You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
Women in Science
Beyond Bias and Barriers
WAGE members may find much that is familiar in a new report from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and National Institute of Health. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering is available from the National Academy Press ( http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11741.html).
Its executive summary says in part:
"To maintain its scientific and engineering leadership amid increasing economic and
educational globalization, the United States must aggressively pursue the innovative
capacity of all of its people - women and men."
"It is not lack of talent, but unintentional biases and outmoded institutional
structures that are hindering the access and advancement of women. Neither
our academic institutions nor our nation can afford such underuse of
precious human capital in science and engineering.
The time to take action is now."
The report was written by a committee of prominent scientists and engineers that included Angelica Stacy of UCB and the late Denice Denton. It reviews a large body of relevant research on interactions between gender performance in science, and on women's persistence and attrition in science. The bias and barriers of the title include bias in evaluations that may be "subtle, implicit, and unexamined" and institutional constraints and expectations that impede the careers of women scientists and engineers. The last chapter addresses strategies for change, noting, "It is urgent that academic norms and expectations be transformed so that the academy can continue to attract the very best people."
Some of those academic norms are illustrated in Frances Conley's book Walking Out on the Boys, which explained why she left the Stanford Medical School in 1991. In spite of these problems, Conley returned to Stanford, only to retire in 2000. Her early retirement should alert us to institutional constraints that may lead to "underuse of precious human capital." The citation for her 2006 Stanford University Medical Center Alumni Association award describes her as "the quintessential doctors' neurosurgeon" and says that Stanford doctors went to Conley when they needed back surgery. But, she says, "I quit at the right time. The amount of paperwork required now takes all the fun out of being a doctor."
Law Journal Article on Women in Physical Sciences
A sad complement to Beyond Bias and Barriers is an article in the Spring 2006 Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, "Sexual Harassment, Misconduct, and the Atmosphere of the Laboratory: The Legal and Professional Challenges Faced By Women Physical Science Researchers at Educational Institutions" by Ellen Sekreta.
This article includes a discussion of Diane Reifschneider's case (see
Spring 1998,
Fall 1998, and
Spring 2000
Newsletters). Diane was a graduate student in chemistry at UCLA and some of us remember her well. Her case took a heavy toll on her health and well being.
The author draws on past issues of this Newsletter as well as legal documents in her analysis of Reifschneider's case. "The court wrongly ignored many aspects of the professional culture at research institutes. [Reifschneider] was a graduate student at a top research institution who needed the professional and personal support of her advisor, a man who allegedly had a history of dating students, in order to succeed." The article notes that graduate students in the physical sciences can feel great pressure not to complain about their advisors, and, in fact, that some have died rather than complain. The discussion of Reifschneider's case concludes, "By refusing to examine the disparity of power between advisors and researchers and how that disparity must have impacted Reifschneider's relationship with the man she accused of harassing her, the court turned a blind eye towards a very important factor in the case."
Also discussed are laws and regulations relevant to sexual harassment in the sciences. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an important source of funding for scientists. In the 1990s, NSF regulations defined scientific misconduct in a way that had been sometimes interpreted to include sexual harassment. Subsequent NSF regulations have omitted this clause, although grant recipients are required to respond to complaints filed with NSF.
Federal funding does however require compliance with Title IX. Unfortunately, Title IX has not been enforced by government agencies that fund the sciences (see
Spring-Fall 2004 Newsletter).
In addition to discussion of details about enforcement (or lack thereof) of federal regulations, Sekreta makes the point that activities such as falsification or plagiarism are generally viewed as violating norms for acceptable scientific behavior, but sexual harassment is not. Her recommendations include: Scientists should learn that sexual harassment in academic institutions is a violation of federal law, and that sexual harassment should be regarded as a form of scientific misconduct. She notes, "Scientists who commit sexual harassment undermine the integrity of their discipline, hinder the progress of scientific research, and prevent many of their colleagues from moving forward in their fields."
The article is available on the Web:
www.law.duke.edu/journals/djglp/articles/gen13p115.htm
-wage@wage.org-