I wasn't clear. I read 'scientific giant' as a 'scientific giant to general society' (those who start touching pop culture/media) as opposed to giant only in their field. For example, Shannon and Turing became giants to general society later on. Very few during their time knew the world of today that Shannon and Turing were creating. Shannon and Turing are only recently being recognized (hollywood films and biographies) in general society because we all now undoubtedly live in their world. And that is arguably why we're now learning about Betty Shannon.

Maybe you missed reading the article under discussion?

> His name has faded in our era, but in mid-20th century America, Claude Elwood Shannon of Bell Telephone Laboratories was a bona fide scientific star. In 1954, for example, Fortune featured Shannon in a list of the nation’s 20 most important scientists, alongside future Nobel Laureates Richard Feynman and James Watson, among others. Shannon also made the pages of Time and Life magazines, appeared on national television, and even earned a spread in Vogue, complete with a photo shoot by the renowned Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Being recognized within your field and the field itself being widely recognized are two different things. It takes a while for the public at large to recognize the importance of their contributions.