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

Should the University of Manchester SU remain affiliated to the NUS?

Also published in the Mancunion: Debate: should the Students’ Union remain affiliated with NUS?  

NO: Undemocratic, unrepresentative, and a waste of money; the opinion of many students on the very body that is meant to speak for us on a national level, the NUS. Sadly, these criticisms are not unfounded. The organisation is not acting in the best interest of students; and it’s time we did something about it.

The NUS in its current form isn’t representing students. Currently delegates are elected from each university to attend NUS conference, where policy decisions are made for the next year. Members of SUs can vote for these delegates, and in theory they represent us to the NUS as a whole. The problem is, do you actually have any idea who your NUS delegates are or what they stand for? Do you remember voting for them even? Their barely mandated officers push policies like their “no platform for fascists” on universities. This leads to backlashes such as that seen recently from Leeds Student newspaper, showing that these policies are clearly unpopular with students.

If we left the NUS, our own Sabbatical Officers, who we elect directly, could become our voice on a national scale. Paul Beaumont, the president of Imperial College SU, (who’ve been disaffiliated since 2008) thinks this is a much more powerful way for students to get their voices heard “We feel that, rather than being a ‘one line mention’ in an NUS response, a whole response dedicated to the views of just our students allows us to represent them much more effectively and ‘loudly’.”

Paul says it is fully possible for the union to survive without the funding and subsidies. He stated “the most recent Aldwych conference [a meeting between student union members of Russell Group Universities] was held at Imperial and your Education Officer, Luke noted that our bar prices are the same as yours – even outside of the NUS bulk buying scheme!”. So, Imperial’s drink prices are just as low as ours, without the NUSSL. Imperial has just 13,000 students, Manchester University has almost 40,000. That’s much more buying power. So if Imperial can do it, why can’t we? We could even team up with other disaffiliated Students’ Unions such as Imperial and start our own bulk buying scheme.

Look beyond the 10% Topshop discount; the NUS is unrepresentative, and many of its so called benefits could easily be achieved without it. NUS membership cost our union £52,848.70 this academic year, but it simply isn’t worth the price tag. The decision is simple: we should disaffiliate from the NUS.

The government's new paternity leave policy is a step forward, but not far enough

Also published in The Mancunion: Sweden’s showing us the way with paternity leave

Walking along the streets of Stockholm, the average Brit will see a scene quite alien to them. Groups of men happily wandering around the city’s suburbs, pushing along prams, or with babies strapped to their backs. This is something a Swede will barely bat an eyelid at, but this isn’t a scene you’ll likely to see whilst wandering the streets of Manchester. This may, however, be about to change. The coalition has announced plans to bring in shared maternity and paternity leave by April 2015. So for today’s students, it means that we will be the first generation of Britain’s who will finally have the opportunity of equality in parenting. But disappointingly, it does not go as far as it should, falling far behind Sweden’s system which has been in place since the 1970s. In short, it’s a good start – but not good enough.

Currently the British system gives men just two weeks of paid leave from work following the birth of their child, and they are entitled to no other time off. Women, on the other hand, are given paid leave for up to 39 weeks after birth, and can choose to take up to 52 weeks off in total. Under the coalition’s proposals, mothers will automatically receive 18 weeks’ paid leave, men 6 weeks. The couple will have 32 weeks, of which 16 are paid, to split between them.

So why is this change so important? By giving women so much more paid time off than men, the state has been reinforcing the sexist view of women as primary providers of childcare, with the negative impact this then has on their careers. It isn’t, however, only negative for women. Many men who would love to stay at home with their children don’t because they would have to do so unpaid, which most families cannot afford. Another problem is the general attitudes towards men and childcare. With its parental leave policy, the government had been endorsing the view that men don’t get involved in childcare. It’s seen as emasculating for men to be the ones to stay at home, which puts many men off for fear of how others will perceive them. Under the current system, the government had been effectively endorsing this view.

