JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

Last week, I dedicated most of my tweeting and blogging to the issue of women in science.  I did this mainly because I attended the L’Oreal Women in Science briefing on Capitol Hill.  The event featured prominent women in science and education.  I emphasized that my interest in the event and this issue is mainly because I hope to ensure that my daughter experiences science free of sexual discrimination.  I decided to attend the event to learn about the hardships women currently face and the solutions they proposed to address these problems.

When I arrived at the event, I couldn’t help but notice the absence of men.  The small room in the Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress was quite distinguished with dark wooden wall panels, small windows and plush carpet that surely had seen many years of hearty discussions by hordes of men.  But, on this day, my presence as one of the few men in the room was almost awkward.  Thankfully, as I entered the room, the first welcoming face I noticed was that of my friend Sheril Kirshenbaum, who was standing at the podium as moderator of the event.  I’ll admit that it was Sheril’s presence at this event that gave me that extra motivation to attend.  Judging from her demeanor, she was taking this event very seriously, as she should.  It is an issue close to her heart.  Sheril exuded all the grace of a diplomat at a State dinner as she addressed each of the panelists with utmost respect.  She guided the conversation adeptly and managed to toss in a few insightful comments to keep the conversation fresh.

As the women panelists discussed the topics on the agenda, I began to realize that the success of women in science is not just a women’s issue.  It’s an American issue.  It became apparent that America is surely missing out on some significant scientific minds.  These minds and their potential contributions to the world of science belong to women who have been driven out of science simply because they wish to fulfill the duty that only women can fulfill: motherhood.  Seemingly, the most significant distinction between women and men is woman’s ability to bring life into this world.  And, unfortunately, the demands of that job can be just too much for today’s scientific lifestyle.  So, for the sake of humanity, many women are forced to make the choice to leave the field of science.  And when you consider the women sitting on this panel;

Pr. Sara Seager, Ellen Swallow Richards, Professor of Planetary Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Pr. Joan Steitz, Sterling Professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University

Dr. Shirley Malcom, Head of Education and Human Resources, American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Russlynn Ali, Assistant Secretary, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education,

it quickly becomes evident that when a  woman chooses to leave the field of science, she takes with her all the potential for solving scientific problems that make her such an asset to the profession.  It is not simply an issue of losing brain power.  It is also a problem of losing diversity within the problem-solving community.  Dr. Steitz emphasized that women bring diverse points of view to science.  Not retaining that diversity diminishes our potential for curing diseases, developing new technologies and ending global climate change.

Among the statistics presented by Russlynn Ali that demonstrated a pattern of female attrition from science was the clear message that women just don’t feel comfortable enough in our current scientific community.  Not only, is this an issue of fairness, it is also an issue of global competitiveness.  In a world in which China and India are creating many more scientists and engineers yearly than America, we will eventually fall behind.  One way we can increase our ability to compete is to encourage women to participate in the sciences.  Dr. Seager proposed the first solution to these problems, stating that this is not an issue of competency for girls, but confidence.  She mentioned that young girls are capable of learning science and thinking scientifically, but they are discouraged from pursuing science at the earliest ages. Dr. Seager’s solution is to develop mentorships that support young women as they make the decision to become scientists.  It will require understanding and guidance to build within them the confidence they need to join with the boys.

One of the tools that can further empower women is the enforcement of Title IX legislation in STEM fields.  Russlynn Ali was a strong proponent of these tactics.  To me, this seems like a controversial approach to increase female representation in the sciences, but, according to Ali, it is one that the Obama administration has chosen to pursue.  The question is whether this will lead to similar problems in academics that it faced in athletics.  In the case of athletics, certain circumstances in which schools were unable to meet the proportionality standards led to the complete elimination of specific athletic opportunities for men.  So, it must be asked whether certain math and science courses will be eliminated if the proportionality standards cannot be met.  Not surprisingly, after I tweeted, “Title IX could have similar impact on STEM Ed that it had on athletics if enforced vigorously.”  I received immediate response from the athletics community.  The comments were antagonistic in tone such that I immediately understood the intimidation that some women feel while trying to make a push for women’s rights.  It was quite a feeling and I applaud those women who push onward in the face of this antagonism.

