Intelligent Women

Nature 18Feb2010: A step towards transparency

2010-03-26T20:31:00.000+01:00

Nature 18 February 2010
A step towards transparency
The lot of women scientists would improve with more openness in policy and practice, argues Jan Bogg.
Jan Bogg
http://links.ealert.nature.com/ctt?kn=142&m=34637012&r=MjA1NzU2OTkyMgS2&b=2&j=Njc1MzkzOTES1&mt=1&rt=0
Policy-makers and university administrators have long wrangled over the barriers that hinder women's advancement in science. But there is one clear and obvious step many at universities and in industry could take in short order: improve transparency so that both the statistics of those who advance, and the process itself, are readily apparent.

My recent work, part of a project called Breaking Barriers, found that women, especially those at junior and mid-level grades, believe they do not experience sufficient transparency of information, policy and practice. The project included quantitative and qualitative interviews with more than 5,000 UK women working in various science posts, including research scientists, academics and health professionals.

Women in academia wanted transparency in terms of teaching load and its impact on research time. They also wanted consistent career-progress information from senior staff that reflected university policy — for example, if a human-resources document states that “an international reputation” is required to reach senior levels in academia, what does this really mean? Is it referring only to high-impact journal publications? Or are there more wide-ranging criteria?

Take one example in which providing statistics could help inform current and prospective female employees. In the United Kingdom, the General Medical Council has recognized that academic medicine is failing to attract and retain women, and that very few women reach the sector's highest levels.

Currently, almost 60% of UK medical students are female. But the higher the level, the rarer women become. Around 40% of lecturers are women, 28% of senior lecturers and 13% of professors. The number of women in professorial posts has increased by only 2% since 2004.

Reporting on the number of women in senior positions may seem a crude practice, but it does provide transparency and a basis for identifying blockages in the system. If the proportion of women in senior positions in an organization does not reflect the proportion in the grade below, then there is a need to investigate why this might be the case.

Change is happening, yet figures from many UK professional bodies demonstrate just how slow the progress is — with the number of senior women rising at a snail's pace. For example, the Sex and Power report, produced by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, examines women in the top positions of power and influence across the public and private sectors. It estimates that at the current rate it will be 73 years until there are equal numbers of men and women among the directors of the 100 leading companies on the stock exchange.

More needs to be done. Institutions should offer training in an attempt to alter attitudes, and should consider sanctions for managers who provide inadequate performance reviews or poor mentoring. Only by addressing such issues now will the next decade focus on real progress for women in science careers.

Jan Bogg is director of Breaking Barriers, a European Commission-funded programme addressing equality, diversity and career progression for women at the University of Liverpool, UK.

New Report Explains 'Why So Few' Women in Science

2010-03-26T20:10:00.002+01:00

New Report Explains 'Why So Few' Women in Science
by Jeffrey Mervis on March 22, 2010 4:56 PM

From the Science Policy Blog
ScienceInsider reported this week on a new report on women in science by the American Association of University Women that distills several recent reports on gender equity to provide a road map for those seeking improvements

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/new-report-explains-why-so-few-w.html

Anyone familiar with the cultural and environmental factors that make it harder for women to become scientists and engineers may not learn much from reading a new report, Why So Few?, by the American Association of University Women. That's because the report, out today, summarizes the findings of eight major gender equity studies of the past decade.

The repetition is OK with the National Science Foundation, which traditionally supports researchers trying to create new knowledge. That's because its $250,000 grant to AAUW was aimed at sharing that knowledge with people who can make a difference, says Jolene Jesse, who runs NSF's Research on Gender in Science and Engineering program.

"We want to get what we know into the hands of the practitioners," Jesse explains. "And our definition of practitioner includes teachers and faculty members, guidance counselors, parents, and anybody who can have an impact on a girl's choice of a career in science."

The new report analyzes several factors that can influence whether girls decide to study science and pursue it as a career. It summarizes recent studies on topics ranging from gender stereotypes and self-assessment of talent to how spatial visualization, an important skill for a budding scientist, can be improved with practice. It cites how small changes in the culture of some academic departments have been found to have a big impact on attracting and retaining women. And it notes an unconscious societal bias against women entering so-called "masculine" professions.

AAUW didn't want to simply document what are often called "best practices" and "hope for the best," explains Catherine Hill, the lead author on the 134-page report. "Part of the problem with looking at successful models is that it's hard to judge their impact," she says. "So we began by looking at what's new in the research, and thinking about what will help move the discussion forward."

The need "to distill what we already know," as Jesse describes the AAUW report, arises from what she and others see as the narrow perspectives of many scientists and engineers. "Most scientists don't read outside their disciplines," says Hill, who holds a doctorate in public policy and has studied gender policy issues. "And they are very busy people. Some of them may not even know how many women are in their department. In addition, there's something very powerful about documenting what exists, as well as knowing what your peers are doing."

Also today, an ongoing survey of U.S. science education sponsored by the Bayer Corporation reports that "significant numbers of women and underrepresented minority chemists and chemical engineers say they were discouraged from pursuing" a career in science and engineering at some point in their lives. The 14th annual survey polled 1226 female, African-American, Hispanic, and Native American members of the American Chemical Society.

2010-02-12T17:59:00.000+01:00

INTELLIGENT WOMEN SELECTIONS
http://www.intelligent_women.blogspot.com

Nature 4 February 2010 Volume 463 Number 7281

Women: diversity among leaders is there if you look
Nancy C. Andrews, Sally Kornbluth and Doug Stokke
http://links.ealert.nature.com/ctt?kn=27&m=34602524&r=MjA1NzU2OTkyMgS2&b=2&j=NjY4MTM1NjES1&mt=1&rt=0
A disappointing myopia seems to have afflicted your '2020 visions' (Nature 463, 26–32; 2010), with just one female among the 20 contributors. This sends the wrong message at a time when women scientists are still striving for better representation. Diversity among thought leaders is there if you look for it. You no longer have to look far among academics. Today, for example, women of vision are heads of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Harvard, Princeton and Brown universities; and the universities of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Cambridge. Consider the Nobel prize. In 2009, it was awarded to five women (three of them scientists) and eight men, the narrowest gender gap since its inception. The scientific community in 2020 should reflect the talent pipeline of 2010. Women are now well placed, if they stay the course, to enhance diversity in science. But they will need encouragement, support and opportunities if the barriers that have traditionally stymied diversity are to drop away.

Women: why just one to represent half the workforce?
Joan M. Herbers
http://links.ealert.nature.com/ctt?kn=30&m=34602524&r=MjA1NzU2OTkyMgS2&b=2&j=NjY4MTM1NjES1&mt=1&rt=0
your prognostications about the future of science (Nature 463, 26–32; 2010), you might have featured only women as authors, given that the ancient prophesying Sibyls were always female. However, there was just one woman among the twenty writers. We trust that ten years from now we shall not have to remind Nature that nearly half of working scientists (and Nature readers) are women.

2007-10-30T15:04:00.001+01:00

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

2007-10-30T15:04:00.000+01:00

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

2007-10-30T15:01:00.000+01:00

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: Nature Nature 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.

2007-10-25T17:10:00.000+02:00

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

2007-10-25T16:55:00.000+02:00

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/

2007-10-25T16:52:00.001+02:00

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.

2007-03-28T10:23:00.000+02:00

GLOBAL WOMEN INVENTORS AND INNOVATORS NETWORK
http://www.euwiin.eu/
EUWIIN IS PUTTING THE SPOTLIGHT ON EUROPEAN WOMEN’S INVENTIVE & INNOVATIVE IDEAS
It is with great pleasure that the Global Women Inventors & Innovators Network (GWIIN) in partnership with London Metropolitan University proudly present the first European Women Inventors & Innovators Network of activities across Europe. This follows the successful development of initiatives for inventive & innovative women across the United Kingdom, Asia, Africa & Latin America.
EUWIIN is working to build opportunities for creative, inventive and innovative women across Europe. EUWIIN promotes invention and innovation in the workplace, in the business context, in learning environments and at home. EUWIIN wholeheartedly supports the introduction of new products, services and processes.
EUWIIN serves creative, inventive and innovative women to raise aspirations, improve self confidence and self esteem, increase motivation and broaden horizons and experience. EUWIIN recognises the business case for enabling more European women to succeed and yield better productivity, profitability and services. EUWIIN encourages women to discover training, new perspectives and a range of experiences so that they and Europe reap the returns.

