This Week's Picks

Happy Summer, everyone!

We're always talking about the under-representation of women in science. But what is fueling this gender imbalance? Marshall Shepherd, PhD, hones in on 5 Ways Society Sabotages Girls' Interest in Science and Math. I really loved this piece, but to summarize, we first have "Imagery." How are children molded by the toys and activities marketed to them? Real quick, do a Google search (I just did). No, really do it, it'll be eye-opening. What do you see when you search for "toys for girls"? The very first thing I see is a kitchen, followed by a makeup kit, and household appliances like a pink sewing machine, hair dryer, vacuum, and so on. What about "toys for boys"? Well, I see trucks, a tool box, dinosaurs, Legos -- toys that are designed to encourage curiosity about the natural world, cause-and-effect, logic, and critical thinking.  Think about how easy it is to internalize the messages children receive when boys have toys that are inherently tied to scientific endeavors while girls have toys that reinforce "traditional" gender roles in which they are charged with domestic duties. So, even from a young age, women are being implicitly told "science is not for you."

Building off of this internalization, Dr. Shepherd lists "self-fulfilling prophecy." So, you have this deeply ingrained idea that because you are a woman, science and math are just not your strong suit. So, why bother, if you're only going to fail? Going into science and math classes with this notion detrimentally affects women's performance in these applications, leading to this self-fulfilling prophecy. You already go in feeling defeated, so you don't apply yourself, leading to a poor outcome. Furthermore, how are you meant to overcome these feelings, if you have no mentorship for young women?

While it can be empowering to see women becoming more and more involved in STEM, once we're there, there is this invisible, but ever-present feeling of having to prove something. Women are underrepresented in science, and now you're a woman in science -- now it's your job to overcome any perceived stereotypes. Prove you're not like the "others!" All eyes are on you now, as you clearly speak and act on behalf of all women! Hopefully the sarcasm is coming through here, but consider this strange phenomenon of women doing their jobs in STEM and having people be surprised!  Lastly, are we conveying the value of STEM? Just like with the above mentioned marketing of toys to boys and girls, are we conveying the importance of science to underrepresented populations like women? How can we personalize STEM, make it applicable for everyone? Consider reading the full piece to see how this all ties together.

Here is an external example of the obstacles women face -- a recent study asserts that Male principal investigators (almost) don't publish with women in zoology and ecology. The paper explores the patterns in publishing between men and women scientists in these fields. While research groups led by women had 60% female co-authors, only 20% female co-authors were found when the research group was led by men. The authors of this analysis demonstrate that this is yet another possible way in which women do not continue in STEM fields.

In our effort to combat gender inequality in STEM, institutions are trying to find ways to settle this imbalance. But are these efforts genuine and fruitful? Or is this endeavor just becoming another item to "check off"? Charikleia Tzanakou asserts that this should not just be a matter of quantity, but quality. What kind of diversity can be found in women? What are these Unintended consequences of gender-equality plans?

Thanks for stopping by!

Our Picks for June 14th!

This week we have some bad news and some good news! Don't worry, the bad news isn't necessarily all bad -- it's good that these issues are being brought to light. We'll start with the bad and end on a happy note!

The bad news

Why aren't we doing research on female mice?

Dr. Rebecca Shansky, a professor at Northeastern Univeristy, points out that lots of studies use exclusively male mice and points out that, well, this doesn't really make any sense. The argument has always been that female hormones will cause too much variation between animals. But, as Shansky points out, that's kind of a bogus argument because, um, males have hormones, too. Read more about it in the links.

Black and Latinx women face double the bias when applying to postdocs

A new study using the old trick of distributing CVs with the same qualifications but different names demonstrated that faculty hiring postdocs in physics showed an extra large amount of bias against Black and Latinx women. Faculty rated female-sounding names as less competent than male-sounding names, and they rated Black and Latinx women as even less competent than their white or Asian female counterparts. Read more about it here.

Other bad news:

-60% of male managers say they feel uncomfortable working with women in light of #MeToo
-Male characters on children's TV shows use STEM skills to solve problems, whereas female characters use magic
-A Stanford professor fired over sexual misconduct blames he behavior on "different cultural norms" (yes, another professor, same excuse)

The good news

Celebrate Women in STEM!

We're coming up on the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing. Is the first moon-landing-related scientist that comes to your mind Neil Armstrong? Change that by reading about these women who helped us land on the moon and about pioneering women in STEM today!

Support Women in STEM!

Earth and Space Science news brings us actionable strategies to support women in STEM! We recommend sharing them with your male colleagues in STEM, too!

