Women in Science

Also published in Sheffield Student Unions’s e-jounal Canvas: Women in Science

Science is a profession historically dominated by men. The last few decades have seen massive advances for women in science, and many attempts have been made to attract more women to the profession. But despite this, science is still stubbornly male dominated. This is especially true at the highest levels of academia. Here in the UK, only 1 in 5 professors are female. (1)  Post-PhD level is thought to be the biggest problem, with women who have completed their PhDs dropping out at far higher rates than their male counterparts. 72% of women at the start of their PhDs say that they want to pursue a career in science, by the end of their studies this figure falls to 37%. Men however may start with only 61% wanting to continue in science, but 59% still want to stay by the end of their PhDs. (2) Now those working in science, and policies makers for governments, are trying to figure out why. What is it about scientific academia that is putting off women so much, but isn’t having the same effect on men?

By chance, my own research group is made up almost entirely by women. With so many female scientists in one place, over lunch I take the chance to ask them their views of women in science today. Do they think women are inherently disadvantaged? What do they think is putting women off of careers in scientific academia?

Whilst the trend may seem to be against women in science, most of the women I spoke to had never individually felt like they had been discriminated against in their work because of their gender. “It’s nothing within the system that’s pushing women out, but maybe just personal and other pressures” commented one post-doctoral researcher. However, all of the women said they saw a drop off in women between PhD, to postdoc, on through fellowships and professorships. The reasons why they thought this happened differed greatly. Many of them blamed motherhood, saying that they thought many female scientists were simply choosing to leave to have children.

This is a huge problem for women in every sector. They are still expected to be primary care-givers to children, and so expected to be the ones to sacrifice their careers for family. It is, however, thought to be a particular problem in academia. Some say that academic science simply does not suit part time work, with long and unusual working hours often required to run experiments. Others argue that women find it difficult to get back into science after years away, because they will no longer be on top of the latest research, and so disadvantaged compared to colleagues who have not taken time off.  But things are changing. Most universities now offer flexible and part time work for parents, and both genders are taking advantage of this. Whilst scientific working hours are highly variable, with a lot of forward planning they can be flexible enough to meet childcare needs. Women and men with children are running labs, and doing it incredibly successfully.

Another problem that a career in scientific academia poses to family life is the period spent doing post-doctoral research. To work in academia, scientists after their PhD have to work as post-doctoral researchers for several years before progressing further up their career path. These positions are often very short term, which means moving regularly to secure new jobs, and a lack of job security. (2) A woman’s post PhD late 20s is the time many will be thinking about having children. Several of the women in my own lab said that they thought women just don’t think a scientific career will be able to fit in with their family lives. Men do not seem to have the same concerns, as they may put off having children until their position is more secure, or they may have a woman at home who will take the childcare responsibilities. Until societies changes its expectation of women as primary caregivers, this is unlikely to change.

Whilst the women I spoke to may not think they’ve been discriminated against because of their gender, a study in the journal PNAS earlier this year clearly demonstrated an inherent gender bias within academia. The study gave academics at research intensive universities applications for a laboratory manager position at their university. The gender of the applicant was randomly assigned. Those in the study on average rated the male applicant as more hireable, gave them a higher starting salary, and offered more career mentoring than they did to an identical female applicant. And it wasn’t just the male academics who were showing gender bias, women were just as likely to favour male applicants. The authors blame the effects of societal stereotypes on women’s competent in science. (3) Gender bias in science is real.

A final year PhD from my own lab was hopeful, “things are already changing” she said. But for real equality, more needs to be done. The problems facing women in science are similar to those in most other areas; mainly that society still expects women to look after children. Until this changes (and things are moving in the right direction, for example; changes to shared parental leave to be implemented from 2015 (4) the position of women in science is unlikely to change. Just as importantly, men and women at the top of the scientific profession need to take a long look at the way they view women applying for posts with them.

Both of these problems come down primarily to societal attitudes toward the role of women, rather than scientific work itself. Science may be more difficult for parents, but that should be a separate issue to its relationship with gender. Unsurprisingly, studies have found that women do much better in science in countries where they enjoy factors such as equal representation in government, and high economic status (5), places where they’re less likely to have these societal pressures. Only as women become more equal in society as a whole will they be able to achieve equality in science.

Article by Rebecca Montacute. Edited by David Jeffery.

Works Cited

1. [Online] http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/09/women-in-science-plug-the-leaky-career-pipes-by-challenging-social-norms/.

2. [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/may/24/why-women-leave-academia.

3. [Online] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full.pdf+html.

4. [Online] http://news.bis.gov.uk/Press-Releases/Mums-and-dads-will-share-parental-leave-68330.aspx.

Further Reading:

http://www.nature.com/news/nature-s-sexism-1.11850

http://www.biochemistry.org/Portals/0/SciencePolicy/Docs/Chemistry%20Report%20For%20Web.pdf

http://www.wigsat.org/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/04/women_in_science_fixing_the_bias_requires_broad_social_chan

Transport of animals for research threatened

Also published in the Mancunion: Manchester’s research under threat?

Important medical research carried out at our (Manchester) University relies on animal testing, the majority of animals used being mice and rats.All of this work is done under extremely tight regulation, and only when no alternative to animals are available. This research helps scientists to better understand terrible conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, stroke and cancer. But for researchers doing this crucial work, things are getting harder. Recently the animal rights group PETA have announced that two of the world’s largest air carriers, FedEx and UPS, will no longer transport mammals for use in laboratories. This has followed months of pressure from animal rights groups, which have already succeeded in getting every ferry carrier into the UK to stop their transportation of laboratory animals, as well as many airlines.

Image: Wikimedia commons

It is not yet impossible for animals to be brought into the UK, but with all ferry links now cut and growing pressures for more airlines to follow suit, it soon may be. Animal transportation is crucial for research. Last week a petition has been started by researchers to ask the government to intervene, but should we care? Should students at a university in which this work is carried out be adding their voices to this campaign?

Crucially, allowing animals to be transported actually lowers the numbers of animals used. The majority of animals brought into the UK from abroad are needed because they have a specific genetic modification (that is, they are transgenic). For example, mice do not get Alzheimer’s disease, so to give a mouse symptoms that are similar to Alzheimer’s disease, they have genes introduced into their DNA that cause symptoms of Alzheimer’s . These mice can then be used for research. Making transgenic mice takes a long time, a lot of money, and a lot of mice. If someone else has already made such a mouse, transporting a few they have already bred will save a lot of unnecessary breeding of animals, time and money.

As well as reducing the numbers of animals used, limiting the transportation of animals will badly affect research carried out. Science budgets are tight, and researchers do not have enough money for them to easily shoulder this extra cost. Either they cannot afford to remake these transgenic animals, and the work isn’t done, or the money they use to do so is taken away from another part of research.

If it starts to become impossible for researchers at UK universities to have animals transported into the country, we will be less competitive compared to universities in countries where these animals are available. This could lead to researchers going abroad to carry out their work; and UK universities such as Manchester suffering as a result. As well as being bad for universities, this could be bad for animal welfare, as work may end up being done in countries where animal welfare legislation is not as stringent as our own.

A poll conducted this year for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills found that 85% of the general public in the UK support animal use in medical research, with conditions. Most people agree that when no alternative is possible, and where suffering of any animals used is limited as far as possible, animals should be used. We need to pressure the government to ensure this important research, which the majority of the public are behind, can continue. To do this, they need to get together with transport companies and agree together that animal transport will continue. This would mean that singular companies cannot be targeted by protesters as they have been now.

As for the campaigners who are pressuring these companies; there are far better uses of their time. Animal testing practices in the UK are not perfect, and campaigners would make a much better impact if they respected the general public’s support for this important research, whilst campaigning to improve practices. For example, if results for experiments using animals which did not prove a particular idea were more easily publishable (which does not happen currently) other researchers would not repeat this work unnecessarily. Professor of Neuroscience at Manchester University, Stuart Allan, comments “It has been very difficult in the past to publish negative data but thankfully some journals are beginning to change their practice and are now doing so. Hopefully others will follow suit which should reduce unnecessary repetition of experiments using animals. Drug companies could also release data that they have obtained using animals which could again prevent others repeating the same work.” If protesters focused on specific issues such as these, they could both reduce the number of animals used, and help research.

Students should support the researchers who work at our university to keep animal transport links open. Most importantly, blocking animal transport is not better for animals, as it will result in more animals being used. It will also have a detrimental impact on vital medical research; research done in laboratories such as those at the University of Manchester. If this research suffers, our reputation on a global scale will suffer too, which would be detrimental for all students at the university.

To sign the petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/40111