2007-03-28T10:09:00.000+02:00

Intelligent Women, A Repository of Relevant and Reliable Information about Women in Science.Do join us as Co-Owner at http://intelligent-women.blogspot.com/
**********************************************************************************National National Science Foundation Online Document System.
New Study Says Women and Their Managers Differ on Career Advancement in Chemical Companies
URL : http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pr07031
March 22, 2007
During this Women's History Month, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has released a report called It's Elemental, the results of a 3-year study of women's careers in the chemical industry. The first study of its kind, the findings reveal that women and their managers have differing attitudes and perceptions about career advancement."While there have been some surveys of women on academic career tracks, no comprehensive work exists on women and their managers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) intensive industrial settings," said Judith Giordan, who is currently on detail from the University of Southern Mississippi as a program director for NSF's Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program. "As industry is the largest employer of these graduates, we wanted to determine and share how women can get ahead and what could hold them back from the career success they want."One finding reveals that managers, particularly male managers, rated the ability to relocate higher than women did as a factor for career success. Whereas women rated two items as high on their list--"blowing your own horn is a key element for success and recognition" and "…to be on highly visible projects where contributions can be recognized and rewarded"--managers rated those components as lower priorities for career advancement.Another finding was that some women still perceive sexist discrimination, which may impact their career advancement. Women who felt positive about their work environments reported lower levels of discrimination. The results indicate that top-level managers still need to develop and enforce policies and initiatives to combat sexism in the workplace."It's very clear from the data that women want to advance, and they're willing to do what it takes," said Ruth Fassinger, principal investigator for the project and professor and interim chair of the Department of Counseling and Personnel Services at the University of Maryland, College Park. "Women stated they want support and opportunities to get ahead. To go along with this, both the women and managers we surveyed said that mentoring is hugely important. We are conducting a follow-up study on mentoring so that we can better understand how it can be successfully structured."Researchers compared women with their managers in five critical areas: success and advancement; workplace support and climate; mentoring; home-work intersection; and company initiatives. Each chapter includes an analysis of the data. Key points and recommendations for managers and companies are offered at the end of each chapter."While women are taking on leadership roles in STEM industries, the number of women in those roles and the rate at which it is happening is disappointingly slow," said Giordan. "Opportunities for the next generation of women to thrive in industrial settings will increase as younger women coming up through the pipeline are better informed and prepared."Career development workshops are planned for women in undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral positions to help them prepare and learn from the findings. The report has been sent to senior managers at more than 50 companies.The study was conducted by the University of Maryland, College Park, under a grant from NSF.Industry managers who would like to discuss the report can contact Fassinger or Giordan at rfassing@umd.edu or judith.giordan@usm.edu. The report, It's Elemental: Enhancing Career Success for Women in the Chemical Industry, is available at http://www.education.umd.edu/EDCP/enhance_site/.-NSF-Media ContactsDana Topousis, National Science Foundation (703) 292-7750 dtopousi@nsf.govProgram ContactsJudith C. Giordan, National Science Foundation (703) 292-5038 jgiordan@nsf.govPrincipal InvestigatorsRuth Fassinger, University of Maryland, College Park (301) 405-2873 rfassing@umd.eduRelated WebsitesProject ENHANCE: http://www.education.umd.edu/EDCP/enhance_site/The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of $5.91 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 1,700 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives about 40,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes nearly 10,000 new funding awards. The NSF also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.
__________________________________

NSF Research on Gender in Science and Engineering Program

2007-03-23T15:11:00.000+01:00

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for the Research on Gender in Science and Engineering Program (GSE) (NSF 07-501)
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf07024
Type : Program Announcements & Information
Subtype : Education

Sample questions:
I want to make a documentary about women scientists, their lives and work. Would that be appropriate for Outreach and Communication?

I run a very successful intervention for girls and would like to broaden the number of girls involved by managing new projects in several locations. Would this be appropriate for Extension Services?

If I am not a social/behavioral scientist or education researcher, may I still apply to the GSE program?

What kinds of projects is GSE currently funding?

I would like to design an intervention that will give girls and/or women hands-on experiences in STEM education and/or research. Would such an activity fall within the scope of the GSE program?

I’d like to conduct research on the underrepresentation of women faculty members in STEM fields. Could I propose a research project that addresses tenure-track and family policies?

I want to develop a new course in Computer Science that would incorporate gender neutral/friendly/equitable practices into the curriculum. Would that fall under the scope of the GSE program?

I am interested in the underrepresentation of boys and/or men of color in STEM fields. Could I propose a research project where the research questions of interest involve boys?

The Invisible Sex (Gender in Prehistory)

2007-03-23T14:25:00.000+01:00

THE INVISIBLE SEX
A Smithsonian Institution book uncovering the true role of women in prehistory
By J. M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer and Jake Page

In The Invisible Sex, the authors present an exciting new look at prehistory, arguing that women invented all kinds of critical materials, including the clothing necessary for life in colder climates, the ropes used to make rafts that enabled long-distance travel by water and nets used for communal hunting. Even more important, women played a central role in the development of language and social life�in short, in our becoming human. In this eye-opening book, a new story about women in prehistory emerges with provocative implications for our assumptions about gender today.

Nature 2007, Leaks in the Pipeline

2007-03-15T13:05:00.000+01:00

Article source: Nature Vol. 446 (7133) March 2007
Leaks in the pipeline
by Mary Anne Holmes1 and Suzanne O'Connell2
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2007/070315/full/nj7133-346a.html

Mary Anne Holmes is at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln.
Suzanne O'Connell is at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut.
To discuss this article, contact the editor

Why do women remain curiously absent from the ranks of academia?

Mary Anne Holmes
Family issues can cause women to abandon academia at every rung of the career ladder. Policy-makers have addressed some ways to get more women on to the lower rungs of the ladder. But solutions at the higher steps — tenure and beyond — are proving a little more difficult.

In the United States, the past 30 years have seen a dramatic rise in the number of women gaining PhDs in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, according to the National Science Foundation (NSF). In the geosciences, the proportion of PhD degrees awarded to women has increased from none in 1966 to 46% in 2003. But, according to a database held by the American Geological Institute, there are 'leaks' in the geosciences pipeline for academics — particularly in the hiring for assistant professor positions. In the field, 42% of BS/BA degree recipients, 45% of MS recipients and 39% of PhD recipients are women. But only 26% of assistant professors, 14% of tenured associate professors and 8% of full professors are women.

Suzanne O'Connell
The biggest barrier lies in the structure of academia. Women may hesitate to apply for tenure-track jobs because they lack role models among the upper echelons. We conducted focus groups of active, employed geoscientists, including students, and found that nearly half of the women participants seriously considered leaving the geosciences at some point in their career, as opposed to only one-third of the men. The reasons for considering leaving are strikingly different between the two genders: the top two reasons for women were family issues (caring for children or elderly relatives) and problems with advisers (mostly a failure to communicate). By far and away, the main reason males considered leaving was an uncertain job market — a distant second was a tie between difficult classes and choosing the wrong sub-discipline. We think that 'problems with advisers' is a barrier that can be minimized by training junior (and willing senior) faculty members in mentorship.

Clearly women's biological clocks play a role. Apart from medicine, in what other profession is it common for careers to begin in the early to mid-thirties? A new assistant professor, with an average age of 33, is facing the most intense work period of his or her life. For women at this age, fertility declines every year while the chances of a miscarriage or conceiving a child with Down's syndrome increase. Few graduate schools have provisions for family leave. Most graduate students answer directly to a single PhD adviser, who might not allow time off for childbearing.

More universities should provide paid family leave for graduate students and faculty members. Only one-third of PhD-granting institutions provide any sort of daycare for graduate students and most have no childbirth policy. Stanford University recently took the lead and introduced an automatic institution-wide childbirth policy for graduate students that includes six weeks' paid leave. Offering high-quality, affordable campus childcare will mitigate worries that could seriously lessen students' academic productivity.

Departments could actively recruit women and educate hiring committees. As departments often know about openings a couple of years in advance, potential candidates in broad subject areas can be identified and courted.

There should be an automatic extension to tenure so that junior female faculty members do not have to choose between children and their job. Tenured women continue to leave because of family responsibilities. In a 40-year academic career, why not allow a temporary (one to three years) part-time option? Better assistance in spousal employment would help as well. Pennsylvania State University, for example, has temporary two- to three-year spousal appointments.

Although overt discrimination against hiring women has mostly disappeared, unconscious biases persist. As noted previously in this column (L. Bornmann Nature 445, 566; 2007), gender bias can influence the awarding of grants and academic prizes. Unconscious bias in hiring and promotion has also been documented (B. J. Tesch et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 273, 1022–1025; 1995). There needs to be a concerted effort to bring this to an end.

Although overt discrimination against hiring women has mostly disappeared, unconscious biases persist.

To help explore some of these professional and structural impediments, we are convening a consortium of geoscientist academics in New England. This NSF-funded endeavour has three components: a week-long retreat to focus on writing in the absence of departmental and domestic distractions; skills workshops on topics such as strategic persuasion and negotiation; and workshops for departmental chairs to learn about unconscious bias and ways it can be overcome. With attention to these details, we hope that the science faculty will look more like the student body in 2027.

Intelligent Women, A Repository of Relevant and Reliable Information about Women in Science.
Do join us as Co-Owner at http://intelligent-women.blogspot.com/

National Science Foundation Releases Statistics on Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering

2007-03-12T12:14:00.000+01:00

March 5, 2007
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pr07021
News Releases on Social/Behavioral Sciences

REPORT URL: www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd

The National Science Foundation today released the latest statistics on women, minorities and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. The report focuses on education and employment statistics for these groups.

Figures and tables detail degrees earned, occupations, age, country of birth and salary. The latest figures are from 2004, and were updated in December 2006.

A complete update of the report is issued by NSF every two years. NSF obtains the data from many sources, including NSF surveys, other federal agencies and non-federal organizations.

The report is available at: www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd.

-NSF-

Women, it seems, often get a raw deal in science — so how can discrimination be tackled?

2007-02-05T12:59:00.000+01:00

Nature 445, 566 (February 2007)
Recruitment Bias Cut
Women, it seems, often get a raw deal in science — so how can discrimination be tackled?
Lutz Bornmann
(He is a researcher at the Professorship for Social Psychology and Research on Higher Education at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.)

http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/ecJA0SpU7m0HjB0BLFD0Eb
When it comes to applying for grants, woman seem to be at a disadvantage — they are potentially less likely to succeed than their male counterparts. So suggests a meta-analysis of 21 studies conducted by my colleagues Rüdiger Mutz and Hans-Dieter Daniel and I (see http://arxiv.org/abs/math.ST/ 0701537). The cause of this discrepancy is unknown. It could be that fewer women principal investigators apply for grants. Gender bias — whether implicit or explicit — could come into play. Or the explanation could be institutional; there are more men than women in high-ranking positions, meaning fewer women have a chance to make decisions.

There has been widespread acknowledgement of how gender affects scientific careers. A comprehensive review of the literature on gender differences in the careers of academic scientists by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), concludes: "Taken as a whole, the body of literature we reviewed provides evidence that women in academic careers are disadvantaged compared with men in similar careers. Women faculty earn less, are promoted less frequently to senior academic ranks, and publish less frequently than their male counterparts."

