Chemical Education Today
Editorial
A Long Way to Go What sparked your interest in chemistry? On p 409 Diana Mason reports a newspaper survey of 15 prominent scientists who were asked to describe a gift that inspired their interest in science. Four mentioned a chemistry set, and another mentioned a piece of chemical glassware. It is a common lament that a good chemistry set is hard to find; and if chemistry sets help entice people to become excellent scientists, their relative scarcity would indeed be unfortunate. That scarcity, however, may be more perceived than real. A Google search of the Internet for “chemistry set” and “experiment” produces more than 1000 hits, one of which (1) lists 11 best-buy chemistry sets. The Smithsonian Microchem Kit is reportedly available from J. C. Penney for about $30; it contains 20 vials of chemicals and two pairs of safety goggles and can be used to perform more than 1500 experiments—perhaps not as good or as exciting as in the old days, but a chemistry set nonetheless. There are other reasons not to miss the chemistry sets of yesteryear. The new versions certainly appear to be more oriented toward chemical safety and toward more practical topics such as polymers or food chemistry. The experiments they include seem to be interesting and illustrative of science and to afford a better chance that a budding scientist will reach adulthood. Many are similar to experiments JCE has published as classroom activities. Also, illustrations for recent chemistry sets are much more representative of the U.S. population. The older items we gathered for the photographs on p 409 all have copyright dates between 1920 and 1975. Most of them picture white boys doing the experiments, and there is no diversity whatsoever among experimenters or passive observers. Moreover, these kits and books were apparently designed for only a fraction of the age group that might have enjoyed them. If they were a positive factor in sparking interest in a scientific career among some, they were most likely a negative factor or at best ineffective for the majority of children. Seeing these old chemistry sets was a reminder that we have come a long way along the road toward diversity in chemistry. However, the commentary that appears on p 418 should dispel any complacency we might have felt about gender equity, and there is no reason for complacency regarding other diversity issues either. Each of us can do more. Nominate a student for an award such as the Women Chemists Committee Overcoming Challenges Award (p 427). Or incorporate Biographical Snapshots of Famous Women and Minority Chemists into your classes by using the JCE Online feature edited by Barbara Burke (2). Or develop a new chemistry activity that will attract all young people toward science or chemistry—and publish it in JCE. For the past two years Chemical and Engineering News has published data on women chemists in academe (3). The fraction of doctorates in chemistry earned by women has been rising steadily, from 17% in 1983 to 31% in 1998, but it obviously is still well below parity. At present women are seriously underrepresented on chemistry faculties, occupying only 11% of tenure-track positions in departments at the top 50 uni-
versities (ranked in terms of dollars spent on chemiWe have come a long cal research). On average only 7% of full professors way along the road are women. Between 2000 and 2001 the situation imto greater diversity proved a little. The number of women faculty members in chemistry, rose by nine while the total number of faculty but there is still a positions declined by one, a 1% increase. long way to go. These and related data were analyzed further by Valerie Kuck (4). She concludes that significant leakage from the pipeline occurs at the top end. Taking the ratio (doctorates granted 1994– 1998)/(first-year graduate students 1988–1992) as a “yield” figure for graduate programs, Kuck calculated yields for women graduate students of 69% for the top ten universities and 57% for the next 15 universities. The corresponding yields for men were 77% and 69%. A greater fraction of women than of men drop out of graduate programs, but for both women and men the fraction is smaller at the bestfunded universities. Parity, defined as the ratio of yield for women to yield for men, varies greatly among programs, ranging from 1.04 to 0.60 among the top ten. Kuck notes that in 2000, 16% of assistant professors in top-ten chemistry departments were woman. Corresponding percentages for other disciplines were chemical engineering, 26%; electrical engineering, 12%; materials science, 22%; and physics, 18%. In each of these, the percentage of recent women Ph.D. recipients was smaller than the percentage of women assistant professors. This was not true in chemistry. It appears that we have something to learn from these other disciplines. Certainly the pool of recent Ph.D.’s contains an adequate fraction of women to permit chemistry’s assistantprofessor figure of 16% to increase. We have come a long way along the road to greater diversity in chemistry, but there is still a long way to go.
Literature Cited 1. http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aatp103101.htm (accessed February 2002). 2. http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Features/eChemists/ index.html (accessed February 2002). 3. Long, Janice R. Chem. Eng. News 2000, 78 (Sep 25), 56; Byrum, Allison. Chem. Eng. News 2001, 79 (Oct 1), 98. 4. Kuck, Valerie. Chem. Eng. News 2001, 79 (Nov 19), 71. (Kuck is doing further studies of these issues with support from the Dreyfus Foundation. She can be reached at
[email protected].)
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 4 April 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
407
