Nature 448, 98-100 (July 2007)Beyond the glass ceiling
Kendall Powell
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2007/070705/full/nj7149-098a.html
Kendall Powell is a freelance science writer based in Broomfield, Colorado.

Women and under-represented minorities are earning historically high numbers of science doctorates in the United States. So why aren't they making it to the professorial ranks? Kendall Powell investigates.

Beyond the glass ceiling
T. HOROWITZ/CORBIS

Aaron Velasco describes himself as the only US-born Latino seismologist in the country. As a faculty member at the University of Texas, El Paso, he is part of a rare group of under-represented minorities who make it into tenure-track academic positions in the United States. His story illustrates part of the reason for the abysmally low numbers of others like him.

Beyond the glass ceiling
"I honestly could not afford to become a postdoctoral fellow," says Velasco, recalling how the enormous debt he had built up during almost ten years of studying beyond high school forced him to seek something better than a postdoc's salary. In search of financial security, Velasco went straight into industry after graduate school, then found his way back to academia. Many other excellent minority graduates cite economic disadvantage as a major reason for why they don't end up in academic positions � even though the number of minority PhDs is on the rise.

If academia is to offer varied role models and perspectives for a diverse population of students, it must become more welcoming to women and ethnic minorities, leaders of diversity efforts say. Industry has already learned the value of diversity. In a 2003 amicus brief in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative-action admissions policies, 65 Fortune 500 firms argued that efforts to increase diversity improve innovation, productivity and global competition.Women and minorities suffer from the effects of isolation once they enter the upper ranks of academia. Both groups perceive academia as an unfriendly environment, and both suffer from an implicit bias against them in the hiring process.

For women, the clash of their biological clock with the tenure clock, along with the effort of balancing work and family duties, is a huge barrier to advancing up the academic ladder. For minorities, financial and geographical constraints make academia a less attractive choice than industry. Attempts to remove barriers and to mend holes in the pipeline have met with mixed success.

Leaving academia

In 2003, 51% of the US population was female and more than 25% of the population was from a minority group under-represented in science: African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans. Women earned well over one-third of the science and engineering doctorates awarded in 2003�04 and African American and Latino doctorates have steadily increased during the past ten years (see Tables 1 and 2).Beyond the glass ceilingBeyond the glass ceilingBut women hold fewer than one-third of all science and engineering faculty posts, and just 18% of full professorships. For minorities, the numbers are below 10% and 6.7%, respectively. When the numbers are dissected at the disciplinary level, many fields find they are doing far worse in hiring talented women and minorities than should be expected, given the numbers of doctorates they award to those groups (see Table 3). Although many 'diversity in science' programmes have been in place for more than 30 years, the faculty in most US academic science departments has remained overwhelmingly white and male.Beyond the glass ceilingThe numbers show that not only are women having a hard time reaching parity in the hiring process, but that they continue to struggle for parity at all levels of success such as making tenure, advancing to administrative positions, and gaining national recognition for scientific achievements. These numbers also send a striking message to the next generation." think young women looking at the PhD-to-faculty transition are being more pragmatic, looking down the road and saying, 'I don't want to beat my head against a wall for the next 20 years,'" says Donna Dean, president of the association for Women in Science (AWIS) in Washington DC. The AWIS began in 1971 to help women succeed at the mid-career stage. Dean says the focus has shifted to earlier stages, to recognize that women fight an uphill battle from the minute they earn their doctorates.Women and minorities must both deal with implicit bias, a problem that is well-documented in the social-science literature, but one that has garnered little attention from the science sector until recently. Dean describes the problem of implicit bias in these terms: "People are most comfortable with people who think and look like themselves."This type of bias cuts across all divides and has been shown to affect everything from basketball refereeing calls to hiring practices. In addition, a strong gender bias has been found in workplace scenarios, with both men and women consistently overrating men and underrating women in job qualifications (see Virginia Valian's chapter in Why Aren't More Women in Science? (eds S. J. Ceci and W. M. Williams); American Psychological Association Press, 2006).Bias cuts"When you have homogenous, privileged groups it is hard for them to see that their decisions are inhibiting their excellence," says Meg Urry, an astrophysicist and the first woman to chair the physics department at Yale University. Most scientists think they operate in a meritocracy, rewarding excellent research irrespective of colour or gender lines. But the data show that is simply not the case, says Urry. And many scientists, she says, are "unaware of that data and unaware that they have internal biases".