But the NSF doesn't address peer review as a component of this discrepancy. Conventionally, peer review is regarded as a sure guarantee of good science. It reassures us about the quality of scientific work and that tax-payers' money is well spent. Our meta-analysis suggests that there are robust gender differences in grant peer-review procedures, and our results line up with the NSF's broader conclusion on gender differences in the careers of academic scientists.

Whatever the cause, our paper also reports some ways to rule out gender bias — whether intentional or unintentional. One possible way to avoid bias in the grant peer-review process is to mask applicants' gender. In journal peer review, masking authors' gender has proved to be a satisfactory precaution against bias. But masking is not equally suitable for all types of submission. It is impossible to pass valid judgment on a short-communication manuscript without some personal knowledge of the author.

It is questionable, as well, whether the gender of the applicant in grant peer review should be masked. Apart from assessment of the proposed research, decisions are also based on the applicant's track record. The European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) in Heidelberg, Germany, is planning an experiment in which the committee in the research-fellowship selection process will be totally gender-blinded, according to EMBO's programme manager, Gerlind Wallon.

The first step to identify bias and tackle its potential sources is a continuous, professional evaluation of the selection process and its outcomes. A few years ago, our team analysed the peer-review selection process for the Boehringer Ingelheim Fund (BIF) fellowships (see Nature 430, 591; 2004). Although the selection process proved highly valid in identifying the most promising junior scientists, and there was no gender difference at postdoctoral level, we did find a slight gender bias in the selection of PhD students. The results were thoroughly discussed by the review committee and the foundation continued to monitor its selection process closely. This allowed the BIF to see a considerable increase in female applicants and scholars in the next few years, with nearly 50% of the 2006 PhD scholarships awarded to women. But according to Hermann Fröhlich, managing director of the BIF, the growing number of young women participating and succeeding in one of the most competitive selection processes for scholarships may be due to social change. And as the BIF evaluates young researchers and their projects at the earliest possible phase in the scientific career, its figures may indicate that large numbers of women have started to reach for the top in science.

The Pioneer Award for innovative research given by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) shows that there are other effective measures against gender bias. In 2004 there were no women among the 9 scientists chosen, but in 2005, 6 of the 13 winners were women, and in 2006, 4 of 13. After the first round, the NIH specifically encouraged women to apply, accepted only self-nominations rather than institutional submissions and spent more time training its reviewers.

Women did very much better when only self-nominations were accepted, not institutional submissions.

Changes such as widening submission policies, 'masking' fellowship applicants and regularly evaluating the peer-review process have started closing the gender gap in grant success. Other moves will help women rise to higher levels of leadership in science and erase unintentional gender bias. The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the US National Academies proposes setting up programmes to provide women with mentoring and support. It also aims to restructure hiring and promotion procedures to reduce bias and encourage diversity. This will include training search committees and heads of department to recognize bias, and to reduce it.

Sex differences in mental abilities: g masks the dimensions on which they lie

2007-01-07T11:28:00.000+01:00

Sex differences in mental abilities: g masks the dimensions on which they lie
Wendy Johnson and Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4K0FFYT-1&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2007&_alid=519229108&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6546&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d18b9168242fc1a8a7c205f8c7a3f5a9

Empirical data suggest that there is at most a very small sex difference in general mental ability, but men clearly perform better on visuospatial tasks while women clearly perform better on tests of verbal usage and perceptual speed. In this study, we integrated these overall findings with predictions based on the Verbal–Perceptual–Rotation (VPR) model ([Johnson, W., and Bouchard, T. J. (2005a). Constructive replication of the visual–perceptual–image rotation (VPR) model in Thurstone's (1941) battery of 60 tests of mental ability. Intelligence, 33, 417–430.; Johnson, W., and Bouchard, T. J. (2005b). The structure of human intelligence: It's verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid and crystallized. Intelligence, 33. 393–416.]) of the structure of mental abilities. We examined the structure of abilities after removing the effects of general intelligence, identifying three underlying dimensions termed rotation–verbal, focus–diffusion, and memory. Substantial sex differences appeared to lie along all three dimensions, with men more likely to be positioned towards the rotation and focus poles of those dimensions, and women displaying generally greater memory. At the level of specific ability tests, there were greater sex differences in residual than full test scores, providing evidence that general intelligence serves as an all-purpose problem solving ability that masks sex differences in more specialized abilities. The residual ability factors we identified showed strong genetic influences comparable to those for full abilities, indicating that the residual abilities have some basis in brain structure and function.

Women and European Research

2006-12-20T14:29:00.000+01:00

The CSIC's (Spanish Research Council) Women and Science Committe
http://www.csic.es/mujer_ciencia.do

You can download there a number of international reports, amongst these:

"Women and Science. Mobilising women to enrich European research" Adopted by the European Commission on 17 February 1999

ETAN 2000 Report: Prepared by the European Technology Assessment Network on Women and Science working group, this report on women and science for the European Commission aims to "promote excellence by mainstreaming gender equality."

"Women Researchers in the CSIC" [in Spanish]: Of the initiatives carried out by the working group during the mandate of Rolf Tarrach the most noteworthy was the launch of publication of a series of reports entitled “Mujeres investigadoras del CSIC” (Women Researchers at the CSIC) on the representation and participation of women at various levels in the CSIC. These were produced by the CSIC's Human Resources Division and the first edition was based on data from June 2001.

Does bias in science hold women back? by C. Cannan

2006-12-20T14:06:00.000+01:00

The FASEB Journal - Essay - pp. 1284-

Does bias in science hold women back?
Cecily Cannan Selby1
Steinhardt School of Education, New York University, New York, New York, USA
E-mail: selbyc@aol.com

"THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM is that equal talent and accomplishment are viewed as unequal when seen through the eyes of prejudice ..." With these words, the MIT Women Faculty Committee summarized its 1999 report on obstacles faced by women in science (1) .

Gender bias and prejudice, born of conflicting beliefs about the "natures" of women and men, what they can and cannot, should and should not do, is now a well tilled field in the social sciences. Since gender bias and prejudice have been made visible, their impact is diminished. But, unequal evaluations can still be found. Are there other sources of prejudice that continue to hinder the advancement of women? I would argue that there are. Bias and prejudice born of conflicting beliefs about the "nature" of science can have a serious impact on the evaluation of scientific talent.

Since all scientists agree on what constitutes good scientific evidence, if its quality were the only criterion for judgment, there could be no bias in evaluating the talent of any individual scientist. But, other factors also influence who is chosen, and who chooses to practice science. Personal and cultural perspectives are involved in a scientist’s choice of what kind of science to do, and how to do it (2) . They can also influence the criteria used to evaluate other scientists’ choices. Einstein must have understood this when he wrote:

"... science in the making , as an end to be pursued, is as subjective and psychologically conditioned as any other branch of human endeavor–so much so that the question "what is the purpose and meaning of science? "receives quite different answers at different times and from different sorts of people" (3) .

Since "different subjective and psychological conditioning" continues to describe differences between women and men, Einstein’s precise analysis has, once again, provided insight into a puzzling phenomenon: how and why beliefs about science can create obstacles for women in science. Feminist scholars have paid particular attention to this phenomenon, showing how personal and cultural values (4) , and "mythlike beliefs" (5) help to mold the flow of science. The powerful outcome is that, "What is studied—and what has been neglected—grows out of who is doing the studying, and for what ends" (6) . Who does science does, indeed, matter (7) .

Differing beliefs about the purpose and meaning of science matter. They influence opinions about what makes "good" science—and "good" scientists. Scientists’ personal visions of what is "good" in science frame their choices of problems to address, and how to address them. They also influence the criteria each uses in evaluating the talent and achievement of others. Einstein’s "different sorts of people" certainly include the public, whose perceptions of what makes science "good" frame attitudes and policies wherever society and science meet—notably, in allocation of resources for education and research. When evaluators express differing beliefs and attitudes, majority views will dominate and minority views will be filtered out. Is not the majority view then perceived as biased against those filtered out? Virginia Valian has coined the term "gender schema" to describe and explain gender bias in order to make it visible (8) . She has used her analysis to advance criteria for a fair and accurate evaluation of talent in science. Let’s see if there are "science schema" as well as "gender schema" embedded in how we size up science and scientists.

SCIENCE SCHEMA

What differing views of science are held by scientists? Do they affect the evaluation of female talent? At a memorable 1978 conference, 15 natural and social scientists could not find agreement on the power and limits of scientific inquiry (9) . Some argued that scientific knowledge represents humanity’s highest achievement, so there should be no attempts to limit it. Others evoked higher values (e.g., social stability) and therefore science should join with other modes of inquiry to support such values. Each scientist who spoke reflected a particular, personal, presumption about the nature of science. Half a century earlier, Karl Popper addressed such presumptions, suggesting three different "doctrines" that could cover the practice of science:

1) The scientist aims at finding a true theory or description of the world which shall also be an explanation of the observable facts. 2) The scientist can succeed in finally establishing the truth of such theories beyond all reasonable doubt. 3) The best, the truly scientific theories, describe the "essences" or the "essential natures" of things—the realities which lie behind experiences" (10) .

Each of Popper’s "doctrines" not only suggests a different view of what constitutes good science, but also its relation to other sorts of human inquiry. Those who limit science’s power to explaining natural phenomena likely support equal opportunity for all modes of human inquiry, and do not seek domination for science. Those who believe science can answer questions, not just about phenomena but about the "essence" of things, will likely value science’s mode of inquiry above all others and tolerate no limits to its power. They are also more likely to believe that the power and practice of science should be open only to those who belong to an intellectual "elite."