From 2015, a couple will be able to choose to split leave (pretty much) equally between them, letting them choose for themselves their roles within their own family. Within any partnership, partners must be able to choose between them who would be the best person to look after their children, and that is not a decision in which the genitals that person happens to have should have any bearing. Couples are likely to have more pressing issues on their mind during that decision process, such as the stage each of them is in their career (and so if it’s sensible for either of them to take a large amount of time off), or who would most enjoy spending that time at home with the children.

The problem comes, however, in reserving the first 18 weeks to the woman. It means that the message of women as primary caregivers, though weaker, is still there. The government needs to send the clear message that neither gender is expected to take the majority of childcare. A Swedish friend put it to me perfectly – “I think the biggest theoretical fault with the British system is that it by law says that men and women should be unequal to the law (which I obviously don’t think is acceptable). The biggest practical problem is that it will keep women away from work life and make them a less attractive choice during employment, and they are therefore put in a difficult position when trying to develop successful careers.”

Still a major concern for female students upon graduation is: will a man be chosen for a job over me because of my gender? The story’s a disappointingly familiar one: two candidates, one male, one female, fairly evenly qualified. The employer, (especially so in small businesses) worries that the young woman will start having children within a few years, and doesn’t want to have to bear the cost of the time she’ll likely take off for maternity leave, and so they employ the man instead. The problem with the government’s proposal is that it doesn’t change this perception. If women have so much more time allocated to them, then women will still be seen as a bigger liability. As only 6 weeks is allocated to the man, and stereotypes already favour women looking after children, women will remain disadvantaged.

The Swedish system is a much more sensible model, and what we should be striving for. Parents are given 480 days between them, of which each has 60 reserved for them that the other partner cannot use. This is designed to challenge the stereotype that men aren't involved in childcare by actively encouraging each parent to take time off to get the maximum time between them, and it means that the state does not in any way discriminate against either parent on gender.

The coalition’s proposals are a step forward. They allow couples to split parental leave between them fairly, a massive improvement on the current system. What they do not do, however, is challenge existing stereotypes of women as primary caregivers to children, or stereotypes that men cannot hold that role. It seems right now, we may still be a while off my own personal dream – seeing groups of men wandering through the streets of Manchester, prams and babies in tow.

Should Leeds Student have published its interview with Nick Griffin?

Also published in The Mancunion: Was the Leeds Student right to interview Nick Griffin? 
And Ones to Watch Student Media: Does Nick Griffin have a place in student media?

Leed's student newspaper, the imaginatively named Leeds Student, has come under attack from the NUS after printing an interview with BNP leader Nick Griffin, a move the NUS say violates their "no platform for facists" policy. So, was Leeds Student right to publish the interview? My piece from the Mancunion's yes and no debate:

Yes -  The only effective way to deal with views such as Nick Griffin’s is to question them, have them out in the open, and to criticise. Leeds Student made exactly the right decision by giving Nick Griffin a platform, because by allowing him to voice his opinions, they allowed us to see how ridiculous they are.

A particular favorite quote of mine (for showing just how stupid Mr. Griffin is) came when the interviewer, a gay man, asked him what exactly it is he finds so objectionable about people like himself. Griffin’s reply was to explain that gay people simply need to understand that “a lot of heterosexual people – we don’t want to persecute you – but we find the sight of two men kissing creepy.”

Another absolute gem comes when he moves onto civil partnerships, saying that as it undermines the institution of marriage “children will die over the next few years, because they’ll be brought up in homes which aren’t married.” Students aren’t stupid; the vast majority of them know that opinions like his are not just vile but absolutely ridiculous. They are not about to become BNP recruits anytime soon after seeing this sort of rubbish from him in their student newspaper. Just as the fallout from Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time made us question the standing of the BNP, the more people understand what his views actually, are the less they want to support him.

The NUS have a no platform policy, and have written an open letter to Leeds Student asking them to remove the interview. This policy stops criticism from happening. It is also a policy put in place by a body, who should not be trying to push policies onto member universities. The editor of Leeds Student was elected democratically by the members of her union, and so absolutely had the right to make the decision to publish the interview.