Beyond the glass ceiling
O. FRANKEN/CORBIS
Women remain under-represented at the higher end of the academic scale.To change that, several groups have begun highlighting research on bias at workshops for different science disciplines. Chemists are leading the way with the help of the Committee on the Advancement of Women Chemists based in Eugene, Oregon, by holding a workshop last year for 55 chairs from the top chemistry departments around the country (see 'Chemistry case study').Programmes to recruit and retain university minority students in science have made steady, if small, improvements. The numbers of science bachelor's degrees awarded to minority students, about 16% of the total, is now commensurate with the number of minorities enrolled in university. The number of African American and Latino science doctorates have increased about 20% during the past ten years."I'm encouraged by the numbers of kids at the beginning of the pipeline," says Velasco. "But my worry is that these kids will want to go into academia and find their opportunities are limited there."For minorities, their small numbers mean that feelings of isolation begin early and are likely to persist throughout a career (see 'A political hot potato'). Many under-represented minority students come from disadvantaged backgrounds that make both financial concerns and extended family responsibilities rise to the top of the priority list when they consider a career move.Isiah Warner, a chemist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, has overseen the 15-year transformation of that department into the top producer of African American chemistry PhDs. But, he notes, financial realities and the unfriendly climate of academia conspire to lure a huge portion of those students directly into industry positions."They see me work 8�12 hours a day, seven days a week for a job that pays only two-thirds of your salary, meanwhile you have to hustle the other third of your salary and grant money constantly," says Warner. That's compared with an industry job offering a $90,000 salary out of graduate school and a 40-hour work week. "Which would you choose?" he asks.At the annual meeting of the National Organization for the advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (NOBCChE), recruiters from industry make contacts with promising graduates as early as the third year of graduate school. Students who continue in academia are the rare, passionate few, says Warner.He and Velasco both say it is imperative that senior academic scientists do a better job of presenting the positive aspects of academia, including intellectual freedom and flexibility, and ultimately higher salaries and stability. The national meetings of NOBCChE and the Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) give senior scientists the chance to mentor students across campus borders. They also fend off feelings of isolation and foster networking and professional development.Diversity leaders say that if members of faculty search committees were to talent spot at these meetings like industry recruiters, they would see that, despite myths to the contrary, there are enough women or minority candidates to go around. NOBCChE meetings attract 600 students and SACNAS 1,000, with ever-increasing numbers of postdocs as well. Urry notes that some departments have been creative in attracting under-represented candidates in the same years that other departments claim there's a shortage."Some people understand how to do it by beating the bushes, being very aggressive, and paying attention to these biases," says Urry. "You are sitting on a search committee, not a sit-and-wait-for-it-to-come-over-the-transom committee." Academic departments should recruit at meetings, offer incentives to match industry, and let go of the sacrosanct 'open search' ideology that relies on job ads alone, says Urry. Departments should also consider how they can harness talent by employing the husbands and wives of staff members, catching available talent outside a full-scale search, or by doing broad-based searches and cluster hires of two or three female or minority candidates.Urry says she often hears search-committee members say that they must hire a particular specialist because the department's students demand that expertise. "If your students are 25% minority and 50% female," she asks, "don't you think they demand professors who look like them?"Chemistry case studyChemistry as