The impact of personal and cultural values on a scientist’s work is reflected in the kind of problems he/she chooses to address. From extensive historical studies of scientific investigations, Harvard’s Gerald Holton has identified several categories (unpublished data). Some lines of investigation seek to challenge the prevailing scientific model or exemplar, or to reach principle-oriented findings. Others look for areas of basic scientific ignorance in an area of social or national interest, emphasizing the application of previously known science and engineering to technical and social problems; we now call this "translational research." Still others lines of investigation serve to synthesize previously unconnected theories and findings. Some, indeed, may entirely reject "androcentric" or "Western" science and technology and work out novel alternatives, As a result of any or all of these efforts, some scientists may seek wide dissemination of their work, peer recognition and personal reward after they have published–and some may not (11) .

Why do scientists choose to do what they do? The National Science Foundation reports that the public believes scientists are motivated by a "Search for Truth and Beauty" (12) . Other motivations show up when scientists write their autobiographies and in less subjective writing: they may say to that their aim is to help people and society; to solve challenging problems; to satisfy curiosity; to seek societal and economic recognition and rewards; to assist human development; to follow in the steps of a mentor; to leave something lasting to society and humanity; to concentrate upon a particular problem. Since a similar spectrum of motivations can be found among those choosing other professions, the motivation shared by all scientists must be to do science—to solve their problem of choice using scientific inquiry. On this all scientists agree!

HOW DOES ONE DO SCIENCE?

Choices of where to work, and what methodologies and technologies to employ, are severely constrained by the resources and the mentors available. Whatever the work, personal tastes and styles set the mold. In a remarkable review of scientific styles in German biochemistry laboratories from 1870 to 1930, Joseph Fruton identified laboratory styles that range from a "quasi-military director to a senior counselor in the independent efforts of junior associates." He came to an incisive conclusion about relations of scientific style to scientific productivity, "the scientific productivity of the laboratories led by scientists with broad views of their field, and great interest in encouraging their junior associates, was significantly greater than the output of laboratories with autocratic, dictatorial leaders who treated students as disciples rather than as independent scientists." (13) Personal style and taste matters.

Other studies of scientists’ tastes and styles categorize them as "collectors, classifiers and those that compulsively tidy," and as "poet-scientists, philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics." Some are detectives and some are explorers, some artists, and some artisans. Some seek synthesis while others seek analysis; some are "classicists" and some "romanticists." They can be compared as "rational" vs. "empirical", or, "theoretical" vs. experimental. Scientists enjoying field work, whether in the Antarctic or the Amazon, space shuttles or deep ocean submarines, tell of their particular taste for nature and its emotional and physical, as well as intellectual, challenges (14) . Reflecting on all this diversity, Peter Medawar wrote, "What sort of mind or temperament can all these people be supposed to have in common must be very rare, and most people who are in fact scientists could easily have been something else instead." (15) One size does not fit all scientists.

"FEMALE" SCIENCE SCHEMA

How does discrimination against groups relate to all this individual diversity? In a research study of successful young female and male scientists, Gerald Holton reported that more men than women thought being a "good scientist" included being aggressive, combative, and self-promoting (16) . "Women were more likely to see that science is gorgeous, leaving to a lesser place the hope to make a grand career, no matter what." Their "good" was less related to influence and power. The Harvard physicist, Howard Georgi relates this phenomenon to "unconscious discrimination." When "our selection procedures tend to select not only for talents that are directly relevant to success in science, but also for assertiveness and single-mindedness. This causes problems for women (and others as well)" (17) . When evaluators’ schema for what makes science "good" filters out those not holding the same view, are they not biased against the tastes and styles, needs and interests of those filtered out? When women evaluate men’s talent in science, would their evaluation be biased against aggressive, combative styles?

Other "group" differences between female and male scientists are recognizable. In a study of female and male scientists in "elite" and lower status universities, the authors made this observation:

"The women we studied were interested and successful in places where curricular or occupational activities and the meaning of the term "science" that they inspired encouraged broader and more flexible commitments of time, space, and professional identity than the "greedy" activities and meanings of elite science. In sites of elite science, regardless of content, achieving high status required more of one’s time, tighter constraints on appropriate workplaces, and narrower identities and networks of power than in lower-status sites. We suspect that many young women (and many men) find the greedy demands of elite science simply too costly" (18) .

The workplace climates the women in this study preferred are exactly those that Fruton described above as most productive for men. For the good of science, and its practitioners, should these not be welcomed? Other differences between male and female attitudes stem from women’s cultural responsibility for children, family, and/or community. Reasons women give for choosing to leave the study and practice of science most frequently cite lack of humanistic approaches and attitudes (19) .

DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES ADD VALUE

Studies of scientific practices note how senior scientists often select students and faculty congruent with their own personal and scientific perspectives. The wish to "clone" oneself is understandable, and has some merit, but may not work well for the long-term good of science. Diverse perspectives can and do add value to science. To cite one example, "it would be hard to even imagine a collection of people more different from each other in origin, education, manner, manners, appearance, style, and worldly purposes than James Watson, Francis Crick, Lawrence Bragg, Rosalind Franklin and Linus Pauling." (20) Nicholas Negroponte, founder and leader of MIT’s Media Laboratory, highlights relationships among creativity, innovation, and diversity: "The ability to make leaps of thought is a common denominator among operators of breakthrough ideas. Usual this ability resides in people with very wide backgrounds, multidisciplinary minds, and a broad spectrum of experiences." (21) As usual, Karl Popper summarizes these arguments succinctly: "Diversity makes critical arguments fruitful." (22)

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, EQUAL "SCHEMA"

An open, democratic society responsive to the needs, interests, and values of its citizens needs to have these represented in its scientific enterprise. To this end, evaluation of talent for science should provide equal opportunity for a broad diversity in personal, cultural, and scientific perspective. The selection and advancement of students and scientists ought to be open to those who exhibit the wide variety of tastes and styles, needs and interests that characterize today’s productive community of science. Since one size does not fit all successful scientists, selection should not be limited to those who fit any pigeonhole, be it gender, class, or mental "schema." And if we want to bring groups currently underrepresented to the table of science, let us teach them that different tastes and styles, needs and interests, and, yes, gender are good at the banquet of science.

The author wishes to thank Professor Gerald Holton for permission to use his unpublished data.
http://www.mblwhoilibrary.org/exhibits/early_years/early_years15.html.)

REFERENCES
MIT Report of the Committee of Women Faculty, MIT Faculty News Letter 2000
Selby, C.C. (2006) What Makes It Science/ A Modern Look at Scientific Inquiry. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching (In press)
Einstein, A. (1934) The World as I See It ,290 Covici Friede, New York.
Hubbard, R. (1976) Introductory Essay. Rose, H. Rose, S. P. R. eds. The Ideology Of/In the Natural Sciences ,363 G. K. Hall Boston.
Keller, E. F. (1975) Feminism and Science. Harding, S. O’Barr, J. F. eds. Sex and Scientific Inquiry ,233-246 University of Chicago Press Chicago.
Schiebinger, L. (1999) Has Feminism Changed Science? Harvard University Press Cambridge.
Selby, C.C. (2006) The Missing Person in Science: Inquiry Begins with I ,10-13 New York Academy of Sciences UpdateMay 2006
Valian, V. (1998) Why So Slow?. The Advancement of Women MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts.
. American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1978) The Limits of Scientific Inquiry. Daedalus 103
Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. London.
Holton, G., Sonnert, G. (2001) Proposal: Developing and Testing a Quantitative Instrument on Normative Styles in Science and Engineering ,14 Cambridge, Massachusetts. (unpublished).
. National Science Board (2004, 2006) Science and Engineering Indicators National Science Foundation Washington, D. C..
Fruton, J. F. (1990) Contrasts in Scientific Style: Research Groups in the Chemical and Biochemical Sciences. Stewert, J. eds. Memoirs series 191,473 American Philosophical Library Philadelphia.
Gladfelter, E. (2002) Agassiz’s Legacy: Scientists’ Reflections on the Value of Field Experience ,437 Oxford University Press New York.
Medawar, P. (1979) Advice to a Young Scientist Harper and Rowe New York.
Holton, G. (1999) Different Perceptions of ’Good Science’ and Their Effects on Careers. Annals, NY Acad. Sci. 869,78-86[Free Full Text]
Georgi, H. (1999) A tentative theory of discrimination against women in science. National Academy of Sciences, Who will do the science of the future? A symposium on careers of women in science National Academy Press Washington, D. C..
Eisenhart, M.A., Finkel, E. (1998) Women’s Science: Learning and Succeeding From the Margins ,281 University of Chicago Press Chicago.
Seymour, E., Hewitt, N. M. (1997) Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave Sciecne Westview Press Boulder, Colorado.
Medawar, P. (1974) The Hope of Progress Wildwood House London.
Negroponte, N. (2003) Creating a Culture of Ideas. Technol. Rev. 106,34-35
Popper, K. (1983) Realism and the Aim of Science: Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery Rowman and Littlefield Totowa, New Jersey.

Book recommended: Out of the Shadows: Contribuions of XX century women to Phisycs

2006-12-20T13:50:00.000+01:00

Nature 444, 548 - 548 (30 Nov 2006) www.nature.com

Women or just good scientists? by Patricia Fara, a review of:

Out of the Shadows: Contributions of Twentieth-Century Women to Physics
edited by Nina Byers & Gary Williams
Cambridge University Press: 2006. 498 pp. £30 $35

I do not agree with sex being brought into science at all. The idea of 'woman and science' is completely irrelevant. Either a woman is a good scientist, or she is not." Not the provocative statement of a modern feminist, but a plea for equality voiced a century ago by Hertha Ayrton, the electrical experimenter who, in 1904, became the first woman allowed to present her own paper at the Royal Society in London. Ayrton would presumably be furious to find herself the opening entry in Out of the Shadows, a chronologically arranged set of essays on female physicists.

