Women have entered into various scientific realms ranging from biology to rocket science in varying numbers. Across cultures, the trends are that more women take up ‘soft sciences’ and, among the so-called ‘hard sciences’, biological sciences have a higher representation of women than mathematics and physical sciences; engineering has even fewer women.
A report from the Indian National Science Academy shows that even in the last decade, the enrolment of women into different levels of education was roughly the same from undergraduate up to doctoral levels and constituted up to 40% of the total, whereas the numbers of women scientists working as faculty and technical staff in major scientific organisations and universities was no more than 15%.
According to data from the National Science Foundation in the US, women make up two-thirds of psychologists, less than half of biological and life scientists, a quarter of mathematical and computer scientists, and just one-tenth of engineers. In biology disciplines, female students are equal to or outnumber male students at entry levels in schools and colleges, but their numbers fall off further up in the hierarchy, and one finds few women reaching the level of professional scientists, a phenomenon referred to as the ‘leaky pipeline’.
This number is even smaller if one considers administrative positions in science, such as heads of departments, institutions or corporations. Though gender inequality is not new to science and scientific establishments, gender issues within science haven’t merited much attention in mainstream scientific bodies or the media until the past decade or so, and few people questioned the gender-neutrality of science.
Also read: A Conversation With Nalini Anantharaman on the Importance of Fundamental Research
The status of women in science has become a cause for concern among various establishments due to the recognition that scientific and technological progress requires us to utilise the full human potential, not just those of men. One of the major goals set out in India’s Science, Technology and Innovation policy in 2013 was “positioning India as one of the top five global scientific powers by 2020.” The policy included gender parity as an area of focus for attaining excellence and relevance in R&D. Similar considerations apply in other parts of the world.
What are the reasons for finding fewer and fewer women as we move up the academic hierarchy? It does not appear that female students are less inclined or unable to do science. The numbers thus far indicate female students enrol into science streams in school or college in equal proportion to male students. There is also abundant evidence to show there are no gender-specific differences in the ability to do science.
However, social barriers often influence the choices of women to pursue science as a profession. The academic career path in science is long and arduous, demands time and productivity, involving an (ideally) uninterrupted stint from postgraduate training and beyond that may span several years before she can become an independent professional. Thus, women scientists – especially at the early stages of their careers – have the difficult task of managing two different, but equally exacting, domains: family and profession. This in itself is a sufficient disincentive for a number of women to pursue science at higher levels, and this is one of the leaks in the so-called ‘leaky pipeline’.
The lack of encouragement in terms of an absence of systemic provisions that protect women’s professional interests during such periods and an absence of female role models feed into a vicious cycle that effectively pushes women out of the academic pipeline. They either drop out or tend to choose ‘steadier’ jobs free from the pressures of an independent academic position. The latter necessarily involves acquiring funding, managing a research team and being productive. The view that marriage, motherhood and childcare are women’s “personal priorities” fails to recognise that women’s roles of childbearing and child-rearing cater to a social function rather than a domestic one with impact solely in the personal realm.
Prominent women scientists, such as astrophysicist Jocelyn Bell Burnell and biologist Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, addressed the need to facilitate childcare for young women scientists undertaking research (especially doctoral and postdoctoral students).
Though it was Bell Burnell’s observations that led to the discovery of pulsating stars while she was still a graduate student, the Nobel Prize for this work went to her supervisor. However her scientific discoveries and her efforts to uplift women and minorities in science brought her the Breakthrough Prize many years later. One of such efforts was to set up a fund from her prize money to support physics students from underrepresented groups.
Nüsslein-Volhard won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1995 for her discoveries of the development of fruit flies. She also used her prize money to set up a foundation to provide funds to pay for housework and child care for young women scientists. The idea of this foundation was to enable such women to devote more time to their careers instead of having to perform domestic work.
Also read: Dear Nobel Laureate, Your Words Matter Because Young Women Are Listening to You
Moving up the professional ladder also involves receiving awards, grants and memberships in boards and committees. Success in these areas, as well as the largely collaborative nature of scientific activity, relies on building effective networks, which often puts women in a disadvantaged position simply because they don’t have entry into cliques and boys’ clubs.
A training program on executive leadership for early career women scientists conducted at the National Institutes of Health in the US stressed the importance of networking and social capital in getting positions and recognition, as well as the need to gain visibility. These are two areas in which women scientists evidently lag behind their male counterparts.
Attitudes towards women can lead to their being excluded from paths they may be otherwise interested in pursuing. Stereotypes about women or their ‘natural’ abilities may well influence the decision by mentors and faculty to take on female students in research programmes. In fact, a systematic study published in 2012 reaffirmed the existence of gender bias favouring male students over female in research-intensive departments in the US.
Such attitudes cut across cultures. For those women already in the scientific profession, experience has frequently been that they are paid less than their male counterparts, and that their work tends to be underrated. Despite the broad moves by public organisations and governments in terms of policies and programs towards enhancing the participation of women in science, and celebrating their achievements, there is still a long way to go to achieve an equitable representation of women within science.
Chitra Kannabiran leads research on molecular genetics at the L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad.