A paediatric neurologist, she is just one of many women working in the sciences who is frustrated her work doesn't always get the credit it deserves. This has an impact on her profile, which isn't as prominent as it would be were she a man.

As recently as two years ago during an interview for a fellowship, one female professor on the panel implied Scheffer's work was primarily that of her colleague - her former PhD supervisor, now her ''partner in scientific discovery'' Samuel Berkovic - rather than her own.

The interview took place in Australia - where Scheffer feels the ''shadow effect'' on her career has been much more pronounced than it has in the rest of the world.

''It's partly because Sam is so exceptional but partly because people have assumed my thinking has been his thinking, not my own,'' she says.

The assumption was made despite the fact that her work has significantly changed the way epilepsy is researched and treated. Now working at Melbourne University and the Florey Neuroscience Institutes' Melbourne Brain Centre at Austin Health, Scheffer was a key member of a team that discovered the first gene linked to epilepsy, a mutation that causes violent seizures during sleep.

The 1995 discovery changed conventional thinking on a disease that affects 2 per cent of the Australian population. For the first time there was proof that the condition could also have a genetic base, rather than solely being attributed to trauma or a tumour.

Since then, Scheffer and Berkovic have worked with their molecular genetics collaborators and discovered 14 of the 24 genes linked to epilepsy. It's a partnership which has been incredibly productive and satisfying.

''We both feel that by working together, the sum of our output is far greater than either of us alone,'' she says.

But the job interview illustrated that the collaboration she enjoys so much is not always seen in the right light. It served as a reminder that sometimes shadows fall where they shouldn't.

''There is still a glass ceiling for women in science in Australia. More than 50 per cent of PhD students are women and more than 50 per cent of medical students are women. And yet when you get to professorial level, it's fewer than 10 per cent,'' she says.

A 2010 survey of more than 1000 female scientists and engineers by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia found almost a quarter expected to have left their profession within five years. The most common reasons included pay inequity and lack of flexible working conditions.

But change is afoot. In the past 12 months the scientific community has made a concerted effort to address the issues faced by women, in an attempt to ensure they get their fair share of the spotlight.

Following a summit organised by Science and Technology Australia in Canberra last April, some of the nation's top research institutes, academies and funding bodies pledged to make motherhood and scientific research more compatible.

And next month, a federal parliamentary group for friends of women in science, maths and engineering will be launched by Nobel laureate Elizabeth Blackburn to promote policies that encourage women to enter and stay in scientific careers.

Australia's largest employer of scientific researchers, the CSIRO, has increased the number of Payne-Scott awards and also opened the award to early-career researchers. Named in honour of gifted CSIRO scientist Ruby Payne-Scott - a pioneer radio physicist and advocate for women's rights in the 1940s - the award of up to $35,000 supports women returning to work following the birth of a child.

Until November 1966, the Australian public service required married women to resign, so Payne-Scott had kept her 1944 marriage secret. But her pregnancy bump was harder to disguise, and by 1951 her research career was over.

As head of the CSIRO's Virtual Nanoscience Laboratory in Parkville since 2009, Dr Amanda Barnard is one of today's torch-bearers. She is one of only a few women to head a lab.

CSIRO figures show that outside of scientific roles, women dominate: they make up 85 per cent of administration staff and 55 per cent of general services staff. However, just 12 per cent of senior specialists are women and just over a quarter of general management and executive roles are held by women.

Barnard says that while representation of women at the CSIRO is steadily increasing - and in some cases has more than doubled in the past 15 years - there is still a long way to go to reach equality. ''Momentum is going in the right direction but it's not happening fast enough.''

For example, she often finds she is the only female keynote speaker at overseas conferences - partly because women find it hard to travel when they have families.

Indeed, having children is widely acknowledged as the biggest interruption to a female scientist's career. Motherhood often coincides with the completion of PhD study and the start of serious science - a vital time when reputations need to be established in order to attract funding for independent postdoctoral research.

After a decade of tertiary study, New Zealand eco-physiologist Dr Zoe Hilton gained her doctorate in 2010.

''I'm 34, but I feel like I am just beginning,'' she says. ''You put a huge chunk of your life into studying and then you're considered a baby scientist because you're just starting.''

But by their 30s, these baby scientists are often thinking about having babies of their own. ''You've spent years of your life working really hard and you don't want to stop there but then you're at that age when you want to have kids,''Hilton says. ''It's really tough.''

The pull of home doesn't vanish once children are at school either. Walter and Eliza Hall breast cancer researcher and mother of two Professor Jane Visvader says leaving for overseas conferences doesn't get any easier.

Visvader was this week inducted as a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. Of the 21 new fellows, four are women. They will take their place alongside 34 other women, representing just over 8 per cent of fellows at the academy.