Like Ayrton, most eminent women prefer to be remembered for their achievements, rather than their X chromosomes, but US physicists Nina Byers and Gary Williams have made womanhood an essential criterion for inclusion in this edited collection. Perhaps to fend off accusations of transgressing political correctness, they whittled down their long list of potential entries by choosing the 40 candidates who had made the most notable contributions to scientific progress. As a result, several over-familiar icons, such as Marie Curie, Emmy Noether and Dorothy Hodgkin (hardly a physicist), make yet another appearance, even though the sole factor that unites them the gender that made it so hard for them to succeed is deliberately scarcely mentioned.

The contributors were asked to submit short accounts divided into two sections: 'important contributions' and 'biography'. Many of the brisk summaries of scientific discoveries seem oddly redundant anyone who can follow the boxed discussions of Ricci tensors, 4S or string theory does not need to read them. The editors' prescriptive format has resulted in a book packed with facts, occasionally relieved by a brief anecdote ideal for diligent students preparing accurate but unreflective assignments.

Nevertheless, the index provides clues to more interesting stories about this book's subjects. The long list of 'firsts' reveals that it was not until 1962 that the French Academy of Science admitted a woman, Marguerite Perey, and that the first woman to receive an honorary doctorate from Princeton University was the physicist Chien-Shiung Wu in 1958. The entries under 'Nobel prize' are dominated by women said to have been unjustly passed over, including astrophysicist Jocelyn Bell Burnell, nuclear physicist Lise Meitner and chemist Agnes Pockels (strangely, Rosalind Franklin is absent, despite the presence of another X-ray crystallographer, Kathleen Lonsdale, one of the first two women elected to the Royal Society in 1945). The heading 'Nazis' referring to the plight of Myriam Sarachik, Marietta Blau, Hertha Sponer and others demonstrates that, contradicting the editors' desires, biographical accounts often demand discussions of discrimination.

As Byers' introduction points out, most of the contributors are practising scientists who are unused to writing history. Although they each provide a short bibliography, they have mostly omitted the many excellent books and articles written by professional historians of science. This collection would have been of more value for aspiring young women if it had provided a more nuanced appreciation of how individual scientists have been converted into exaggerated stereotypes. Curie, for instance, is often depicted as the laboratory equivalent of a domestic drudge, a selfless heroine who neglected her health and her appearance while she systematically processed tonnes of dirty pitchblende to isolate radium. Such presentations reinforce the view that female scientists are a substandard breed, neither normal women nor stellar intellects. In his foreword, Freeman Dyson perceptively criticizes the editors for not including younger physicists, who would have provided more relevant role models. He also pinpoints what remains, unfortunately, excellent advice for any ambitious woman: marry the right man.

Gender in Science, Science 2006

2006-12-20T13:46:00.000+01:00

Science vol. 314 (5799) 27 Oc t. 2006
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol314/issue5799/index.dtl?etoc

On the Lack of Women in Academic Science by Mielczarek et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5799/592c?etoc

Gender Similarities in Mathematics and Science by Janet Shibley Hyde and Marcia C. Linn
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5799/599?etoc
Boys and girls have similar psychological traits and cognitive abilities; thus, a focus on factors other than gender is needed to help girls persist in mathematical and scientific career tracks.

Exposure to Scientific Theories Affects Women's Math Performance

2006-12-20T13:43:00.000+01:00

Science magazine, 2006
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5798/435?etoc

Exposure to Scientific Theories Affects Women's Math Performance
Ilan Dar-Nimrod and Steven J. Heine

Abstract
Stereotype threat occurs when stereotyped groups perform worse as their group membership is highlighted. We investigated whether stereotype threat is affected by accounts for the origins of stereotypes. In two studies, women who read of genetic causes of sex differences performed worse on math tests than those who read of experiential causes.

Blog recommended: Does Gender Matter? in nature.com

2006-12-20T13:38:00.000+01:00

Nature.com recommended Blog: Does Gender Matter?

http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/07/does_gender_matter.html

The suggestion that women are not advancing in science because of innate inability is being taken seriously by some high-profile academics. Ben A. Barres explains what is wrong with the hypothesis.

Gender: missing the prizes that can inspire a career

2006-12-20T13:29:00.000+01:00

Nature 442, 868(24 August 2006)Published online 23 August 2006
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7105/full/442868a.html

Gender: missing the prizes that can inspire a career
Annette C. Dolphin1

Sir:
I congratulate Ben A. Barres on his excellent Commentary "Does gender matter?" (Nature 442, 133–136; 2006). I was struck by the paucity of female plenary lecturers at the Bioscience 2006 meeting of the UK Biochemical Society. Spurred on by Barres's comment that too few women academics speak out against prejudice, I decided to do a little research on the matter.

There have been three meetings of the Biochemical Society in the new annual meeting format (Biosciences 2004, 2005 and 2006) and at these 1 of 10, 0 of 10 and 0 of 7, respectively, of the plenary lectures were given by a woman. Some of these plenary lecturers were recipients of prizes and medals, and I was so shocked by these statistics that I made a rough count of the proportion of women who have received these prizes over the years, as published on the society's website at http://www.biochemsoc.org.uk. Recipients' initials, rather than first names, are given, so I may conceivably have misattributed the male gender to some of the earlier names.

The prizes include the annual Colworth medal, given to a promising scientist under 35: only one has been awarded to a woman, out of 44 recipients, between 1963 and 2007. The statistics for the other prizes, up to 2007, are the Novartis medal, 2 of 39; Jubilee lecture, 1 of 23; Wellcome Trust award for research in biochemistry related to medicine, 1 of 11; AstraZeneca prize, 1 of 5; Frederick Gowland Hopkins memorial lecture, 0 of 24; Keilin memorial lecture, 0 of 21; Morton lecture, 0 of 14; Biochemical Society medal, 0 of 3; and GlaxoSmithKline medal, 0 of 2. This translates into 3.2% of the prizes being given to women, a truly lamentable record.

Furthermore, the statistics have not improved. In the past ten years, none of the Colworth medals has been awarded to women — and it is prizes such as these, given to scientists early in their career, that influence their future success. The results speak for themselves: that people will always give prizes to others in their own image, unless forced to take sexual and racial bias into account. I wonder if the record of other scientific societies is much better in this regard.

I should also point out that UK Biochemical Society meetings are supported by funds from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and by the European Molecular Biology Organization. Why do research funding bodies not assert leverage on this matter, by insisting that sexual and racial bias in speaker selection must be addressed at any meeting for which their financial support is given?

See Nature 442, 510 (2006) for other letters on this topic. Readers are encouraged to add their comments on the Nature News Blog at: http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/07/
does_gender_matter.html

Benefits of Women in Science. Science, 2005

2006-12-20T13:23:00.000+01:00

Science magazine, Vol. 308 (5722) 29 April 2005
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5722/601">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5722/601
Editorial
Benefits of Women in Science by Julia King

Recent comments from Harvard President Lawrence Summers have sparked heated discussion in the United States and abroad about possible inherent (that is, genetic) differences between women and men. The debate concerns whether these differences might explain the paucity of women in elite science, engineering, and technology (SET) careers. The issue really amounts to possible differences at the high extremes of ability distributions, but the available evidence is that any inherent differences are swamped by social and cultural factors. It is the failure to encourage more women to pursue SET careers, and to maintain their presence in these positions, that requires serious attention. As John Brock, the chief operating officer of Cadbury Schweppes, points out "A diverse workforce . . . is the best way to expand into new markets and stimulate new business ideas . . . that's a significant competitive advantage."

In the United Kingdom, we have a pressing need to encourage more women to enter SET careers. The UK government's agenda for economic growth includes a commitment to increase the proportion of gross domestic product spent by both government and industry on R&D. Yet the Institute of Employment Studies predicts that by 2011, only 20% of the workforce will be white, male, able-bodied, and under 45. Eighty percent of future employment growth will be attributable to women.

Industry has recognized the value of an experienced female staff. In 2002, Lord Browne, chief executive of British Petroleum (BP), remarked that "because the management of the industry has been predominantly white and male and Anglo-Saxon, those people have recruited and promoted in their own image." Among other initiatives, BP has appointed a Vice President for Diversity, and Shell Oil holds recruiting events for female engineers at UK universities. Support for female employees during career breaks is becoming more common in UK-based companies, as industry recognizes that diversity is a strategic business issue. Industry has also responded to research showing that diverse teams are harder to manage than homogeneous groups: Absenteeism and staff turnover are higher; communication and social integration take more effort; common values and rules must be established; and the different needs, behaviors, and characteristics of team members must be supported. Team leaders must learn to manage differences of opinion--the very source of the diversity advantage. But the results are worth having: Diverse teams outperform on innovation, problem-solving, flexibility, and decision-making.

The UK's Athena program was established in 1999 to address the shortage of women in SET academic careers and to deliver a significant increase in the number of women recruited to top academic jobs. The Athena Survey of SET (ASSET) report (just released) compares career pathways of more than 6500 men and women in academia and research institutes in the United Kingdom.* The survey reveals that differences between women's and men's experiences are more marked in academia than in other kinds of research organizations. Men in academic positions are more likely to report that they were encouraged to apply for promotion, as compared with their female colleagues. In academia, women rank annual performance reviews and personal development more highly than men in supporting career progression; in research institutes, the ranking by both sexes is almost identical. Nearly 50% of women in universities feel disadvantaged in terms of salary and promotion, whereas only 15% of male staff recognize this as a problem for their female colleagues.

This is not to say that things haven't improved. When I went up to Cambridge University in the 1970s as an undergraduate, only 16% of all undergraduates were female, with a mere 2% studying physical sciences, and there were no female academic staff in the departments of physics, chemistry, materials science, engineering, or mathematics. Now, Cambridge University has about 49% women undergraduates, of which 10 to 25% study the physical sciences, and 24% of the academic staff in the materials science department are women. At Imperial College (London), our fastest growing engineering course is bioengineering, with an undergraduate intake of 50% women.

Academic research and initiatives such as Athena have been effective in highlighting the benefits of diversity and the management challenges of maintaining a diverse workforce. Industry sees the competitive and financial advantages and has responded. Despite showing the way, academia is being left behind. We must embed in our universities the best practices that we preach.