a field has made some progress towards retaining talented women and minority chemists in the academic ranks. Still, although women gain roughly a third of chemistry doctorates, they hold only 13% of chemistry faculty positions.In January 2006, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and chemistry leaders sponsored a workshop in which 55 chairs from the top-ranked departments around the country gathered to face the problem and take action to address it. The workshop highlighted research on implicit bias and on issues affecting women's ability to succeed in academia.Before the workshop, when participants were asked why women were not being recruited, hired and retained in their departments, the participants blamed factors largely beyond their control: too few women in the applicant pool, losing females to other departments and no money for recruiting both members of a couple. After the training on implicit bias, participants were more likely to admit to a lack of commitment or downright opposition to hiring female faculty members, says Geraldine Richmond, a chemist at the University of Oregon in Eugene who is evaluating the workshop's impact.Participants left with a commitment to implement at least two items within their departments or institutions, such as doubling the number of female applicants in the next faculty search, or advocating subsidized childcare. And the participants agreed to evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts in the future.Physics and geosciences have followed suit with their own gender-equity workshops. Chemistry leaders are now planning a workshop to address the lack of minority faculty members, with the goal of encouraging departments to cultivate at least one minority faculty candidate in the next five years.Biological sciences, which have similar gender imbalances, could learn from other disciplines' scientific approach and evaluation of the issue, says Donna Dean of the Association for Women in Science in Washington DC. She notes that the funding agencies for biomedical research have "not stepped up to the plate in paying attention to the changing demographics and what's happening to PhDs as they move into faculty positions".Kendall PowellA political hot potatoOne of the obstacles facing minority biomedical scientists could be the way US government funding is distributed through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) in Bethesda, Maryland. Its Division of Minority Opportunities in Research (MORE) is the largest funder of minority programmes through the National Institutes of Health and has greatly influenced the upward trend of minority PhD numbers. But progress in diversifying faculty has been disappointing or nonexistent, according to Jeremy Berg, director of the NIGMS.In 2005, MORE was jolted by a working group's report that, although almost 60% of MORE's budget was going to programmes at minority-serving institutions, more than 70% of minority students are receiving their BS degrees from majority institutions. Even though the topic was a "political hot potato", says working group co-chair Virginia Zakian, a molecular biologist at Princeton University in New Jersey, the group recommended that the MORE budget should more closely reflect the realities of where minority students are educated.Berg, however, says that it would be a mistake to shift MORE money away from minority-serving institutions towards others that have significantly more resources. Instead, he and the NIGMS are considering how best to restructure MORE programmes so that they not only encourage minority students to take PhDs, but also see them through to faculty positions.Berg says the best way to do that is to make changes to programmes at the institutional level, such as the NIGMS' T32 student training grants which stipulate that the receiving department must have a diversity programme in place. Also, says Berg, there should be partnerships between undergraduate universities and top-tier graduate programmes to ensure that minority PhD students aren't starting off at a disadvantage in the academic career track.Although Berg and Zakian may disagree on how to get there, they agree wholeheartedly that diversifying the biomedical faculty is vital. "This is not an issue of social justice or equal opportunity," says Berg. "The biomedical workforce is much weaker than we need it to be and student diversity is [outstripping] faculty diversity."Kendall Powell

