Getting women in the lab

Gender inequality painfully evident in STEM fields.

There is no doubt that women around the world are highly underrepresented within the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math). In Canada, despite representing nearly 40 per cent of all STEM graduates, women only constitute 22 per cent of the workforce in STEM fields—a mere two per cent increase since 1987. The gender disparity is even more noticeable when comparing annual wages, with women in STEM making 7.5 per cent less than their male peers.

It’s possible that part of the issue can be attributed to a lack of female role models. According to Statistics Canada, women make up only 12 per cent of all full-time professors in the fields of Natural Sciences and Engineering, and according to a study commissioned by the Council of Canadian Academic entitled “Strengthening Canada’s Research Capacity: The Gender Dimension,” when including Computer Science and Mathematics, that number shrinks to as low as 9 per cent. Unfortunately, statistics this incongruent only begin to show the results of the gender bias in STEM fields. Researchers at Yale noted an even uglier trend in a randomized double-blind study comprised of 127 biology, chemistry, and physics professors from participating American universities. The faculty were asked to assess the application of a student applying for a laboratory manager position.

Unbeknownst to the faculty participants, they were all rating the same application—randomly assigned either a female or male name. Overwhelmingly, participants of both genders favoured the male student’s application, stating he was more “competent” and “hirable” than his identical counterpart. They even went as far as to offer the hypothetical male student a higher salary and more mentoring opportunities. These results make it clear that much needs to be addressed in order to encourage more women in science.

Sometimes the bias is not so subtle. Take the case of Nobel laureate Tim Hunt, who recently inspired public outrage after remarks he made during the world conference of science journalists in Seoul, Korea. While attending a Women in Science lunch, Hunt addressed the group of scientists and journalists by stating, “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry.”He went on to further suggest that sex-segregated labs were the best solution to this problem.

The incident comes directly off the heels of a scandal surrounding science journal PLOS ONE. When evolutionary scientists Fiona Ingleby and Megan Head investigated the role of gender bias in academia, they discovered that women with PhDs in biology published significantly fewer articles than their male colleagues. They attributed the phenomenon to underlying gender biases, and submitted their article to PLOS ONE for review. Ironically, their submission was rejected by an anonymous reviewer who suggested that the authors collaborate with a male co-author, “in order to serve as a possible check against interpretations that may sometimes be drifting too far away from empirical evidence into ideologically biased assumptions.” The reviewer (of unknown gender) went on to further rationalize that, “It is not so surprising that on average male doctoral students co-author one more paper than female doctoral students, just as, on average, male doctoral students can probably run a mile race a bit faster than female doctoral students.”

Such blatant sexism is usually reprimanded quickly, and indeed both Hunt and the unknown reviewer have been penalized for their behaviors. Within 24 hours PLOS ONE issued a statement of apology and, amidst public outcry, removed the reviewer from their database. Sadly, however, most instances of gender bias are far more insidious. Despite the myth that women simply forgo career aspirations in lieu of having a family, it is the pervasiveness of casual, everyday sexism that discourages women from entering or maintaining careers in the STEM fields.

Joan C. Williams, a professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, along with some of her colleagues, surveyed 557 female scientists about their experiences in the workplace. They discovered that 34 per cent felt the burden of “feminine roles,” such as a responsibility for organizing meetings and bringing coffee, whereas 53 per cent reported repercussions for presenting “masculine traits” like being assertive or outspoken. Perhaps most shockingly, 64 per cent of the women had to demonstrate more proof of their competence than male peers, 64 per cent had their dedication to the job doubted and lost opportunities after having a baby, and 35 per cent reported at least one instance of sexual harassment at work. It is precisely these more insidious forms of discrimination that limit women in the STEM professions.

In April 2015, two prominent Canadian scientists, Judy Illes and Dr. Catherine Anderson, resigned from the Canadian Science and Engineering Hall of Fame selection committee due to the fact that there has not been a female nominee in two years. In fact, the Hall of Fame was created 24 years ago, and since that time only 11 out of 60 inductees have been women. According to Anderson, a professor in the faculty of medicine at UBC, women are less likely to be nominated because of innate biases. She notes, “Men are more likely to nominate men, so if we actually want to recognize the best of the best, we need to actively encourage women to apply.” Illes, a professor of neurology and the Canada Research Chair in neuroethics at UBC (one of only 461 women out of 1,650 who hold this prestigious position), states that she has been trying to address flaws in the nomination process for the past two years; suggesting the organization focus on how it advertises. “We were assured that there would be a change over the past year and there wasn’t,” she says.

So, what does it take to effect change? In response to Hunt’s comments about women being too distracting and emotional to work alongside of men in laboratories, female scientists from around the world have united, tweeting under the hashtag #DistractinglySexy. UK’s Vagenda Team initiated the trend with a call to arms, asking female scientists to upload on-the-job photos of themselves together with the hashtag. The trend garnered over 10,000 tweets in only a few hours. Though tongue-in-cheek, it is movements like this, in conjunction with bolder actions like those of Illes and Anderson, that will create the awareness necessary to address the underrepresentation of women in the STEM fields.