Book recommended: Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women: 2004

2006-12-20T13:14:00.000+01:00

Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women: 2004
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005016

This statistical report assembles a series of indicators that examine the extent to which males and females have access to the same educational opportunities, avail themselves equally of these opportunities, perform at similar levels throughout schooling, succeed at similar rates, and reap the same benefits from their educational experiences. This report serves as an update of an earlier publication, Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women (NCES 2000-030), which was prepared for Congress in 2000.

PDF open access on-line

Gender Differences and Performance in Science by C. Muller et al., Science 2005

2006-12-20T13:08:00.000+01:00

Gender Differences and Performance in Science by Carol B. Muller et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?fulltext=gender+differences&issue=5712
Science, Vol 307, Issue 5712, 1043 , 18 February 2005

On 14 Jan., Harvard University President Lawrence Summers, speaking at a meeting of the National Bureau of Economic Research, suggested that since fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in high school, genetic, rather than social, differences may explain why so few women are successful in these fields ("Summers's comments draw attention to gender, racial gaps," News of the Week, A. Lawler, 28 Jan., p. 492).

Well-accepted, pathbreaking research on learning [for example, (1, 2)] shows that expectations heavily influence performance, particularly on tests. If society, institutions, teachers, and leaders like President Summers expect (overtly or subconsciously) that girls and women will not perform as well as boys and men, there is a good chance many will indeed not perform as well. At the same time, there is little evidence that those scoring at the very top of the range in standardized tests are likely to have more successful careers in the sciences. Too many other factors are involved. Finally, well-documented evidence demonstrates that women's efforts and achievements are not valued, recognized, and rewarded to the same extent as those of their male counterparts (3).As leaders in science, engineering, and education, we are concerned by the suggestion that the status quo for women in science and engineering may be natural, inevitable, and unrelated to social factors. Counterexamples to this suggestion are drawn from the fields of law and medicine. In 1970, women represented just 5% of law school students and 8% of medical school students (4). These low percentages have increased substantially in response to social changes and concerted institutional and individual effort and are now about 50% in each case. Obviously, the low rates of participation in 1970 were indicative of social, and not genetic, barriers to success.We must continue to address the multitude of small and subtle ways in which people of all kinds are discouraged from pursuing interest in scientific and technical fields. Society benefits most when we take full advantage of the scientific and technical talent among us. It is time to create a broader awareness of those proven and effective means, including institutional policies and practices, that enable women and other underrepresented groups to step beyond the historical barriers in science and engineering.

References
J. Bransford et al., How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, ed. 1, 2000). C. M. Steele, Atlantic Monthly 284 (no. 2), 44 (Aug. 1999).

V. Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999). Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women: 2004 (National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC, 2004) (available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005016 ).

Book recommended: Pandora's Breeches Women, Science and Power in teh Enlightenment

2006-12-20T12:51:00.000+01:00

Pandora's Breeches Women, Science and Power in the Enlightenment
Author: Patricia Fara Pimlico
(Random House), London, 2004. 288 pp. £12.50, C$34.95. ISBN 1-8441-3082-7.

A review by Judith Hawley Saturday April 3, 2004 The Guardian
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1184639,00.html
In a provocative comparison, Patricia Fara declares that "Official accounts of Soviet Russia avoided mentioning Josef Stalin. In contrast, women have not been written out of the history of science: they have never been written in." Women may have been excluded from the traditional historical record, but it is simply not the case, Fara demonstrates, that they were excluded from scientific activity in the 18th century. Pandora's Breeches presents so many examples of women active in science that the pronouncements of those who declared women were unscientific seem less like an injunction than a desperate attempt to lock the door after the horse has bolted.

In iconography and metaphor, women figured as symbols of knowledge, or as the object of knowledge, but in practical terms, they were not supposed to conduct scientific investigation themselves. Francis Bacon, the great 17th-century promoter of empirical natural philosophy, conceived of science as the masculine penetration and conquest of feminine Nature. However, reality did not reproduce the propaganda. Fara details a range of ways women were involved in science - or natural philosophy, as it was called. In most cases, the way to science was through a man. In aristocratic households, women often had access to their brothers' tutors and their fathers' libraries. Some, like intellectually ambitious gentlemen, amassed natural-history collections. Others corresponded with philosophers and even influenced their thinking.

Women might also participate in conversations with scientific guests and, in exceptional cases, preside over a learned salon. Thus they could not only engage in conversations about the latest scientific theories and discoveries, but act as patrons and further the career of male scientists. In England, Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, and in France, Marie Paul Lavoisier presided over such salons and made a name for themselves as scientific adepts. In the case of the Duchess of Newcastle, the name that stuck was "Mad Madge". Fara also introduces us to women who kept the detailed records of experiments or observations that enabled their husbands or brothers to pursue further research, or who supervised and fed the numerous assistants and artisans who supported experimentation. They might assist in experiments or, like the women associated with the French astronomer Joseph Lalande, undertake tedious mathematical calculations to demonstrate the findings of others. Sally Wedgwood was one of many involved in the development of techniques and materials that would have commercial applications. Several women translated key scientific texts or adapted them for younger audiences and thus facilitated the spread of science. Jane Marcet's educational dialogue, Conversations on Chemistry (1806), so captured the imagination of the young Michael Faraday that she inspired him to undertake his pioneering career.

What facilitated the involvement of women was the fact that, in this pre-professional age, science was not carried out in industrial and university laboratories but in the home. Most of the scientific work they did was supportive and secondary rather than pioneering; it was in some respects an extension of their existing domestic roles. Caroline Herschel, the first woman to publish papers in the Philosophical Transactions and the first woman to receive a salary for her scientific work, voluntarily acted as a drudge for her brother William and, when he died, her nephew John. The 17th-century campaigner for women's education, Bathsua Makin, argued that domestic science involved natural philosophy. If chemistry is cooking for boys, cooking is chemistry for girls. However, by suggesting they were capable of rational activity, women also transgressed the bounds of feminine decorum.

The woman of science is a hybrid, an unnatural figure, divided from her sex by her intellect and unable to join male institutions because of her gender. The title of the book alludes to the fear that when women wear the trousers, a host of evils will be unleashed on the world. Kant spluttered that "a woman who... conducts learned controversies on mechanics like the Marquise de Chatelier might as well have a beard". Emilie du Chtelet, whose translation of Newton made a big impact on French thought and whose Foundations of Physics was an ambitious synthesis of the theories of Newton, Descartes and Leibniz, certainly could conduct learned controversies on mechanics - and other subjects. But she did not conform to the stereotype of the de-feminised learned woman. Her fondness for dress and decoration did not meet with people's expectations. Her lover Voltaire acknowledged the impossibility of her position: she was, he declared, "a great man whose only fault was being a woman".

Finding out that, contrary to received wisdom, women actually did play a part in the scientific Enlightenment gives rise to the problem of how to write them back into history. How do we make sense of this knowledge? The aim of this book is not just to present information that will be new to most general readers, but also to reflect on how past histories of science have been written and how they might be written in future. It's all a question of framing. Fara complains that, while traditional histories of science have written women out because they have largely been histories of great men or big ideas, feminist histories are at fault for abstracting scientific women from their cultural contexts. She points out that national differences presented women with various opportunities: in France, women were seen as complementary to men and accorded more respect as rational beings; in Germany, the guild tradition enabled women to work in family trades; in England, well, women had to struggle.

Feminist historians, by treating women in science as pioneers, have created anachronistic collections of heroines, like cabinets of curiosities. Fara's aim is to change the history of science at a more fundamental level: "Rather than creating new female heroines, [ Pandora's Breeches ] has undermined conventional views of the past by attacking the very concept of heroism in science. This book has presented new interpretations of scientific men as well as of scientific women... Science is a collaborative project whose successes - and failures - can only be appreciated by understanding how scientific technology has permeated the whole of society."
This has the air of a publisher's blurb, but Fara does make good her rhetorical claims. Her contention about the collaborative nature of science is enshrined in the structure of her book, a structure that is at once intricate and solid. In thematic sections, she tackles the ideology of science; the "great men" view of history; science as part of everyday life; and the relation between science and the imagination. To explore each of these themes, she looks at exemplary pairs slashed together, such as Elisabeth of Bohemia/ René Descartes; Caroline Herschel/William Hershel; and Priscilla Wakfield/Carl Linnaeus. (What does the slash do? Make them equivalent, link them or divide them?) Each chapter opens with a summary of "traditional" accounts of male scientists and reframes our view by detailed examination of emblematic images such as portraits, frontispieces and scientific illustrations.
Fara's history foregrounds and makes a virtue of its construction: this is one way of telling the story, it declares, but there are others. This method might sometimes be heavy-handed but it is an excellent way of including women without doing men down. Fascinating in its details, Pandora's Breeches is also ground-breaking in the way it reframes the history of science.
Judith Hawley is the general editor of Literature and Science, 1660-1834, published by Pickering & Chatto.

See also:
Science magazine http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5709/522?etoc
HISTORY OF SCIENCE: Spotlight on Invisible Women A review by Asha Gopinathan
Writing for a general audience, the author explores how women contributed to the development of science in 17th- and 18th-century Europe.