Nature 448, 98-100 (July 2007)Beyond the glass ceilingKendall Powell1http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2007/070705/full/nj7149-098a.html 1. Kendall Powell is a freelance science writer based in Broomfield, Colorado.Women and under-represented minorities are earning historically high numbers of science doctorates in the United States. So why aren't they making it to the professorial ranks? Kendall Powell investigates.Beyond the glass ceilingT. HOROWITZ/CORBISAaron Velasco describes himself as the only US-born Latino seismologist in the country. As a faculty member at the University of Texas, El Paso, he is part of a rare group of under-represented minorities who make it into tenure-track academic positions in the United States. His story illustrates part of the reason for the abysmally low numbers of others like him.Beyond the glass ceiling"I honestly could not afford to become a postdoctoral fellow," says Velasco, recalling how the enormous debt he had built up during almost ten years of studying beyond high school forced him to seek something better than a postdoc's salary. In search of financial security, Velasco went straight into industry after graduate school, then found his way back to academia. Many other excellent minority graduates cite economic disadvantage as a major reason for why they don't end up in academic positions � even though the number of minority PhDs is on the rise. I honestly could not afford to become a postdoctoral fellow. Aaron VelascoIf academia is to offer varied role models and perspectives for a diverse population of students, it must become more welcoming to women and ethnic minorities, leaders of diversity efforts say. Industry has already learned the value of diversity. In a 2003 amicus brief in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative-action admissions policies, 65 Fortune 500 firms argued that efforts to increase diversity improve innovation, productivity and global competition.Women and minorities suffer from the effects of isolation once they enter the upper ranks of academia. Both groups perceive academia as an unfriendly environment, and both suffer from an implicit bias against them in the hiring process.For women, the clash of their biological clock with the tenure clock, along with the effort of balancing work and family duties, is a huge barrier to advancing up the academic ladder. For minorities, financial and geographical constraints make academia a less attractive choice than industry. Attempts to remove barriers and to mend holes in the pipeline have met with mixed success.Top of pageLeaving academiaIn 2003, 51% of the US population was female and more than 25% of the population was from a minority group under-represented in science: African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans. Women earned well over one-third of the science and engineering doctorates awarded in 2003�04 and African American and Latino doctorates have steadily increased during the past ten years (see Tables 1 and 2).Beyond the glass ceilingBeyond the glass ceilingBut women hold fewer than one-third of all science and engineering faculty posts, and just 18% of full professorships. For minorities, the numbers are below 10% and 6.7%, respectively. When the numbers are dissected at the disciplinary level, many fields find they are doing far worse in hiring talented women and minorities than should be expected, given the numbers of doctorates they award to those groups (see Table 3). Although many 'diversity in science' programmes have been in place for more than 30 years, the faculty in most US academic science departments has remained overwhelmingly white and male.Beyond the glass ceilingThe numbers show that not only are women having a hard time reaching parity in the hiring process, but that they continue to struggle for parity at all levels of success such as making tenure, advancing to administrative positions, and gaining national recognition for scientific achievements. These numbers also send a striking message to the next generation." think young women looking at the PhD-to-faculty transition are being more pragmatic, looking down the road and saying, 'I don't want to beat my head against a wall for the next 20 years,'" says Donna Dean, president of the association for Women in Science (AWIS) in Washington DC. The AWIS began in 1971 to help women succeed at the mid-career stage. Dean says the focus has shifted to earlier stages, to recognize that women fight an uphill battle from the minute they earn their doctorates.Women and minorities must both deal with implicit bias, a problem that is well-documented in the social-science literature, but one that has garnered little attention from the science sector until recently. Dean describes the problem of implicit bias in these terms: "People are most comfortable with people who think and look like themselves."This type of bias cuts across all divides and has been shown to affect everything from basketball refereeing calls to hiring practices. In addition, a strong gender bias has been found in workplace scenarios, with both men and women consistently overrating men and underrating women in job qualifications (see Virginia Valian's chapter in Why Aren't More Women in Science? (eds S. J. Ceci and W. M. Williams); American Psychological Association Press, 2006).Bias cuts"When you have homogenous, privileged groups it is hard for them to see that their decisions are inhibiting their excellence," says Meg Urry, an astrophysicist and the first woman to chair the physics department at Yale University. Most scientists think they operate in a meritocracy, rewarding excellent research irrespective of colour or gender lines. But the data show that is simply not the case, says Urry. And many scientists, she says, are "unaware of that data and unaware that they have internal biases".Beyond the glass ceilingO. FRANKEN/CORBISWomen remain under-represented at the higher end of the academic scale.To change that, several groups have begun highlighting research on bias at workshops for different science disciplines. Chemists are leading the way with the help of the Committee on the Advancement of Women Chemists based in Eugene, Oregon, by holding a workshop last year for 55 chairs from the top chemistry departments around the country (see 'Chemistry case study').Programmes to recruit and retain university minority students in science have made steady, if small, improvements. The numbers of science bachelor's degrees awarded to minority students, about 16% of the total, is now commensurate with the number of minorities enrolled in university. The number of African American and Latino science doctorates have increased about 20% during the past ten years."I'm encouraged by the numbers of kids at the beginning of the pipeline," says Velasco. "But my worry is that these kids will want to go into academia and find their opportunities are limited there."For minorities, their small numbers mean that feelings of isolation begin early and are likely to persist throughout a career (see 'A political hot potato'). Many under-represented minority students come from disadvantaged backgrounds that make both financial concerns and extended family responsibilities rise to the top of the priority list when they consider a career move.Isiah Warner, a chemist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, has overseen the 15-year transformation of that department into the top producer of African American chemistry PhDs. But, he notes, financial realities and the unfriendly climate of academia conspire to lure a huge portion of those students directly into industry positions."They see me work 8�12 hours a day, seven days a week for a job that pays only two-thirds of your salary, meanwhile you have to hustle the other third of your salary and grant money constantly," says Warner. That's compared with an industry job offering a $90,000 salary out of graduate school and a 40-hour work week. "Which would you choose?" he asks.At the annual meeting of the National Organization for the advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (NOBCChE), recruiters from industry make contacts with promising graduates as early as the third year of graduate school. Students who continue in academia are the rare, passionate few, says Warner.He and Velasco both say it is imperative that senior academic scientists do a better job of presenting the positive aspects of academia, including intellectual freedom and flexibility, and ultimately higher salaries and stability. The national meetings of NOBCChE and the Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) give senior scientists the chance to mentor students across campus borders. They also fend off feelings of isolation and foster networking and professional development.Diversity leaders say that if members of faculty search committees were to talent spot at these meetings like industry recruiters, they would see that, despite myths to the contrary, there are enough women or minority candidates to go around. NOBCChE meetings attract 600 students and SACNAS 1,000, with ever-increasing numbers of postdocs as well. Urry notes that some departments have been creative in attracting under-represented candidates in the same years that other departments claim there's a shortage."Some people understand how to do it by beating the bushes, being very aggressive, and paying attention to these biases," says Urry. "You are sitting on a search committee, not a sit-and-wait-for-it-to-come-over-the-transom committee." Academic departments should recruit at meetings, offer incentives to match industry, and let go of the sacrosanct 'open search' ideology that relies on job ads alone, says Urry. Departments should also consider how they can harness talent by employing the husbands and wives of staff