Chemical Education Today
Commentary
Gender Equity in Science—Who Cares? by Lewyn Li
Whenever I bring up gender equity with my colleagues, the result is almost always discouraging. Some of them, convinced that the situation is hopeless, respond with bitterness. Others desperately try to change the subject with a denial or an embarrassed laugh. Most of them fall silent, perhaps owing to their moral indifference or outright hostility to gender equity. Such responses, natural though they may be, fail to address some urgent questions plaguing the scientific community today. Why are there so few women in science? What can be done about it? And most important of all, why should we scientists care? Why Should Scientists Care? Why should we even think about gender equity? Isn’t the sole duty of a scientist the pursuit of knowledge and truth driven by curiosity (1)? But then should we not at least be curious about the fact that, among the top 50 U.S. universities in 1998, only 10% of tenure-track positions in chemistry were held by women, even though women earned 31% of the chemistry Ph.D.’s (2)? The reasons for this disparity and other gender inequities are many and complicated— which is precisely why they should arouse our curiosity and set our intellect afire. Furthermore, a sense of justice compels us to care. Women scientists often face barriers rarely experienced by their male counterparts. One example is sexual harassment: women are clearly at greater risk than men from graduate school onward. A detailed study in Sweden also suggests that women had to produce twice as many publications of equivalent value as men to be considered equally competent (3). Such barriers often hinder women’s participation and contribution in science and therefore are unfair. Unless we do something about them, we are silent accomplices to an injustice. Finally, gender equity is of immense practical importance. Women make up half of all potential talents in science. Letting these talents drift away would impede scientific progress. Also, given how esoteric science has become, many researchers are in danger of appearing secretive, arrogant, and out of touch with society (4). A more enlightened attitude toward gender issues can only improve the scientists’ image in the public mind. Why So Few Women in Science? I see at least four reasons. First, women did not enter postgraduate education in significant numbers until the 1960s, and as late as 1998, they received only 31% of all chemistry Ph.D.’s in the USA (2). Second, parents and teachers do not encourage a girl’s scientific interests as much as a boy’s (5). A girl’s peers may even look upon her as somewhat “abnormal” and “unfeminine” (5). Third, women are 418
affected more by the conflict between research and family, because they are still primarily responsible for child-rearing (6 ). A woman’s emotional need to be “a good mother”, coupled with society’s romanticized view of family and children, could make the conflict unbearable. This problem is particularly acute for women who want to become professors, as it often takes more than 10 years of intense effort from graduate school to tenure. So a female professor may have to have children when she is “up against the wall” on the tenure clock (7, 8). And the family–career balance has also been cited as a major concern among women who abandon science in the university (9). Finally, small disadvantages, possibly due to conscious or unconscious sexual discrimination, seem to accumulate in the careers of female scientists and eventually make a visible difference (3). In some cases, this has led to “differences in salary, space, awards, resources, and response to outside offers between men and women faculty with women receiving less despite professional accomplishments equal to those of their male colleagues” (10). As long as most women have to deal with some or all of these hindrances, they are put unjustly at a disadvantage. Without active efforts to remove such disadvantages facing women, “equal opportunity” is at best a caricature, at worst a hypocrisy. What Can We Do? So what should we do? First, actively oppose the social conventions and prejudices burdening female scientists. For example, whenever a hiring committee rejects a female candidate, a formal explanation should be sent to the appropriate university official. Furthermore, universities or companies should run child care centers for their employees. This has already been achieved at the Max Planck Institute in Germany (11) and many companies in the USA, so it is neither novel nor impractical. Also, a standing committee should be set up in universities and institutes to periodically review the distribution of resources between their female and male researchers. This should counter the effect of the “accumulation of small disadvantages” discussed above. Much can also be done to improve graduate-level education for women. Here are three proposals. First, the department should keep a record of sexual harassment complaints for each faculty member. Any prospective graduate student should be allowed to look at this record, after signing a legal document agreeing not to reveal the information to anyone. The record should contain only the number of complaints made and whether a complaint has been proven, so that a professor’s reputation is not unfairly sullied. Such a policy, in my view, would help a student make an informed decision and discourage professors from harassing their students. Second, to reduce the chance of misunder-
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 4 April 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Chemical Education Today
standing, all advisors and teaching fellows should be trained to realize what sexual harassment is. Finally, shorter Ph.D. and postdoctoral research should alleviate some of the stress of balancing childbearing against tenure (12). Inevitably, any gender-specific policy walks a fine line: when is the policy just, and when is it anti-male or even harmful to the people it seeks to help? It is understandable that universities and companies find it difficult to make gender-based decisions when hiring or promoting their employees, and I can see no way to render such decisions free of stress and acceptable to everyone. But suppose we continue to ignore the higher pressures a female scientist has to labor under—what will be the consequences? The scientific community risks losing some of the brightest minds that can contribute tremendously to its growth. How does that advance human knowledge? Concluding Remarks Achieving gender equity will not be easy. Large-scale entrance of women into the competitive job market is a recent phenomenon, and the whole society, including the scientific community, is still struggling to adjust. Many people are accustomed to the status quo and are afraid or reluctant to change. But despite all this, the prospects are improving for female scientists: in 1993, 21% of assistant chemistry professors in Ph.D.-granting schools were women, a percentage similar to the one of Ph.D.’s granted to women around that time (7 ). Ultimately, regardless of the chances of success, I believe continuing effort is well worth our energy, for through our struggle we strive not just for a better science, but for a better Self and a fairer world.
Acknowledgments I thank Diane Beauchemin, Jessica Chuang, Sanhita Dixit, Charmaine Pobre-Moss, Joy Pobre-Moss, and Maria Sabaye Moghaddam for stimulating discussions and encouragement. I am also grateful to the referees for their insightful comments and suggestions. This paper is dedicated to Sherin Alidina. Literature Cited 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
11. 12.
Li, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 20. Long, J. R. Chem. Eng. News 2000, 78 (39), 56. Wennerås, C.; Wold, A. Nature 2000, 408, 647. Dubos, R. Reason Awake; Columbia University Press: New York, 1970. Seymour, E. Sci. Educ. 1995, 79, 1995 and references therein. Nature 1999, 401, 99. Brennan, M. B. Chem. Eng. News 1996, 74 (24), 8. Brush, S. G. Am. Sci. 1991, 79, 404. Tobias, S. They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier; Research Corporation: Tucson, AZ, 1990; p 79. Committee on Women Faculty in the School of Science. A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, 1999. McGrayne, S. Bertsch Nobel Prize Women in Science; Citadel: Secaucus, NJ, 1998. Herschbach, D. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1999, 869, 66.
Lewyn Li is in the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138;
[email protected].
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 4 April 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
419
