The State of Science. Marc Zimmer
Читать онлайн книгу.
of men.[45] Science is no different.
More than 20 peer-reviewed studies have shown that men self-estimate their own intelligence higher than women do. Most recently, Katelyn Cooper, Anne Krieg, and Sara Brownell of Arizona State University collected data from their upper-level physiology courses. Sixty-six percent of all males in the class thought they were more intelligent than the average classmate, while 54 percent of women thought they were above average. Of course, statistically 50 percent should be above and 50 percent should be below the average. Not surprisingly, Americans tend to have a higher self-estimation than other nationalities. This was also reflected in the study, with only 46 percent of nonnative English speakers considering themselves above average.[46] When working with partners or in groups, the women were asked to rate themselves relative to their closest classmates. They rated themselves smarter than 33 percent of their collaborators, while men thought they were more intelligent than 66 percent of the group. The study shows that the men in the physiology class overestimate their credentials and skills, while underestimating the intelligence of their female classmates, noting that, as a result, “women themselves doubt their abilities—even when hard evidence such as grades say otherwise.”[47] It is worth noting that these observations were made in a physiology/biology classroom setting, because, as Brownell says, “Unlike the more male-dominated fields like engineering and physics, biology is seen as a safe place for women.”[48]
Science and Nature are the most prestigious scientific journals. Publishing in these journals is a sign that you have made it to the top of your field. The author listed first is typically the PhD student who has done the majority of lab work, while the author whose name appears last in the listing of authors associated with the paper is the one who directed the research: the head of the lab. Ione Fine is a neuroscientist at the University of Washington. When she and her coworkers analyzed the gender of the first and last authors of 166,000 articles published in high-profile journals between 2005 and 2017, they found a new disturbing “leaky pipeline.” The proportion of women drops dramatically from PhD students in neuroscience (55 percent), to tenure-track faculty (29 percent), to first author in Nature or Science (25 percent), to full professor (24 percent), and finally to last author in Nature or Science (15 percent). In a related large-scale analysis based on over eight million papers across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities, it was found that women are also significantly underrepresented as authors of single-authored papers.[49] In an article titled “Perish Not Publish? New Study Quantifies the Lack of Female Authors in Scientific Journals,”[50] Fine and Shen lay the blame for these findings on proven biases in the publishing pipeline. They cite studies showing that in situations in which women have done all the lab work, they are less likely to be given the prestigious first author position;[51] the honor is more likely to go to more assertive male students. In the article, Fine and Shen also point out that these biases become particularly important in the most selective journals that accept only the most superlative and brilliant papers, adjectives more likely attributed to white men than to women or men of color.[52] All these biases make women, who tend to be more restrained, less likely to submit articles to the highly selective journals, particularly as rejection by a journal and subsequent resubmission to a less selective journal can result in one’s research being scooped by other groups. In conclusion, Fine and Shen suggest that “the scientific community should demand that journals collect data about gender and ethnicity for article submissions and acceptances, and these data should be publicly available.” And more important, they should adopt mandatory double-blind reviews.[53] This solution has helped in the famously gendered world of elite orchestras. Female musicians in the top five symphony orchestras in the United States were less than 5 percent of all players in 1970 but are 25 percent today. The proportion of women hired increased dramatically after auditions were anonymized in the 1970s and 1980s by placing performers behind a curtain. Nevertheless, orchestras are still extremely gendered, not only in general makeup but also in instrument breakdown (similar to the observable difference in the gender breakdown of different STEM fields). In the world’s top 20 orchestras, 94 percent of harpists are female, and 100 percent of trombonists are male.[54]
Not only are women invited to give seminars less frequently than their male counterparts, but they behave differently at presentations, asking fewer questions. Alecia Carter, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Montpellier in France, collected observational data at 247 departmental seminars, hosted at 35 institutions in 10 countries. She and her colleagues found that men are 2.5 times more likely to ask questions at colloquia than their female counterparts. Upon further questioning, they established that “women were significantly more likely than men to say that they had kept silent because they were unsure whether their question was appropriate, or because they did not have enough ‘nerve’ to ask it.”[55]
Jennifer Harnden-Koehler, a former executive coach and talent management expert at Talent Acceleration Group, set out to establish why women in midlevel positions at biotech companies aren’t promoted to senior-level positions even when they have the required credentials and skills. She found they were having a tough time being seen as strategic thinkers. Women are more likely to present multiple scenarios with backup plans, while men often only offer a single strategy. Women tend to see the backup plans as an important part of leadership, but management interprets the caveats as an indication of indecision. Women tend to say “our plan,” while men take ownership, calling it “my plan.”[56] Research has shown that this democratic leadership style, typically adopted by women, is long lasting and bridge building.[57] However, Harnden-Koehler has found that biotech companies are more interested in “strong” leaders, leaders with something she calls “loudership.”
In May 2018, five months before Donna Strickland was awarded the Nobel Prize, a page about her was submitted to Wikipedia but was rejected because she and her research had not garnered enough internet coverage,[58] another clear example of women not self-promoting as much as men.
Conclusion
Eric Lander, founding director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, wrote an opinion piece in the Boston Globe in which he said, “The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. To stay ahead, we’ll need to use all our assets. That means leveling the barriers for women in science and engineering, and closing the participation gap for underrepresented minorities. It also means expanding tech-driven prosperity beyond the two coasts.”[59] This is particularly important because the economic center of gravity of the world is shifting as the populations and personal income of Africa and (especially) Asia are increasing. If the United States wants to stay competitive in the world economy, it will have to rely on technological and scientific advances. Science and technology are related to each other, and both will advance faster and further with an expanded and diversified talent pool.
For better or worse, the world economic system is based on growth. In the current system, countries and companies need to expand in order to thrive. Staying the same may be sustainable, but it is not economically desirable. The U.S. agricultural and manufacturing sectors have reached their maximum capacity; they can no longer expand. America’s economic growth is predicated on the production/design of new products (iPhones, solar panels, cars, etc.). We need new and improved products, high-tech merchandise enhanced beyond previous models. In other words, the expansion of the U.S. economic system is reliant on scientific knowledge and know-how.[60] The use and insights gained from scientific breakthroughs such as CRISPR, optogenetics, and gravitational waves will keep the United States competitive in tomorrow’s economy. To do this we need to maximize our scientific talent.
All the hurdles and biases described here don’t apply only to women and scientists of color; they also apply to some white male scientists. Chapter 5 discusses Doug Prasher, who wasn’t confident enough to go for tenure at Woods Hole; didn’t continue working on green fluorescent proteins because he wasn’t being supported; and finally dropped out of science, missing the hundredth Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2008 by the tiniest of margins. His is another, very different, example of a “leaky pipeline”: the importance of “loudership” and old-boy network connections.
Frances