members, catching available talent outside a full-scale search, or by doing broad-based searches and cluster hires of two or three female or minority candidates.Urry says she often hears search-committee members say that they must hire a particular specialist because the department's students demand that expertise. "If your students are 25% minority and 50% female," she asks, "don't you think they demand professors who look like them?"Chemistry case studyChemistry as a field has made some progress towards retaining talented women and minority chemists in the academic ranks. Still, although women gain roughly a third of chemistry doctorates, they hold only 13% of chemistry faculty positions.In January 2006, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and chemistry leaders sponsored a workshop in which 55 chairs from the top-ranked departments around the country gathered to face the problem and take action to address it. The workshop highlighted research on implicit bias and on issues affecting women's ability to succeed in academia.Before the workshop, when participants were asked why women were not being recruited, hired and retained in their departments, the participants blamed factors largely beyond their control: too few women in the applicant pool, losing females to other departments and no money for recruiting both members of a couple. After the training on implicit bias, participants were more likely to admit to a lack of commitment or downright opposition to hiring female faculty members, says Geraldine Richmond, a chemist at the University of Oregon in Eugene who is evaluating the workshop's impact.Participants left with a commitment to implement at least two items within their departments or institutions, such as doubling the number of female applicants in the next faculty search, or advocating subsidized childcare. And the participants agreed to evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts in the future.Physics and geosciences have followed suit with their own gender-equity workshops. Chemistry leaders are now planning a workshop to address the lack of minority faculty members, with the goal of encouraging departments to cultivate at least one minority faculty candidate in the next five years.Biological sciences, which have similar gender imbalances, could learn from other disciplines' scientific approach and evaluation of the issue, says Donna Dean of the Association for Women in Science in Washington DC. She notes that the funding agencies for biomedical research have "not stepped up to the plate in paying attention to the changing demographics and what's happening to PhDs as they move into faculty positions".Kendall PowellA political hot potatoOne of the obstacles facing minority biomedical scientists could be the way US government funding is distributed through the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) in Bethesda, Maryland. Its Division of Minority Opportunities in Research (MORE) is the largest funder of minority programmes through the National Institutes of Health and has greatly influenced the upward trend of minority PhD numbers. But progress in diversifying faculty has been disappointing or nonexistent, according to Jeremy Berg, director of the NIGMS.In 2005, MORE was jolted by a working group's report that, although almost 60% of MORE's budget was going to programmes at minority-serving institutions, more than 70% of minority students are receiving their BS degrees from majority institutions. Even though the topic was a "political hot potato", says working group co-chair Virginia Zakian, a molecular biologist at Princeton University in New Jersey, the group recommended that the MORE budget should more closely reflect the realities of where minority students are educated.Berg, however, says that it would be a mistake to shift MORE money away from minority-serving institutions towards others that have significantly more resources. Instead, he and the NIGMS are considering how best to restructure MORE programmes so that they not only encourage minority students to take PhDs, but also see them through to faculty positions.Berg says the best way to do that is to make changes to programmes at the institutional level, such as the NIGMS' T32 student training grants which stipulate that the receiving department must have a diversity programme in place. Also, says Berg, there should be partnerships between undergraduate universities and top-tier graduate programmes to ensure that minority PhD students aren't starting off at a disadvantage in the academic career track.Although Berg and Zakian may disagree on how to get there, they agree wholeheartedly that diversifying the biomedical faculty is vital. "This is not an issue of social justice or equal opportunity," says Berg. "The biomedical workforce is much weaker than we need it to be and student diversity is [outstripping] faculty diversity."Kendall Powell

