Women's work - Why is science still institutionally sexist?

[DreamGypsy]

I read yesterday's post from struggle4progress about Helium-burning binary stars and clicked through from the cited article to the March 6, 2013 issue of Nature where the research work was reported.

The sidebar in the Nature letter highlighted a Selected feature of the current issue:

Women's work
Why is science still institutionally sexist?
A special section of Nature confronts the issues.

I had to follow through .... Women in science Women’s work - A special section of Nature finds that there is still much to do to achieve gender equality in science 06 March 2013 http://www.nature.com/news/women-in-science-women-s-work-1.12547 :

Science remains institutionally sexist. Despite some progress, women scientists are still paid less, promoted less,win fewer grants and are more likely to leave research than similarly qualified men. The reasons range from overt and covert discrimination to the unavoidable coincidence of the productive and reproductive years.

In this special issue, Nature takes a hard look at the gender gap and at what is being done to close it. A survey of the data (see page 22) reveals where progress has been made and where inequalities still lie, from salary to tenure. A News Feature (see page 25) reveals a particular dearth of women in some commercial spheres, such as on the scientific advisory boards of biotechnology firms, and an article by historian Patricia Fara (see page 43) traces the wearying stereotypes perpetuated by the biographers of women scientists.

A series of Comment articles looks at possible solutions. Neuroscientist Jennifer Raymond (see page 33) calls on both sexes to recognize and reduce their biases against women in science, and eight researchers from around the world offer their prescriptions (see page 35), from equalizing the retirement age in China, to liberalizing travel restrictions in Saudi Arabia, to boycotting conferences that lack female speakers. We catalogue some of the ambitious moves being made in Europe to get more women into top positions (see page 40) and explore some surprising statistics about mandatory quotas (see page 39). Finally, profiles of four successful 30-something women (see page 28) show how ambition and talent can trump obstacles.

This special issue is dedicated to the memory of Maxine Clarke. In the 28 years that Maxine spent championing the highest scientific standards as an editor at Nature, she was all too often the only one to ask, “Where are the women?”

The lead-in article lists a number of related stories from Nature.com but, unfortunately, not all of them are available for free public access. I have listed below the articles I could access with an excerpt where appropriate:

[link:http://www.nature.com/news/inequality-quantified-mind-the-gender-gap-1.12550|
Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap] -

(a great article with graphics and an interactive graph of U.S. female/male academic employment for scientists and engineers)

As an aspiring engineer in the early 1970s, Lynne Kiorpes was easy to spot in her undergraduate classes. Among a sea of men, she and a handful of other women made easy targets for a particular professor at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. On the first day of class, “he looked around and said 'I see women in the classroom. I don't believe women have any business in engineering, and I'm going to personally see to it that you all fail'.”

He wasn't bluffing. All but one of the women in the class ultimately left engineering; Kiorpes went on to major in psychology.

Such blatant sexism is almost unthinkable today, says Kiorpes, now a neuroscientist at New York University. But Kiorpes, who runs several mentoring programmes for female students and postdoctoral fellows, says that subtle bias persists at most universities. And it drives some women out of science careers.

Women in biotechnology: Barred from the boardroom -

(discusses the participation of women on biotech scientific advisory boards...doesn't discuss corporate board positions)

The proportion of women in industrial and academic science has shot up over the past 20 years. According to the US National Science Foundation, women make up 25% of tenured academics in science and engineering and more than 25% of industry scientists in research and development. But when it comes to academics engaging in commercial work — patenting their discoveries, starting biotech companies or serving on SABs — the picture is less progressive. Studies have confirmed Hopkins' impression that even leading female scientists are often absent from these roles. “The secret club [of men] used to be going to the lab and conferences,” says Fiona Murray, who studies life-sciences entrepreneurship at MIT. “That world has changed a lot, but we have a new venue where it is still difficult for women to play a similar role.”

From the frontline: 30 something science -

What's being female got to do with anything, ask the scientists who are starting labs and having kids.

<snip>

What should have been an ordinary Thursday for Keity Souza Santos turned out to be anything but. It was 4 a.m. when she woke up on 22 November 2012, tired but alert. She had been meaning to take a pregnancy test for days; now she decided she couldn't put it off any longer, and headed to the bathroom. Later, at work at the University of São Paulo Medical School's allergy and immunology department in Brazil, Santos, 33, told none of her colleagues why she had felt like screaming for joy hours earlier. She kept her secret even when one of them called to tell Santos that she had won the prestigious Young Investigator Award from the São Paulo Research Foundation. That meant that she would be starting her own lab at about the same time as her baby was due. Only it will not be just one baby; Santos is expecting twins.

--------

Now my opinion: Women need equal education, equal encouragement, equal opportunity, and equal support for their careers in science. When that happens there will no longer be a question about "Where are the women?".