Book recommended: Beyond Bias and Barriers: fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering

2006-12-20T12:43:00.000+01:00

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11741
Sept. 18, 2006
Contacts: Vanee Vines, Senior Media Relations OfficerMichelle Strikowsky, Media Relations AssistantOffice of News and Public Information202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Broad National Effort Urgently Needed To Maximize Potential of Women Scientists and Engineers in Academia
WASHINGTON -- Women face barriers to hiring and promotion in research universities in many fields of science and engineering -- a situation that deprives the United States of an important source of talent as the country faces increasingly stiff global competition in higher education, science and technology, and the marketplace, says a new report from the National Academies. Eliminating gender bias in universities requires immediate, overarching reform and decisive action by university administrators, professional societies, government agencies, and Congress.
"Women are capable of contributing more to the nation's science and engineering research enterprise, but bias and outmoded practices governing academic success impede their progress almost every step of the way," said Donna E. Shalala, president of the University of Miami, former secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. "Fundamental changes in the culture and opportunities at America's research universities are urgently needed. The United States should enhance its talent pool by making the most of its entire population."
The report offers a broad range of recommendations, including the following important steps. Trustees, university presidents, and provosts should provide clear leadership in changing the culture and structure of their institutions to recruit, retain, and promote more women -- including minority women -- into faculty and leadership positions. Specifically, university executives should require academic departments to show evidence of having conducted fair, broad, and aggressive talent searches before officials approve appointments. And departments should be held accountable for the equity of their search processes and outcomes, even if that means canceling a search or withholding a faculty position. The report also urges higher education organizations to consider forming a collaborative, self-monitoring body that would recommend standards for faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion; collect data; and track compliance across institutions.
University leaders, the report adds, should develop and implement hiring, tenure, and promotion policies that take into account the flexibility that faculty members may need as they pass through various life stages -- and that do not sacrifice quality to meet rigid timelines. Administrators, for example, should visibly and vigorously support campus programs that help faculty members who have children or other caregiving duties to maintain productive careers. At a minimum, the programs should include provisions for paid parental leave, facilities and subsidies for on-site and community-based child care, and more time to work on dissertations and obtain tenure.
Forty years ago, women made up only 3 percent of America's scientific and technical workers, but by 2003 they accounted for nearly one-fifth. In addition, women have earned more than half of the bachelor's degrees awarded in science and engineering since 2000. However, their representation on university and college faculties fails to reflect these gains. Among science and engineering Ph.D.s, four times more men than women hold full-time faculty positions. And minority women with doctorates are less likely than white women or men of any racial or ethnic group to be in tenure positions. Previous studies of female faculty have shed light on common characteristics of their workplace environments. In one survey of 1,000 university faculty members, for example, women were more likely than men to feel that colleagues devalued their research, that they had fewer opportunities to participate in collaborative projects, and that they were constantly under a microscope. In another study, exit interviews of female faculty who "voluntarily" left a large university indicated that one of their main reasons for leaving was colleagues' lack of respect for them.
If academic institutions are not transformed to tackle such barriers, the future vitality of the U.S. research base and economy is in jeopardy, the report says. The following are some of the committee's key findings that underscore its call to action:
> Studies have not found any significant biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics that can account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and leadership positions in S&T fields.
> Compared with men, women faculty members are generally paid less and promoted more slowly, receive fewer honors, and hold fewer leadership positions. These discrepancies do not appear to be based on productivity, the significance of their work, or any other performance measures, the report says.
> Measures of success underlying performance-evaluation systems are often arbitrary and frequently applied in ways that place women at a disadvantage. "Assertiveness," for example, may be viewed as a socially unacceptable trait for women but suitable for men. Also, structural constraints and expectations built into academic institutions assume that faculty members have substantial support from their spouses. Anyone lacking the career and family support traditionally provided by a "wife" is at a serious disadvantage in academe, evidence shows. Today about 90 percent of the spouses of women science and engineering faculty are employed full time. For the spouses of male faculty, it is nearly half.
If implemented and coordinated across public and private sectors as well as various institutions, the committee's nearly two dozen recommendations would improve workplace environments for all employees while strengthening the foundations of America's competitiveness. A brief overview of several recommendations follows.
Universities University leaders should incorporate the goal of counteracting bias against women in hiring, promotion, and treatment into campus strategic plans, the report says. And leaders, working with the monitoring body proposed by the report, should review the composition of their student enrollments and faculty ranks each year -- and publicize progress toward goals.
Universities also should examine evaluation practices, with the goal of focusing on the quality and impact of faculty contributions, the report says.
In the past decade, several universities and agencies have taken steps to increase the participation of women on faculties and their numbers in leadership positions. But such efforts have not transformed the fields, the report says. Now is the time for widespread reform, the committee emphasized.
Professional societies and higher education organizations
The American Council on Education should bring together other relevant groups -- such as the Association of American Universities and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges -- to discuss the formation of the proposed monitoring body, the report says.
In addition, honorary societies should review their nomination and election procedures to address the underrepresentation of women in their memberships. The report also recommends that scholarly journals examine their processes for reviewing papers submitted for publication. To minimize any bias, they should consider keeping authors' identities hidden until reviews have been completed. Government agencies and Congress
Federal funding agencies and foundations, in collaboration with professional and scientific societies, should hold mandatory national meetings to educate university department chairs, agency program officers, and members of review panels on ways to minimize the effects of gender bias in performance evaluations, the report says. Furthermore, these agencies should come up with more ways to pay for interim technical or administrative support for researchers who are on leave because of caregiving responsibilities.
Federal enforcement agencies -- including the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); U.S. departments of Education, Justice, and Labor; and various federal civil rights offices -- should provide technical assistance to help universities achieve diversity in their programs and employment, and encourage them to meet such goals. These agencies also should regularly conduct compliance reviews at higher education institutions to make sure that federal antidiscrimination laws are being upheld, the committee said. Discrimination complaints should be promptly and thoroughly investigated. Likewise, Congress should make sure that these laws are enforced, and routinely hold oversight hearings to investigate how well relevant laws are being upheld by the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, and Labor; EEOC; and science agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and NASA.
The study was sponsored by the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health; Eli Lilly and Co.; National Science Foundation; Ford Foundation; and the National Academies. The Academies comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.Pre-publication copies of Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu/. The cost of the report is $57.95 (prepaid) plus shipping charges of $4.50 for the first copy and $.95 for each additional copy. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).[ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org/ ]
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERINGandINSTITUTE OF MEDICINECommittee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering

Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches, 2006

2006-12-20T12:36:00.000+01:00

Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches
THE NEW YORK TIMES December 19, 2006
by CORNELIA DEAN
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/cornelia_dean/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
The article discusses, among other topics, what is called "the two body problem," the extreme difficulty of reconciling a demanding career in science with marriage and a family - especially, as is more often the case for women than men in science, when the spouse also has scientific ambitions.
Some of the more hard hitting excerpts:
Women who assert themselves "may be derogated," he said, and, possibly as a result, women are less likely to recognize negotiating opportunities, and may beapprehensive about negotiating for resources when opportunities arise. That is a problem, he said, because even small differences in resources can "accumulate over a career to lead to significant differences in outcomes."
For example, as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, women who are scientists publish somewhat less over all than their male colleagues - but if surveys control for the amount of support researchers receive, women publish as often as men, the report said....
Even today, Dr. Heilman said, the idea that women are somehow unsuited to science is widespread and tenacious. Because people judge others in terms of these unconscious prejudices, she said, the same behavior that would suggest a man is collaborative, judicious or flexible would mark a woman as needy, timid or flighty.
And because science is still widely viewed as "a male arena," she said, a woman who succeeds may be viewed as "selfish, manipulative, bitter, untrustworthy, conniving and cold."
"Women in science are in a double bind," Dr. Heilman said. "When not clearly successful, they are presumed to be incompetent. When they are successful, they are not liked."
Women do better, she said, in environments where they are judged on grants obtained, prizes won, findings cited by other experts, or other explicit criteria, rather than on whether they are, say, "cutting edge." "There has to be very little room for ambiguity," Dr. Heilman said. "Otherwise, expectations swoop in to fill the vacuum."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/science/19women.html?em&ex=1166677200&en=042466bb6e9f2f55&ei=5087%0A
Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches
by Cornelia Dean, NYT, December 19, 2006.
HOUSTON - Since the 1970s, women have surged into science and engineering classes in larger and larger numbers, even at top-tier institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/massachusetts_institute_of_technology/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, where half the undergraduate science majors and more than a third of the engineering students are women. Half of the nation's medical students are women, and for decades the numbers have been rising similarly in disciplines like biology and mathematics.
Michael Stravato for the New York Times
Rebecca Richards-Kortum, chairwoman of bio-engineering at Rice University, juggles motherhood and career.
Yet studies show that women in science still routinely receive less research support than their male colleagues, and they have not reached the top academic ranks in numbers anything like their growing presence would suggest.
For example, at top-tier institutions only about 15 percent of full professors in social, behavioral or life sciences are women, "and these are the only fields in science and engineering where the proportion of women reaches into the double digits," an expert panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_academy_of_sciences/index.html?inline=nyt-org> reported in September. And at each step on the academic ladder, more women than men leave science and engineering.
So in government agencies, at scientific organizations and on university campuses, female scientists are asking why, and wondering what they can do about it. The Association for Women in Science, the National Science Foundation <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_science_foundation/index.html?inline=nyt-org> and the National Research Council <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_research_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org> are among the groups tackling these issues. In just the past two months, conferences have been held at Columbia University <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/columbia_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> and the City University of New York <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/city_university_of_new_york/index.html?inline=nyt-org> graduate center. Harvard <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/harvard_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> has a yearlong lecture series on "Women, Science and Society."
This fall, female scientists at Rice University <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/rice_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> here gathered promising women who are graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to help them learn skills that they will need to deal with the perils of job hunting, promotion and tenure in high-stakes academic science.
"The reality is there are barriers that women face," said Kathleen S. Matthews, the dean of natural sciences at Rice, who spoke at the meeting's opening dinner. "There are circles and communities of engagement where women are by and large not included."
Organizers of these events dismiss the idea voiced in 2005 by Lawrence H. Summers <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/lawrence_h_summers/index.html?inline=nyt-per>, then president of Harvard, that women over all are handicapped as scientists because as a group they are somehow innately deficient in mathematics. The organizers point to ample evidence that any performance gap between men and women is changeable and is shrinking to the vanishing point.
Instead, they talk about what they have to know and do to get ahead. They talk about unspoken, even unconscious sexism that means they must be better than men to be thought as good - that they must, as one Rice participant put it, literally and figuratively wear a suit and heels, while men can relax in jeans.
They muse on the importance of mentoring and other professional support and talk about ways women can provide it for each other if they do not receive it from their professors or advisers.
And they obsess about what they call "the two body problem," the extreme difficulty of reconciling a demanding career in science with marriage and a family - especially, as is more often the case for women than men in science, when the spouse also has scientific ambitions.
Just having a chance to talk about these issues with others who face them lifts some of the burden, said Marla Geha, a postdoctoral fellow in astronomy at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, Calif., who attended the Rice meeting. "It's even just knowing there's someone else out there going through the same things."
For Princess Imoukhouede, who is working for her doctorate in bioengineering at the California Institute of Technology <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/california_institute_of_technology/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, the Rice conference was helpful because "this is a difficult issue to talk about."
"There is a perception in science that all things are equal," Ms. Imoukhouede said. "But gender actually does matter, and by the same token, race, too."
One issue is negotiating skills, said Daniel R. Ames, a psychologist who teaches at Columbia University's business school and who spoke last month at a university-sponsored symposium, "The Science of Diversity." Dr. Ames said that when he asks people what worries them about navigating the workplace, men and women give the same answer: How hard should I push? How aggressive should I be? Too little seems ineffective, but too much comes across as brash or unpleasant.
Answering the aggressiveness question correctly can be a key to obtaining the financial resources (like laboratory space or stipends for graduate students) and the social capital (like collaboration and sharing) that are essential for success in science, he said. But, he told his mostly female audience, "the band of acceptable behavior for women is narrower than it is for men."
Women who assert themselves "may be derogated," he said, and, possibly as a result, women are less likely to recognize negotiating opportunities, and may beapprehensive about negotiating for resources when opportunities arise. That is a problem, he said, because even small differences in resources can "accumulate over a career to lead to significant differences in outcomes."
For example, as the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, women who are scientists publish somewhat less over all than their male colleagues - but if surveys control for the amount of support researchers receive, women publish as often as men, the report said.
Another speaker at the Columbia conference, Madeline Heilman, a psychologist at New York University <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/new_york_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, said clear and explicit evaluation criteria are essential.
Even today, Dr. Heilman said, the idea that women are somehow unsuited to science is widespread and tenacious. Because people judge others in terms of these unconscious prejudices, she said, the same behavior that would suggest a man is collaborative, judicious or flexible would mark a woman as needy, timid or flighty.
Skip to next paragraph
Readers' Opinions
Share Your Thoughts <http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=110>
Why have women not achieved a greater presence in science's top academic ranks?
And because science is still widely viewed as "a male arena," she said, a woman who succeeds may be viewed as "selfish, manipulative, bitter, untrustworthy, conniving and cold."
"Women in science are in a double bind," Dr. Heilman said. "When not clearly successful, they are presumed to be incompetent. When they are successful, they are not liked."
Women do better, she said, in environments where they are judged on grants obtained, prizes won, findings cited by other experts, or other explicit criteria, rather than on whether they are, say, "cutting edge." "There has to be very little room for ambiguity," Dr. Heilman said. "Otherwise, expectations swoop in to fill the vacuum."
The importance of mentors is another theme that runs through these sessions. In her keynote speech at the Rice conference, Deb Niemeier, a professor of civil engineering at the University of California <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_california/index.html?inline=nyt-org> at Davis, mentioned several occasions when timely intervention from a thesis adviser, department chairman or other mentor turned things around for her.
Joan Steitz, a professor of molecular biophysics at Yale <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/y/yale_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org> and a member of the academy's expert panel, said the same thing in one of the Harvard lectures this month. It is crucial to have "someone up your sleeve who will save you," Dr. Steitz said.
But there is evidence that women do not receive this support to the degree men do.
Dr. Steitz cited a study of letters of recommendation written for men and women seeking academic appointments. Though all the applicants were successful, she said, and though the letters were written by men and women, the study found that the applicant's personal life was mentioned six times more often if the letter was about a woman.
Also, Dr. Steitz said, "For women, the things that were talked about more frequently were how well they were trained, what good teachers they were and how well their applications were put together." When the subject of the letter was male, she said, the big topics were research skills and success in the lab.
"Ever since I read this paper and I sit down to write a letter of recommendation," Dr. Steitz said, "I think, 'Oh, have I fallen into this trap?' "
If mentors don't present themselves, women may have to create them, Dr. Steitz said.
She cited "Every Other Thursday: Stories and Strategies from Successful Women Scientists" (Yale University Press, 2006), a book by Ellen Daniell, a former assistant professor of molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In the book Dr. Daniell describes a group of female scientists who have been meeting regularly for more than 20 years to talk about their professional triumphs and travails, turning themselves into mentors and role models for one other.
As Dr. Niemeier told the women at Rice, "If your adviser is not going to help you with a strong network, form a network of your own. Pick out some women you would like to get to know, who have scholarly reputations, and get to know them."
Even if their work is brilliant, aspiring scientists must still get through the interview process when applying for a university job. The interview normally lasts a full day and may consist of multiple conversations with faculty members and administrators, a lunch, a dinner and a seminar or colloquium in which the applicant presents her work to an audience that is eager to pick it apart.
At the Rice conference, there was plenty of advice about handling the interview. Some would apply to anyone: shake hands firmly, look people in the eye, have a just-in-case copy of your presentation, and know how to describe your work quickly and clearly to a nonexpert.
But when it came time for questions, a female graduate student in the audience zeroed in on an issue that rarely arises with men: "What should I wear?"
At her university, she said, "The men always come in jeans and the women come in a suit." But she said she worried that dressing so formally might suggest that she was trying too hard.
Not so, said Rebecca Richards-Kortum, a professor of biomedical engineering at Rice who was an organizer of the conference. She was wearing slacks, a sweater set and pearls -O.K. for traveling, she said, but "a little underdressed" for a presentation.
Skip to next paragraph
Readers' Opinions
Share Your Thoughts <http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=110>
Why have women not achieved a greater presence in science's top academic ranks?
Remember, Sherry E. Woods told the group, "there is still that thing about even male and female faculty. They are going to judge you by different standards."
Dr. Woods, an administrator in the College of Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, reminded the young women of research in which academics were asked to judge the otherwise identical résumés of people who were identified as Ken, Karen or K.
In these studies, she said, Ken consistently comes out on top.
"You are in a male-dominated field," Dr. Woods said. "You have to present yourself in a way that assures them you know your technical stuff."
Another young woman raised another question that rarely troubles men. "When I talk about the work in my lab," she asked, "should I say I or we?"
Dr. Richards-Kortum suggested this formula: "We've talked about it in our lab and I think..." She added, "if you say 'we' too much it can be misinterpreted." And then there was the two-body problem.
In physics, the two-body problem is a matter of calculating the paths of objects in orbit around each other. For women in science, it is a matter of landing a job not just for yourself but for your partner, and then balancing the demands of children and the laboratory.
Here the advice is less clear-cut.
For example, when women at the Rice meeting asked about the best time to tell a prospective boss that a trailing spouse will also need an academic job, they heard answers ranging from "as soon as possible" to "only after you have a firm job offer."
Children add even more complexities.
"I am pregnant and during my interview process I will be visibly pregnant," said Caroline Nam-Laufer, a postdoctoral chemical engineer at the University of Delaware <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_delaware/index.html?inline=nyt-org>. "I want to put myself forth so that my qualifications come through and not my belly."
Dr. Niemeier, who acquired her own two-body problem recently when she began a relationship with a woman who has two children, suggested responding to questions about children with, "Could you tell me how that factors into your evaluation?" or, "Right now, I am looking for the best job I can get."
"Go into it thinking you are the cream of the crop," she reminded them.
But the speakers had little advice they could offer with confidence that it would fit every woman.
Dr. Richards-Kortum won admiring gasps when she disclosed she is a mother of four who successfully interviewed for a tenured position while visibly pregnant. She faced the process with less trepidation, she said, once she realized "it was O.K. with me if I had kids and didn't get tenure, but it would not be O.K. with me if I got tenure and didn't have kids."
Dr. Niemeier also advised the group to watch for signs that a university might not be ready to embrace successful female scientists. When she was job-hunting, she said, she was advised, "if you are the first woman in the department, walk away. You can have other jobs."
"I don't necessarily agree with that advice," she said. But she didn't necessarily disagree with it either.
Still, many of the women involved in these efforts say things have improved a lot, and continue to get better.
Evelynn Hammonds, a historian of science who heads a Harvard diversity effort started after Dr. Summers's remarks, recalled when, as an aspiring engineer, she was advised that her neat handwriting might mean she would be a good secretary. Instead, she earned a degree in electrical engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/georgia_institute_of_technology/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, a master's in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a doctorate at Harvard.
Among other things, she said, universities should be asking whether a career in science demands 70-hour work weeks "at every point in time," or whether people should be able to step in and out of academia, as family demands change.
But family issues and other problems affect women beyond academia, she said, and they are more than academic institutions can solve on their own.
At the end of her talk, Dr. Steitz displayed a chart showing rises in the proportion of women in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty. There were few until the passage of civil rights legislation 40 years ago, when the numbers jumped a bit and then leveled off, she said. The numbers jumped again in the late 1990s after a report criticized the institute's hiring and promotion practices as they related to women.
"We now have another plateau," Dr. Steitz said, "and it's my fervent hope that Larry Summers, God bless him, and the report that's just come out will have this kind of impact."
Ms. Imoukhouede hopes so, too. She said she was encouraged by the National Academy study - "that it could be done, and that it was taken seriously, that people would be willing to listen to women bringing up these issues."
Meanwhile, though, she added, "I try to spend less time thinking about these perceptions and more time on my research."