Closing the gender gapAcross Europe, women in science are typically outnumbered by men at every level. Magdalena Wutte explores how institutions, networking organizations and women themselves can help correct the imbalance.Magdalena Wuttehttp://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/eewF0SpU7m0HjB0BWoY0EgArticle source: NatureNature 448, 101-102 (July 2007) doi:10.1038/nj7149-101a
Closing the gender gapMagdalena Wutte1
Magdalena Wutte is a former intern in Nature's Munich office. To discuss this article, contact the editorAcross Europe, women in science are typically outnumbered by men at every level. Magdalena Wutte explores how institutions, networking organizations and women themselves can help correct the imbalance. A. REDPATH/CORBISAccording to the European Union (EU), this year is the 'European Year of Equal Opportunities for All'. This declaration, along with a slew of anti-discrimination legislation, suggests that the EU recognizes there's much to be done in the drive towards equality, as the numbers attest to. In the case of science, women remain under-represented, particularly at higher academic levels. And this disparity cannot simply be attributed to a lack of women pursuing science in the past: bias, it seems, remains.The EU has not been short of initiatives to try to reverse this trend � and progress is being made. Several groups have been established to improve networking among women, but governments and lobby groups can only do so much. Academic institutions � and women themselves � have their part to play in increasing women's participation in the scientific arena."The situation has improved a lot in the past 20 years," says Daniela Corda, director for research and development of the Consorzio Mario Negri Sud, a major research institution in Santa Maria Imbaro, Italy. But, she adds, growing awareness and an absence of open discrimination are not sufficient to substantially increase the number of women in higher academic positions.The most recent figures available suggest that Europe is still dealing with significant attrition by women after they've earned their PhDs (see Moving up or moving out). In 2006, the European Commission (EC) reported that although 40% of PhD students in the natural sciences are female, only 11.3% of the professor, research director and other top positions are occupied by women1. In engineering and technology, 21.9% of PhD students are female, but this total dips to 5.8% at the highest levels of academia1.Furthermore, the average proportion of women on scientific boards is 24% (Norway and Finland, with 48% and 47%, respectively, stand in clear contrast to countries such as Italy and Poland, with 13% and 7%)1. And research funding also suggests a gender gap; in 17 of 26 European countries, men have higher success rates for securing funding1.Top of page
Off-balanceThe EU has been trying to address this imbalance. So far, its greatest success has been within its own organizations. The EC has almost reached its own target, set in 1999, of 40% for women on scientific boards and agencies2. According to Johannes Klumpers, head of unit for 'science culture and gender issues' at the EC's directorate for research, the numbers have increased from around 10% in 1998 to about 34% in 2006.The Max Planck Institute's Mary Osborn recommends institution-wide changes to help recruit and support women scientists.Europe-wide, the EU would like to increase the number of women in higher scientific ranks to 25%3. The EU first started to address the issue in 1999, when it set up an evaluation committee known as the 'Helsinki Group'. The sociologists and natural scientists on the panel, all hailing from EU member countries, drafted reports on the situation in their countries. The group also appointed 'statistical correspondents', based at national universities or private institutes, in order to ensure European statistics were comparable across countries. The reports of the Helsinki Group and their correspondents serve as guidelines for the EU and individual countries.Mary Osborn, who is head of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in G�ttingen, Germany, and has chaired several panels on women in science thinks Europe would benefit from a programme similar to the US National Science Foundation's ADVANCE initiative. This programme provides funds to selected higher-education institutions to support institution-wide changes designed to increase participation and advancement of female scientists and engineers. These range from alteration of recruitment practice (such as actively campaigning for women when advertising jobs) to easing everyday life for scientists with children � for example, by creating day care centres or nurseries integrated into institutions.Top of page
Making contactThe EU's newest development is a central forum for exchange among women scientists across Europe, which had its first general assembly in April. The European Platform of Women Scientists (EPWS) is an umbrella organization for national women's networks and groups lobbying for women in science at EU level."It is a unique exchange forum" says Flavia Zucco, head of research at the Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine in Rome and member of EPWS's advisory board. EPWS meetings provide an opportunity to talk with national- and EU-level politicians, and to learn about the situation in other countries. "It is much easier to demand improvements such as flexible work shifts if you can point out that they are already standard in other European countries," Zucco says.The National Contact Centre � Women in Science in Prague, an EPWS member, exemplifies how lobby work can function in practice. The EU-funded centre helps women whose position or work is suffering as a result of purported discrimination. Women can get advice on questions of labour law, and can also access legal and psychological help in more drastic cases of discrimination or sexual harassment.Neurobiologist Gaia Tavosanis received valuable career advice from a mentoring project for women in science.By networking across institutes and national borders, women hope to penetrate and overcome the 'old-boys' networks'; established institutional structures that often make it difficult for them to penetrate the higher ranks. Women need to form their own connections early in their careers, emphasizes Gaia Tavosanis, head of a junior research group at the Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology in Munich, Germany. She says that the mentoring women network FemmeNet, run by the Max Planck Minerva Foundation, has helped her to plan her career.A programme called 'ProFil' � run jointly by the Technical University, the Humboldt-University and the Free University of Berlin � goes further, aiming to help women who are preparing for professorships to advance. It offers professional training in skills such as mentoring, university administration, scientific presentation skills and grant writing. And at monthly dinners, ProFil attendees can make contact with politicians, industry representatives and journalists � helpful career-long contacts that could otherwise be difficult to establish.Caren Tischendorf, who was appointed professor of mathematics at the University of Cologne in 2006, especially endorses the motivation she gained from the programme. "Knowing that other women are in the same situation as you is very helpful," she says. "It strengthens your confidence that what you are trying to achieve is possible". The programme has been a huge success: of the 42 participants since 2004, 21 have been appointed full professors, and six junior professors. On the basis of this success, the programme was prolonged this year.Progress towards equal opportunities for women has undoubtedly been made in recent decades, and particularly during the past few years. The challenge now is to make sure that initiatives to help women advance in scientific fields become the rule rather than the exception, whether through EU policies, institutional policies, or grassroots online efforts.

