There are simply not enough women taking up careers in science, writes
Zaria Gorvett, and inequalities in the hiring process, career progression, and
salary may be to blame.
AsianScientist (Nov. 5, 2012) –
SAQQARA, Egypt. A cracked terracotta
nameplate informs bystanders that the chief medical physician is Merit Ptah.
A woman with long, neatly braided
hair stands nearby. Her eyes are fixed ahead as she carries an armful of
scientific instruments.
In fact, this scene is a two
dimensional version of events, and it is nearly 5,000 years old. The text and
portrayal are painted on her tomb.
Merit Ptah lived in ancient Egypt
during the Bronze Age and is the first documented female scientist in human
history.
While traditional roles for women
were distinct, there were no insurmountable barriers for pioneers; later
records indicate the existence of a further 100 female doctors. The early
opportunities for ambitious Egyptians, regardless of gender, might be
considered a promising beginning for women in science.
The situation 5,000 years later
Five millennia later, a report by
the consulting group “Women in Global Science and Technology” has highlighted
that in some of the world’s emerging economies, gender equality has not yet
materialized.
When the group examined the
participation of women in science, technology, and innovation in the European
Union, the United States, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, South Korea, and
India, they found that the lowest three positions were occupied by Indonesia,
India, and the Republic of Korea.
Some of the parameters that were
assessed included education, employment, childcare policies, equal pay, and
flexible work arrangements. The complete state of inclusiveness in science,
engineering, technology and mathematics (STEM) was also rated.
The statistics are alarming. In
2010, a mere 20 percent of the students who enrolled in science and engineering
courses in the Republic of Korea were female. The transition from education to
work was accompanied by further attrition; 90 percent of scientific employees
in South Korea and India in 2010 were men.
For careers in research, the
statistics hint at a struggle for equality. While female Ph.D. students are
increasingly prevalent, the proportion of graduates working in academia is low.
According to the report, Indian
women held 12.7 percent of research positions in 2005. Intriguingly,
engineering and technology, typically “male” subjects, constituted a
substantial proportion of this research (35.7 percent). In contrast, in
Indonesia where the scientific employment of women was greater, they preferred
careers in the social sciences, a typically “female” subject.
These data may highlight a wider
cultural trend; while the global uptake of women in mathematical sciences is
persistently low, women tend to dominate in the social sciences.
The gaps, from lower employment
rates in science for female graduates, to slower career progression and
gender-distorted representation, require explanation. A report by the World
Bank suggests that “stereotypes within the education system, norms governing
gender roles in the household that constrain a woman’s choice of occupation,
and employers’ attitudes toward family formation and childbearing” may be
responsible for these disparities.
Do women lack intrinsic aptitude for STEM?
This explanation may appeal to
traditionalists, that the genes that endow men with minds suited to technical
tasks are unique to their sex.
A favorite of critics of the
gender equality movement is the notion that genes for the comprehension of
technical subjects are hiding on the Y chromosome. But is there any truth in
it?
It is no secret that men and
women’s brains are different; the further human brains are probed with
neuroscientific tools, the more antithetical our thought processes appear to
be.
PET scans and fMRI have enabled
the rapid progression of one of the most enduring themes in science.
Across all ages, male brains are
10 percent larger, and have more grey matter (neurons); women have more white
matter (connections between neurons). Brain structures with a high density of
receptors to steroids such as testosterone and oestrogen – including the
caudate nucleus, amygdala, hippocampus, and cerebellum – all display variation
between sexes.
According to a new theory of
compensation, structural differences between the brains of men and women may
arise from the need to counter changes induced by different sets of hormones.
But when Larry Cahill, a neuroscientist at the University of California,
conducted a review of research into the cognitive variation between sexes, he
found that structural differences were not linked to disparities in
performance.
This is congruous with the
performance of girls in school, which undermines theories of female
inferiority.
A 2006 study by the Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA) of the relative attainment of children
in school found that in 22 out of 30 countries, performance in science is equal
in girls and boys.
According to the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), this is not the
case in Asia, where most learning achievement studies show that boys perform
better than girls in maths and science. However, it is clear that where
opportunities exist, girls are perfectly capable of competing.
If girls are just as proficient as boys, why do so few choose careers in
science?
Are social prejudices the barrier
to female scientific employment? Probably so, says Ceri Goddard, chief
executive of the Fawcett Society.
“The truth is that we have only
just started to challenge the notion that women are good at the caring
professions while men are good at logic, science, and industry,” Goddard said.
Ominously, these stereotypes may
have permeated the hallowed halls of academia. A revealing study published in
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences investigated the effects of
inherent gender bias in the hiring process. The researchers approached 127
science faculty from research-intensive universities using the same curriculum
vitae (CV) randomly assigned either a male or female name. The results of the
randomized, double blinded experiment are startling.
“Faculty participants rated the
male applicant as significantly more competent and hirable than the
(identically qualified) female applicant. These participants also selected a
higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male
applicant,” the authors wrote.
Indeed, a recent report published
by the American Association of University Women found that one year after
graduation, female graduates, including those that studied STEM disciplines,
earned about 82 percent of the wages of their male colleagues.
Another likely compounding factor
is the lack of awareness of female scientific role models. There is certainly
no shortage of exceptional women scientists, even in Asia. Tu Youyou, the
Chinese scientist who discovered artemisinin, the most widely prescribed
antimalarial drug in the world which has saved millions of lives, should be a
household name. Last month, the collaboratively built online encyclopedia
Wikipedia held a mass rewrite to highlight the achievements of women
scientists.
Family commitments are also often
cited as obstacles to careers in science. Managing a research career is
time-consuming and can require disproportionate personal sacrifice in women.
Flexible work arrangements and policies that promote equal parental leave, such
as in Finland, would help to address the imbalance. However, paternity leave is
almost non-existent in many Asian countries.
The reasons for the lack of women
in science are complex but not enigmatic; the evidence points to the need for
the dissolution of stereotypes and prejudice, policies to address the prospects
for women in academic institutions, and flexible work arrangements.
If we fail, women will not be the
only losers. Success demands diversity and women represent an increasing
proportion of the scientific talent pool.
Ultimately, it is up to us to
decide; was Merit Ptah 5,000 years ahead of her time, or more?
No comments:
Post a Comment