While this is still a small fraction of the overall number of fellows, the academy's first elected female president, Professor Suzanne Cory, says it represents a dramatic improvement.

During the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, there was just one woman elected each decade. By the 2000s, there were 20. The academy's diversification committee is also charged with boosting under-represented groups, including women and young researchers.

''There is a big drop in numbers when women reach their early 30s, when they are making difficult decisions about having a family and keeping careers going. That's the period that we have to focus on,'' Cory says.

However, she believes developing a career is easier than it used to be, thanks in part to a growing number of fellowships designed to support and encourage women to combine work and motherhood.

One of the fellowships - introduced by Walter and Eliza Hall Institute director Doug Hilton - carries her name. The $1.25 million, five-year Cory Fellowship is awarded to new women laboratory heads. It is one of a range of measures to retain female scientists that Professor Hilton introduced after taking over from Professor Cory in 2009.

Others include a $15,000 childcare subsidy for postdoctoral researchers and funding for women to employ research technicians to continue their work while on maternity leave. Faculty meetings are no longer scheduled after 5pm, there is a lactation room available at the Parkville institute and a plan for a childcare centre has also been developed.

HILTON says the multi-pronged approach reflects the complexity of the problem. But he says there are no quick-fix solutions. Two of the 21 professors at the institute are women - and it's not a ratio that is going to show dramatic improvement any time soon because the medical research community has seen little progress in the area in the past 40 years.

''It's not possible to wave a magic wand at the highest level, when the problem is occurring 10 or 15 years earlier,'' he says.

However, in addition to the measures introduced to make motherhood and research more compatible, Hilton argues wider cultural change is required in a sector where it is so often a case of publish or perish. He says instead of the emphasis being on the quantity of journal publications or citations, it should be about quality.

While this sounds simple enough, the idea represents a significant cultural shift. In the legal sector, it would be akin to getting rid of billable hours as a measure of productivity and potential. ''Surely it's about the quality of ideas and the influence of the papers,'' he says. ''If we can be more sophisticated about the way we judge academics, this will also benefit women.''

Also at play, Scheffer and Hilton agree, are the different ways women present themselves professionally. It's a point which does rely on generalisations, but Hilton says there is truth in it.

''Women are much less willing to objectively appraise their own capacity,'' he says. ''I've seen women unwilling to put their hand up for senior roles because they are only 90 per cent prepared for it. But you get men who will give it a go even though they are only 10 per cent prepared for it.''

This reluctance to back their work means women are not putting themselves forward for senior roles, and they are also under-represented in applications for awards and grants.

In one year, of the nominees for the most prestigious science prizes in Australia, the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science, only 10 per cent were women. According to a spokesperson, the proportion of women science researchers awarded one of the prizes is highest in the prizes catering for early to mid-career researchers.

At the Australian Research Council, acting chief executive Leanne Harvey says women compete well with men for funding - when they apply. ''There are exceptional female researchers out there, just as there are male. The problem is fewer women researchers apply,'' she says.

It is a similar story at the National Health and Medical Research Council, where of the 96 grant applications received last year - 75 of them were led by men. Of the 55 successful grants awarded last year, nine had a female chief investigator.

Chief executive Professor Warwick Anderson says it is a trend the council is keen to address. ''Otherwise you are really throwing away so much talent in research,'' he says. ''And to crack the health problems in the country, you really need the brightest people.''

However, he says keeping women in science requires teamwork, particularly between the funding bodies and the researcher's employer - be it a hospital, institute or university.

If workplaces can provide or subsidise childcare and offer family-friendly environments, women are more likely to continue working during their child-rearing years - which in turn will mean a deeper pool of senior researchers applying for grants.

Last year, the NHMRC committed to considering work done in any five-year period rather than just the previous five-year period when assessing grant applications from researchers with interrupted careers. Similarly the ARC now takes into account the impact career interruptions such as the birth of a child have on research output.

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering is also on board. From this year, a third of new fellows elected each year must be women. Currently, women make up 6.5 per cent of the academy's 800 fellows.

Vice-president Susan Pond says that while it will take years to achieve gender balance in such a male-dominated sector, it is an important start. ''Failing to foster the careers of the women who qualify in applied science, engineering and technology leads to a waste of valuable talent and adds to the well-documented skills shortages in these fields in Australia,'' she says.

Science and Technology Australia, the peak body representing more than 68,000 scientists Australia-wide, has welcomed the measures. But chief executive Anna-Maria Arabia agrees change will take time to rid the sector of the shadow effect.

''It is a bit of a catch-22 situation,'' she says. ''If women aren't progressing through their careers, then they are not getting to senior positions to be able to become fellows or chief investigators and therefore it's harder to find them. Over time though, I think it will change.''

Bridie Smith is science and technology reporter.