FEBS/EMBO Women in Science Award
http://www.embo.org/gender/award.html

Related links
FEBS/EMBO Women in Science Award 2008 - Press release
Nomination submission site Poster
Federation of European Biochemical Societies (FEBS) 2008 FEBS Congress in Athens, Greece EMBO/FEBS WISE, Istanbul 2006
EMBO/FEBS WISE, Budapest 2005

The FEBS/EMBO Women in Science Award is a joint initiative of EMBO and the Federation of European Biochemical Societies (FEBS). Launched in 2007, the aim of the award is to highlight the major contributions being made by female scientists to life sciences research. Winners of the award will be presented as inspiring role models for future generations of women in science.
Each year the award will reward the exceptional achievements of one woman working in the life sciences in Europe. The winner will be honoured at the annual FEBS Congress, where she will receive an award of EUR 10,000 and present a special plenary lecture. The first award will be made at the 2008 FEBS Congress in Athens, Greece.

Nominees should be women scientists working in Europe who have made outstanding contributions to life sciences research in their career and significantly advanced our understanding of a particular discipline. Their research can cover any area of the life sciences including agricultural and biomedical research.
Deadline for nominations: 15 August 2007 Please red more in the webpage above.

European Platform of Women Scientists

European Platform of Women Scientists
A dream comes true: Committed networks of women scientists meet in Brussels for the First General Assembly of the European Platform of Women ScientistsBrussels, the 28th of April 2007.

On the 27th-28th of April 2007, representatives of networks of women scientists and of networks committed to promote women scientists from 30 countries and various disciplines met for the first time in Brussels as members of the European Platform of Women Scientists. This event represented both the first annual internal meeting for decision-making on future strategies and work programmes and the last stage in the Platform’s becoming a membership-based association.

Very active since March 2006, the European Platform of Women Scientists organised its first General Assembly in Brussels, on the 27th and 28th of April 2007. Following an extensive one-year membership outreach, EPWS now counts 107 members – networks of women scientists and networks promoting women scientists, individuals and supporting organisations – together representing more than 8000 scientists. All full members of the Association attended the General Assembly. The disciplines represented cover a variety of areas, such as: humanities, social sciences, engineering, physics, chemistry, and economics.According to EPWS President, Dr. Adelheid Ehmke, “This is a sound basis for a lively association. Together, we shall be able to make an impact in European research and research policy! EPWS aims to improve the framework conditions for women scientists, to ensure gender awareness and to enhance the successful participation of women scientists in European research programmes. Our vision of science is the full integration of women at all levels of scientific careers. Women are not the problem – they are part of the solution!”

Dr. Brigitte Mühlenbruch, EPWS Vice President, emphasised that in 2007, the Year of the Equal Opportunities for All, “a dream did come true: female researchers have a voice in Europe. The first General Assembly of the European Platform of Women Scientists did turn the European network of women in science into reality. EPWS has been working in Brussels for about one year now; the active involvement of networks of women scientists and of networks promoting women scientists in the work of the Platform is a further, important step which we have dreamt of for a long time”.

“The Platform’s outreach for members will continue”, says Dr. Maren Jochimsen, EPWS Secretary General. “It is only the beginning of our development into a strong, democratic, inclusive membership-based organisation. We encourage all networks of women scientists as well as associations or individuals promoting women in science and /or gender issues to apply for membership any time of the year.”The new members expressed their views and voted on the strategic direction and future work programme of the Platform. The existing Board of Administration members were unanimously confirmed in their position by the Assembly.

The General Assembly alsoEPWS, Rue d’Arlon 38, B1000Brussels, Tel +32 2 234 37 50, Fax +32 234 37 59, http://www.epws.org/European Platform of Women Scientistsextended the Board of Administration to increase its geographical representation from Eastern Europe (Lithuania) and Southern Europe (Portugal).

Contact:Adelina Huminic-Orzu Project Manager Information European Platform of Women Scientists EPWS Rue d'Arlon 38 B-1000 Brussels Tel +32 2234 37 52 Fax+32 2 234 37 59http://www.epws.org/Note:EPWS was legally established as a non-profit association in Belgium in November 2005. It was officially launched to the Brussels community on 28 March 2006. In April 2006, the Platform started reaching out to potential members all over Europe and has been in touch with over 160 Networks from 30 different countries representing a variety of scientific disciplines since.EPWS, Rue d’Arlon 38, B1000Brussels, Tel +32 2 234 37 50, Fax +32 234 37 59, http://www.epws.org/

Nature 449 (769) 17 Oct. 2007
News in Brief
Equal pay for women in science is achievable

Aggressive academic management can correct pay disparities between male and female scientists, say researchers. Their study assesses the effects of intervention to equalize salaries at the University of Arizona's College of Medicine in Tucson between 2000 and 2004 (A. L. Wright et al. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 22, 1398�1402 ; 2007). By 2004, women with basic science doctorates, for instance, were paid 97.6% of the amount men were paid.

Lead author Anne Wright, the college's associate dean for faculty affairs, says the study was undertaken to gauge the success of administrative actions after an earlier analysis found women faculty members were paid about $13,000 (11%) less than men (A. L. Wright et al. Acad. Med. 78, 500�508; 2003).The new study directly involved personnel records of about 400 faculty members, anthropologist Wright says, rather than using a percentage of staff who respond to a survey.