Other good news:
-The NIH director released a statement against manels (i.e., all-male panels)!
-Women today say you can really have it all
-The fraction of women authors on medical research papers is increasing!
-The CEO of the Girl Scouts tells us how to advance women in tech
-Modern tech is making education more accessible!

This week's picks

I'm sure a lot of us have done animal research (I'm still in the thick of it). Utilizing animals in research allows for us to model various pathologies observed in humans and help answer questions we wouldn't be able to answer using human subjects alone. But there's a major problem -- a lot of this research is being done primarily in male laboratory animals. Why is this a problem? Well, males and females can experience health issues differently -- so results from experiments utilizing only male subjects may not generalize to females. An example of this in human research is found in a recent New York Times article describing that although half of HIV patients are females, most research subjects are men. How can we be sure that clinical trials that are validated only in men can be effective in women?

When experiments are not run in females, we simply do not know how females react or experience various conditions. Often times, researchers point to the fact that females have hormonal fluctuations that make it difficult analyze experimental results reliably. But is this really a valid reason to omit females from research? Dr. Rebecca Shansky wrote an excellent piece on this subject entitled "Are hormones a 'female problem' for animal research?"

Keeping the theme of inclusivity, check out the Equity in STEM Community Convening. This is a great opportunity to meet like-minded scientists who are interested in helping the STEM community become more diverse and inclusive moving forward. After all, progress in science doesn't happen as a result of stagnancy!

A topic that will surely come up at this meeting is the topic of motherhood. Women in STEM already face plenty of challenges in the field as a marginalized group, but consider how much more complicated things get when you factor in the idea of motherhood. The STEM field is only just getting adjusted to having women around in the first place, now we have to consider the idea of accommodating mothers! But is it really just "motherhood?" Is being a parent only a woman's issue? What kind of changes need to happen concerning the topic of motherhood and work? Read on in this article to find out more.

Thanks for stopping by!

May 25 picks!

Hello everyone, 

We hope you had an interesting and productive week! Our team read the articles below: 

In this piece, Dr. Aarthi Gobinath (neuroscientist studying how stress differently affects male and female brains, @aarthigobinath) discusses the importance of including female subjects in research, and how the lack of consideration of sex differences explains sub par treatment results for women. 

A while ego, we highlighted in this blog the initiative "Request a Women Scientist", aiming to decrease the under representation of women in scientific panels, meetings and boards by providing a list of women scientists worldwide in all fields (if you are not on it, go join a pod!!). We were happy to read in this article that 11 months following its creation in January 2018, the database racked up a list of researchers from 174 different scientific disciplines in 133 countries. The progression of this initiative was recently published in PLoS Biology.

Receiving funding to perform research is one of the pillars of Academia. This article describes how language used in grant proposals is different between men and women applicants, and how that difference causes an imbalance resulting in men receiving more funding even when the review was blinded.

This thought-provoking commentary by Christine Middleton (associate editor at Physics Today)  reflects on the Katie Bouman/black hole controversy, and argues that the media focuses too much on looks when describing women scientists.

See you next week!

This week's picks

Hello everyone!

For those of you in academia, happy end of the semester!

If you're an educator, you may have noticed a disparity in your student population. This article by the Washington Post delves into the question as to why black and Latino students drop out of STEM majors at higher rates than their white peers. Perhaps one way to circumvent this disparate tendency is for institutions to take advantage of the Inclusive Excellence initiative by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. This initiative allows for up to 30 schools to apply for grants to help promote diversity and inclusivity within their STEM programs. Is your institution on the list? If not, perhaps you can apply!

Speaking of inclusivity, there is always more to learn when it comes to how women fare in the STEM world. A recent paper highlighted that only 10% of children will depict a woman when asked to draw a scientist. Although 10% isn't particularly high, consider that in previous decades, this statistic was  only 1%! In order to combat this kind of perception, the organization 500 Women Scientists has compiled a database called Request a Woman Scientist so that women scientists will have more representation when it comes to public speaking events, consultations, or having their voice heard in the media. A recent study surveyed the women in this database, and one of the authors, Elizabeth McCullagh, sat down with Laboratory Equipment for an interview about this recent study investigating the effects Request a Woman Scientist has had.

We're always talking about inclusivity, and interventions to promote diversity in STEM, but what if there are unintended consequences, good or bad? This article in Psypost discusses potential negative consequences that come with these kinds of interventions.

Lastly, if you're looking to join an organization, consider checking out NEURONEXXT, a network for women in neuroscience.

Thanks for stopping by!