what was, and still is, a science dominated by men. In this fascinating biography of Meitner, Patricia Rife -a historian at the University of Hawaii – emphasizes the gender issue and dwells on the hard times Meitner had in creating a position in science for herself. Yet I would not classify Rife’s study as gender history. It merely puts much emphasis on the fact that Meitner was a female physicist, hence an exception, or even a curiosity, in the European physics community in the early part of 20th century.

Determined to make a career in physics, Meitner became the first female physicist to have a doctoral dissertation accepted at the University of Vienna. She was a pioneer in the study of radioactivity, did important work in nuclear physics and played a crucial role in the complex process that led to the discovery of nuclear fission in late 1938. Her life was not particularly eventful, but it was not without controversy. Two issues in particular contributed to the drama of Meitner’s life: her gender and the discovery of fission. And as Rife makes clear, these issues were closely intertwined.

Rife’s biography is at its best when it is describing Meitner’s life in the context of contemporary social, cultural and political circumstances. Thus the chapters dealing with her situation during the 1930s convey a vivid sense of the dilemmas that many scientists in German-dominated Europe faced about the policy of National Socialism. Although there is little new in Rife’s account, it summarizes well the state of affairs in the Third Reich and its impact on the life of one particular physicist. It is good contextual history and makes an excellent read.

Unfortunately, Rife’s account is flawed by a number of unnecessary errors and inaccuracies. Some of these are relatively harmless, others less so. For example, she evidently mixes up Ida Noddack’s 1925 discovery of the element rhenium with Noddack’s much later (1934) criticism of Fermi’s claim of the discovery of transuranic elements. The American Edwin McMillan received a Nobel prize in chemistry and not, as stated by Rife, in physics. The Carlsberg Mansion was not given to Niels Bohr “upon receipt of his Nobel Prize”, as Rife claims; Bohr and his family only moved into the mansion in 1932, some 10 years after receiving the prize. Many other errors could also be mentioned.

Nevertheless, the book is generally well documented and based on many years of research, including a substantial number of interviews. Yet I feel that Rife could have done more and better. Like several other historians, she focuses on the 1944 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, which was awarded for the discovery of fission but given to Otto Hahn alone – a grave injustice, according to Rife. Given that Rife has visited the Nobel Foundation’s archive in Stockholm, the book has surprisingly little to say about the nomination procedure and the evaluation of Meitner. And it is plainly wrong for her to write that the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences accepts only nominations from previous Nobel laureates and members of the academy. It is such “information” that makes the critical reader a bit suspicious about the details of Rife’s biography.

It strikes me that the book, in spite of its documentation and insightful descriptions, is a somewhat unbalanced and uncritical study of Meitner’s life and career. It is always a danger for biographers to identify themselves too closely with their subject, which may easily lead towards hagiography. My suspicion is that Rife has not fully avoided this trap. Meitner is one-sidedly depicted as both a heroine and victim, a brilliant scientist who was almost always right (morally as well as scientifically) but never properly recognized for her great discoveries. It is most surprising that Meitner’s decade-long controversy over the beta spectrum with James Chadwick and Charles Ellis is only hinted at. Indeed, Ellis does not appear in the book at all. The reader is also never told that the outcome of this controversy was (roughly speaking) that Ellis was right and Meitner wrong. Why not? Why focus only on Meitner’s successes and ignore her failures?

If Meitner is the heroine of the book, Hahn is depicted as a bad character and the source of much of Meitner’s agony. With regard to his role in the late 1930s, Meitner’s life-long collaborator is accused of “appeasement, professional cowardice, and worse”. Rife is unable, or unwilling, to judge Hahn’s actions empathically, say from the perspective of Hahn himself. She is quite willing to excuse Meitner’s lack of opposition to National Socialism, but with Hahn it is another matter: “We should be aghast at Otto Hahn’s behaviour, his complacency in the face of Nazi Germany, and the absence of any remorse for his treatment of Meitner and countless others who fled.” Although Hahn’s behaviour can (and perhaps should) be criticized, I find it hard to share Rife’s boundless condemnation. The case of the “stolen” Nobel prize and the Meitner-Hahn relationship is not as black-and-white as Rife presents it.

In spite of its weaknesses, Rife’s biography is an interesting account of Meitner’s life. Unfortunately, the book must compete with Ruth Sime’s biography Lise Meitner: A Life in Physics (University of California Press 1996), which in most respects is a superior work (see Physics World May 1996 p51). Compared with Sime’s scholarly, detailed and balanced analysis of Meitner’s life and scientific career, Rife’s work has relatively little to offer.