There aren’t enough women in science

Here are some statistics that I think are representative of most academic institutions.

The ratio of women to men at the undergraduate level is 50:50. The same ratio holds for students at graduate school and at medical school. I do not think that there is any affirmative action here. That is, women are not specifically identified, sorted out or favored over men for entrance at any of these levels. The ratio simply reflects the quality of the students, without preference for gender.

Then something happens at the postdoctoral fellow level: the ratio drops to 40:60, or lower. The quality of female postdoctoral fellows is very high and, in my experience, they are certainly as good if not better than their male counterparts. Nevertheless, there is, overall, a decrease relative to the number of men.

The worst statistic, however, is the number of women in faculty positions. There are, to put it mildly, very few women faculty members relative to the number of male faculty members. In the biological sciences at my institution, the ratio of female to male faculty members is below 1:10.

It is important to note that some of these numbers reflect a great improvement from previous times. For example, when I was an undergraduate, the ratio of women to men was 1:7. There is little doubt that the increase in the number of women in ‘higher education’ over the past two decades reflects monumental changes in societal stereotyping of what women could accomplish and the realization by women that there should not be barriers to what they can accomplish. Indeed, recent studies in the UK show that the percentage of students enrolling in undergraduate studies who are female is approaching 60%, and that women are achieving higher grades in their university entrance exams than are their male counterparts.

The gradual increase in the proportion of women in undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate studies over past two decades was possible because each of these periods of education are relatively short (3-5 years). Thus, rapid turnover of student populations in each period enabled the proportion of women to men to increase as more women chose to pursue higher education.

Then why is there a decrease in the ratio of women to men from 50:50 to 1:10, or worse, during the period between undergraduate training and gaining a position as a member of the faculty? First, it could be construed that women are somehow discriminated against at the selection or appointment stage of the faculty search. I disagree. All of us take the phrase “Our institution is an affirmative action employee, and women and minorities are encouraged to apply” very seriously. And anyway, it is clear that the quality of female and male applicants is very similar - I state this as a fact! Second, there is an obvious biological issue concerning having a family. Truthfully, this may have been an issue a few years ago, but it is one that institutions now take into account - for example, by extending promotion times by a year or more. But, don’t ask my wife whether this has been a hindrance to becoming an outstanding member of faculty at a great university. Oh, and I don’t think it’s a hindrance either, nor do my former female graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who had children.

One possibility for the decrease in the number of women in science after graduate school is that once some women, and some men, get a taste of research science in a laboratory setting during graduate school they begin to decide that this (research) environment is not for them. The scientific environ- ment can be aggressive, combative, uncooperative. Don’t interpret this the wrong way. I think that women are as competitive as men in science, but do not mistake competitiveness for com- bativeness, aggression and unco- operativeness. Perhaps seeing that collaboration and collegiality are not generally the atmosphere in research science, some women and men are turned away from furthering their careers in science. Clearly, one immediate resolution is to make our laboratories more cooperative and collegial, and to place an emphasis on training, constructive criticism and mentoring.

One significant reason for the slow increase in number of women faculty is that unlike the short periods of undergraduate through post-graduate education (3-5 years each), the period of faculty tenure is very long. If you consider that most faculty members obtained their initial position in their 30s and there is no compulsory retirement age (because it is discriminatory), this

means that most faculty members remain in their position for 30-40 years. There is simply not enough turnover in faculty positions to propagate proportionally the dramatic increase in the number of women in undergraduate through post-graduate education that has occurred over the past 20 years. There would have to be nearly a doubling of the number of faculty positions, each of which would have to be filled by a woman in order to approach a 50:50 ratio of women to men.

Aside from culling male faculty, we should strongly consider increasing the number of new faculty positions. Academic administrations of univer- sities and research institutes can make that decision, and government support would help to endow universities with the financial resources/security to expand their faculties. An increase in faculty size is required because of the large group of young scientists coming down the pipeline and the increasing need to train subsequent generations of research scientists and teachers. This is a worthy goal for all these reasons.

Caveman