Moving forward, once women choose to become scientists, it is the responsibility of the scientific community and the institutions that carry out scientific research to ensure they remain as contributing members of the community.  Currently, the institutional norms can be unwelcoming for women.  According to Dr. Steitz, it took President Nixon’s Secretary of Labor George Schulz’s threats to withhold funding from university research budgets to convince them to increase the number of women on their faculties.  Today, we can see the progress of Schulz’s efforts in growing numbers of women among university science faculty and several recent female Nobel Laureates.  However, there is still disparity.  Women tend to receive less pay and smaller laboratory spaces than men.  Dr. Shirley Malcom suggested that institutions must be responsible for preventing these differences.  She recommended that institutions take a look at incomes and space allocations to address any issues that appear before they become a problem.  Then, there are the intangibles; behaviors that aren’t quite as pronounced, but still make being a woman in science difficult.  For example, as Dr. Seager mentioned, the tradition of holding young faculty meetings at 4:30 in the afternoon makes it difficult for those women who have children in daycare.  It is inconsiderate cultural habits like this that should be addressed in order to offer women a level playing field.

Beyond the basic ideals of gaining fair treatment from scientific institutions, women must also go one step further.  Once women have gained the confidence to carve out a place in science and established a level playing field, they still must apply their confidence just like the men.  Dr. Steitz made the astonishing statement that even though women rival men in the percentage of grants that are approved, they often ask for 20% less funding.  This could be a symptom of low self-confidence or it could be that women are better at budgeting.  In either case, the impact is huge.  Women are not only being paid less than men.  They are also doing the same amount of work on smaller budgets.  This demonstrates the ingenuity of women scientists and should be considered an asset for research institutions.  Basically, it begs the question, “Are women more efficient than men?”  However, it also leaves us wondering what could women do with that extra 20%?  This brings us to another of Dr. Seager’s points that women need to be more assertive in demanding what they need out of their jobs.  Dr. Seager recommended that women negotiate their pay.  Go after that extra five thousand dollars.  Over 10 years, it could pay for at least one child’s college tuition.  She also made the point that women should think of themselves first, then help others.  She commented that women have a tendency to be less selfish when it is not in their interests.  Instead, they should strive first for their best contract conditions.  I was greatly impressed by Dr. Seager’s motivation and I looked around the room hoping the young women witnessing this discussion were feeling the same inspiration that I was.  The confidence asserted by Dr. Seager should be an example to women.  Further, at that moment I felt that women should take it upon themselves to embrace a kind of supportive peer pressure that says to other women, “you are expected to be a scientist or mathematician.”  If it becomes the norm for women to pursue careers in science, it will become easier for them to speak out about the systemic barriers to the job.

As the discussion began to wind down, one of the final messages to be expressed was the significance that men play in helping women attain their career needs.  It is important to note that until men feel the need to deal with these issues as well, it will be difficult to make these changes happen.  This brings me to my final revelation.  After attending the event, I picked up the latest copy of Newsweek.  The cover of this issue bears the headline, “Man Up!  The Traditional Male is an Endangered Species.  It’s Time to Rethink Masculinity.”  To paraphrase the story, it states that modern masculinity should include men embracing their role as fathers and making life for career women more sustainable.  The article speaks to the modern family of dual-earners and highlights the problems men and women face with work-family conflicts.  As a new father, the most enlightening part of the article for me was the discussion of family life in Sweden, where new parents split 390 days of paid leave.

“In 1995, Sweden passed a simple but revolutionary law: couples would lose one month of leave unless the father was the one who took it.  A second use-it-or-lose-it month was added in 2002, and now more than 80% of Swedish fathers take four months off for the birth of a new child.”

Can you imagine how this would benefit American women in science?  The U.S is the only wealthy nation that doesn’t offer financial support for new fathers to bond with their children.  America is able to lead the world in science under these conditions, but to what effect.  Programs like this could lead to healthier, happier American families, and it would allow women to return to work sooner and make up some of that lost competitiveness that has traditionally kept them from toiling away in the lab.  For me, this was a wake up call.  It highlights the need for men to play an active role in supporting the career success of their wives.  More specifically, men who are married to female scientists should take into account their role in the success of their wives.  In this way, men can have a major effect on the likelihood that women will be able to pursue careers in science and America will be better able to maintain its position as the world leader in science.

While we have a long way to go, I believe with women leading the way and men supporting them, we can achieve a scientific atmosphere that nurtures the careers of women in science.  For my daughter’s sake, I hope bold women will step up, assert their newly found confidence and make it happen soon.