Views need to be heard to be challenged, not hidden away and for us to pretend they don’t exist. People like Nick Griffin exist, students need to know that and need to shout about just how wrong people like him are. This is the only way to fight these views, and so Leeds Student were completely right in their decision to go against the NUS and print the interview.

Blaming the bar crawls is an easy way out of dealing with gender stereotypes of sexualisation

Also published in:
The Mancunion: Are sexed-up club night themes damaging women?
Ones to Watch (Student media): Under pressure: sexism and student nights out

Female students are constantly under comment and scrutiny for the way they dress and the way they act. Am I wearing enough? Am I wearing too much? Am I having enough sex? Will someone think I’m a slut? External forces are constantly pulling us to and fro, telling us what is deemed acceptable and what is not. Themed student nights now come under inspection: are girls being overly sexualised at these events? (Is there a ‘right’ amount of sexualisation?) Are they being coerced to dress too provocatively and act too sexually? To be both sexually available but not a ‘slut’?

Image from: Ones to Watch http://onestowatchmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/Nightclub.jpg

Let us begin with an example from right inside Manchester. At ‘The Bop’ recently, a group of girls on a bar crawl were encouraged to lick the chocolate off of a Kit Kat Chunky from between a guy's legs. Boys were not required to perform any such task. And so the story repeats itself up and down the country, with girls being encouraged on bar crawls to remove clothing and perform sexual acts, whilst guys are left to sit back and enjoy the show. In Sheffield, protest resulted after the company Carnage held a 'Pimps and Hoes' themed bar crawl, leading many to question whether it’s right to hold themed nights encouraging girls to dress provocatively. Comment on over-sexualisation of student nights is rampant.

‘Pimps and Hoes’, ‘Vicars and Tarts’ and ‘Geeks and Sluts’ are all recent student event themes with one thing in common. They encourage females to wear very little whilst allowing males to dress in, what is perceived at least, a humorous fashion. But before we criticise the organisers of these bar crawls too much, think about your average student night. The majority of girls will be wearing fairly little, many in the thought that sexy is only possible with a large amount of flesh on show. This is down to societal pressure, a pressure that men do not feel, but this isn’t simply because of themed bar crawls. The bar crawl could be ‘Vicars’ only, and I can guarantee you there would be some dog collars teamed up with some very short skirts. Wider societal pressures are telling girls sexy means less, and whilst these bar crawls are reinforcing those stereotypes, they are not the root cause of them.

So if banning - or at least massively frowning upon these patriarchal bar crawl themes - isn’t the answer, what is? Firstly, it’s important to remember there will always be girls out there perfectly happy to wear hot pants with their bum cheeks spilling out, and there will always be girls who manage to make even the most mundane fancy dress outfits sexual (I’m thinking sexy pumpkin). I say, all power to them. The problem with saying certain nights aren’t acceptable is that this allows other people to tell girls 'sexy' dress up isn't okay, that they’re wearing too little, being too slutty. Girls should have the choice to participate in these themed bar crawls, not be told it’s not okay by external voices. I want all women, and all men, to be happy to wear whatever the hell they want to wear on a night out. The only effective way to do this is for girls and guys to tell societal norms they aren’t happy with to sod off, and go out in whatever they want to go out in. Girls and guys, wear t-shirts and jeans if you want to, wear absolutely nothing if you want to. A little reminder in case anyone’s forgotten, but female vicars and geeks exist, male ‘sluts’ and ‘tarts’ exist, and you’re free to make all these outfits as sexual or non-sexual as you want. Go on these bar crawls, but do what the organisers aren’t expecting. The problem isn’t over-sexualisation, but a forced ‘over-sexualisation’ of just one specific gender, and the expectations and judgements forced on that gender. The only way that will change is if we change our attitudes, not if a bar crawl’s theme tells us to do so.

