The Reading Blog

John Tierney’s July 15, 2008 New York Times article, “A New Frontier for Title IX: Science” explores whether gender bias impedes the advancement of women in science and technology at universities, or whether women are not as well represented in some of those fields (such as the physical sciences and engineering) because they are just not as interested in them. On a related note, The Boston Globe May 18, 2008 article, “The Freedom to Say ‘No’” discussed some recent studies suggesting that many more women are not in science and engineering because they are just not interested.

This is definitely an issue that piqued my interest, since I am one of those female life science Ph.D. holders who opted not to pursue an academic career. Here are some highlights from Tierney’s NYT article:

Until recently, the impact of Title IX, the law forbidding sexual discrimination in education, has been limited mostly to sports. But now, under pressure from Congress, some federal agencies have quietly picked a new target: science…. The National Science Foundation, NASA and the Department of Energy have set up programs to look for sexual discrimination at universities receiving federal grants. So far, these Title IX compliance reviews haven’t had much visible impact on campuses beyond inspiring a few complaints from faculty members…. But some critics fear that the process could lead to a quota system that could seriously hurt scientific research and do more harm than good for women.

The members of Congress and women’s groups who have pushed for science to be “Title Nined” say there is evidence that women face discrimination in certain sciences, but the quality of that evidence is disputed. Critics say there is far better research showing that on average, women’s interest in some fields isn’t the same as men’s.

In this debate, neither side doubts that women can excel in all fields of science. In fact, their growing presence in former male bastions of science is a chief argument against the need for federal intervention. Despite supposed obstacles like “unconscious bias” and a shortage of role models and mentors, women now constitute about half of medical students, 60 percent of biology majors and 70 percent of psychology Ph.D.’s. They earn the majority of doctorates in both the life sciences and the social sciences. They remain a minority in the physical sciences and engineering.

In my view there is no single answer to this gender gap issue. Even though I had no such experience, I certainly would not be surprised to learn that some university departments discriminate overtly or covertly against women (and this is an issue that certainly needs to be addressed). However, the gender gap in how many women versus men go on to academic jobs and acquire tenure is created by a complex chain of events starting with how many girls survive through high school gaining or maintaining an interest in science and engineering; how they react to their experiences in college, graduate school, postdoctoral work, and beyond; how supportive their spouses or significant others are to the demands of their chosen field; how they fare once they are lucky enough to land a tenure-track job; if, when, and how they decide to fit in parenthood in their lives; and so on.

For me one of the main reasons to jump off academic career track was the all-consuming demands of the job. I had other interests in my life and, even though I pride myself of being dedicated to my work, I could not see myself regularly spending 12 to 14 hour days. Many academic science-oriented career tracks seem to thrive on a single-minded dedication to being in the lab churning away experiments (or supervising the undergraduate and graduate students, post-docs, and technicians who do the bulk of the work) and endlessly writing articles and grant applications. This is great if it’s the kind of life you want, but many of us don’t have the single-minded dedication to be the next Marie Curie.