‘Pimps and Hoes’ is however an entirely separate issue, and I understand the concerns of the protesters. Women are still today being forced into prostitution here in Manchester, in Sheffield, all over the UK and the world. Men still hold these power positions over incredibly vulnerable women, and getting people to ‘act out’ such a power relationship as ‘just a bit of fun’ is disrespectful to the women in these situations. But a little bit of perspective is needed here. I do not for one second think that Carnage wanted to belittle the suffering of these women when thinking of its theme, I also don’t think that any participants on the bar crawl will suddenly think that it’s okay to sexually exploit women. So whilst I agree with the aims of the protesters, and am certainly glad their protest has led to increased awareness of the issue, I can’t help but think there are much better targets to protest against than a bar crawl that, whilst misguided and stupid, was not meant in malice.

And as for those Kit Kat Chunkys? Absolutely fine. But only so long as such exploits are not only aimed at the sexualisation of women. If I’m going to lick chocolate out from between a guy’s legs, or a girl’s legs, I damn well expect them to return the favour. A big part of student life is sexual exploration, and I’m fine with bar crawls providing an outlet, whilst having a bit of fun, for people to explore their sexuality. But bar crawls need to stop only sexualising young women but also encourage guys to get down and dirty. It is, after all, only fair for them to get a go too.

Abortion available "essentially on demand"

Sarah Catt's case is one a judge is unlikely to hear often. After claiming to have only discovered her pregnancy after the 24 week cut off point for legal abortion, she purchased drugs from abroad and self-injected to bring on an abortion herself. She then hid the foetus, thought at the time to have been just one week from term - because she believed the baby was that of her lover, not her husband. After a turbulent history of past pregnancies including an adoption, Sarah Clatt now faces an 8 year prison sentence for what the judge at Leeds Crown Court called an offence "between manslaughter and murder on the criminal scale", she was sentenced on the 17^th of September 2012.

A difficult case, and whether or not the Judge, The Hon Mr Jeremy Cook, was too harsh or too lenient in his sentence will undoubtedly be debated. But what should well warrant just as much debate are the comments the Judge made following sentencing to the defendant herself- “There is no mitigation available by reference to the Abortion Act, whatever view one takes of its provisions which are, wrongly, liberally construed in practice so as to make abortion available essentially on demand prior to 24 weeks with the approval of registered medical practitioners.”

“Wrongly, liberally construed in practice...” – with these few words the Judge has hijacked the case to voice his own opinions on abortion. This was not a trial questioning abortion law, and to voice his opinion during the trial should be seen as a gross abuse of his position. He knew the case would be widely reported, and he's used it as a platform.

Justice Cooke is a Christian, and a member of the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship. He was in fact one of the organisation's vice presidents until 2010. These previously known beliefs likely go a long way to explaining his views on abortion. Some may ask if membership of such an organisation meant it was inappropriate for him to act as Judge in this case, but holding such views should not impact on someone's ability to do their job. Justice Cooke, just as any other person of religious belief, had the choice to leave his own beliefs outside the courtroom and act in a professional manner. He failed to do so, and it is that which should give concern over his ability as a Judge in such a case. The problem is not that Justice Cooke is a Christian, but that he used the platform his position gave him to express his own beliefs, Christian or otherwise.

Had he voiced this opinion in a private capacity, Justice Cooke would have had every right to do so. But the fact he aired those opinions in a professional capacity is not only highly unprofessional but also sends an awful message to women seeking abortions. He was in essence saying that he, a part of the establishment, a representative of the establishment, thinks that what they are doing is wrong – and this will have an effect on women in this vulnerable position. To use the phrase “essentially on demand” makes it sound as though an abortion is something you get on a whim, something that women are demanding unfairly. If his comments were made in private they would be rightly widely damned, but that they were made in such a position gives them a legitimacy he did not have the right to award them. Justice Cooke should face recourse for his abuse of power, but he will not – and this is a failing of the current legal system.