The Gender Gap in Science Slows Scientific Progress
By Anonymous / Winter 2020
In any basic biology course you should have learned about Watson and Crick and how they discovered the antiparallel, double stranded, helical structure of DNA, or Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species, Robert Hooke and the discovery of cells, Sir Alexander Fleming and the accidental discovery of penicillin, and the list of white male scientists in a lab coat goes on. However, did your basic biology course ever teach the discoveries of Ada E. Yonath and her exploration in the ribosomes structure and its function? Or Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin and her work on using X-ray techniques to discover the structures of biochemical substances? Or better yet, Francoise Barre-Sinoussi and her discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)? (NPAW). Probably not, but these women have changed science with their research, and are three out of the 22 female Nobel Prize winners in science for their outstanding and groundbreaking discoveries in the scientific fields. And yes, you read that correctly. Since the awards were first given in 1901, only 22 women have been awarded the Nobel Prize for science and the majority, which is 95%, of the laureates have been male (Guterman). Unsurprisingly, for the 2019 lineup, 11 men were awarded the Nobel Prize and only one female. This creates an assumption that women aren’t capable of achieving success in the STEM field like their male counterparts, thus creating an implicit bias that a scientist is a middle aged white male in a lab coat (Mehta). The truth is that the Nobel Prize awarding system itself is biased and many women who deserve recognition for their contributions to the research get overshadowed by males. Therefore, unless change is placed on this system, we will continue to see the large gender inequality in Nobel Prize Laureates.
People have tried to statistically see if there really is a significant gender bias present in the Nobel Prize laureates, where people used a hierarchical Bayesian inference model. Within this model, it was found that there is more than ∼ 96% probability that the gender distribution in Nobel Prizes includes a bias against women (Shenoy). This puts the Nobel Prize awarding system at blame, and in order to better understand the Laureates chosen, it is better to know how the nominees are chosen for the Nobel Prize. The nominee processing system is a seemingly simple system, but has screenings and steps that makes it impossible for just anyone to be considered for the Nobel Prize. In order to be nominated, one must have connections. Those of high standing and high recognition in the scientific field are the only ones eligible to nominate people, and these include members of national assemblies, national governments, persons who have been awarded the Nobel Prize, etc. Thus, just doing research and publishing it is not enough. Typically, people who make these connections with those eligible to nominate for the Nobel Prize tend to be males because they have the implicit biases that make their work appear to matter more than their respective gender, and the Matilda effect, which is gender inequality in recognition, favors them. Men are 56% more likely to cite their own papers while women feel disempowered being the minorities in their workforce, and tend to shy away from advocating for themselves(Feeney). Not only is the nomination process defected, but the final selection process also creates a huge sense of inequality. The rule for Nobel Prize awarding is that only up to 3 scientists are recognized for one groundbreaking discovery, thus those who worked alongside them will not get any recognition for their work (NobelPrize). This is where many women have been overshadowed and pushed aside by the recognition and power hungry male scientists. The story of Lederberg and her husband is a great example of this. Both of them wrote published papers on their research in microbiology together and wrote the husband’s name on the paper first for the greatest discoveries although the effort was joint. When Esther Lederberg discovered replica plating, which is now a commonly used technique in any laboratory, only the husband was recognized for the technique and awarded the Nobel Prize in Science. This award was split with another male scientist in the research group, and Esther was not even on the nominee list, nor was she mentioned in her husband’s speech at the awarding ceremony (Mehta). This is only one story of the many female scientists who fail to receive recognition for their work in their research on top of failing to create the connections that could get their research recognized and even nominated. This “covering” of the efforts of women in science only feeds to the idea that men dominate the sciences, forever creating this notion that in order to succeed in the STEM fields you must be a middle aged white male.
To contradict with the current inequality seen in the scientific fields, science was originally intended to be a canvas for people to work together, regardless of their standing or background, to obtain a better understanding of the world and its natural phenomena.
A brief history to scientific advancement is that the Enlightenment was a period during the 17th and 18th Century that marked the huge shift from religious power to scientific reasoning. Previous to the Enlightenment period, religious authorities had strong political power over the people. The monarchs were abusing their power by imposing this idea of the “absolute monarch”, which gave them the ability to make laws on a whim with the reason that they obtained their power from God. Rather than to live in a society where one person held a majority of the power, the common people wanted individual liberties and freedoms (Jarus). Science was what allowed them to steer away from the monarchs rule by allowing anyone and everyone to have the tools for knowledge, giving equal power and opportunities to everyone. This period in time ignited many European nations to call for political reform to advocate for clean breaks from tyranny, monarchy, and absolutism, and pushed for the “passive acceptance of social order among the common people”(British Library). Science comes with a notion of progress of working together towards a common goal so together we could get on this path towards a better society quicker. It also gave the power of knowledge to the people, thus destroying the system that placed power only to the master. Sadly, the patriarchal society has influenced the scientific field and has slowed down progress for us. By having women’s contributions to science be ignored or silenced, males will continue to dominate this field and this path towards an medical and scientific advancement will remain slow until we see a change in our current society.
In order for us to make this shift back to what science had originally intended for us, which is the idea of the common good: people working together for this shared goal of knowledge and for the quicker achievement of progress, we must do two things:
The first thing is that we, the women in science, should come together and make it be known that this gender bias in the scientific fields is real and that it is a problem that we currently face. We have seen all too often the media try to cover us up, hide us, silence us, weaken us, etc., but we must fight back against them. We must make our words known in ways so that even if the media fails to record coverage of us and our actions, the general public will still be able to hear us. Us women have a mouth just like the men who have oppressed us for centuries, thus it is time to put those mouths to good use and speak up for equality in the scientific field! Speak up so that we can get recognized for our efforts in the scientific field, and finally have a year where we aren’t the minority that is awarded the Nobel Prize in science.
The second thing is that we must fight these gender biases that society has placed upon us. I speak especially for males that are currently in the scientific field. Have an open mind, and don’t generalize the minority. That one female in your laboratory doesn’t speak for every female scientist. We are all individuals with our own individual talents, thus even if she has a hard time adjusting in the field, doesn’t mean that ALL females will, so do not go off of that notion and prevent yourself from hiring more females in your laboratory. When it comes to the hiring stage, women applicants always feel a pressure to prove themselves to be considered for a job even though they meet the same amount of requirements as their fellow male applicants. Thus to really create an equal playing field, one should read the resume for the individual’s qualifications rather than the biases that come after reading their name or finding out their gender. This elimination of a gender bias in the hiring field will give more opportunities for women to be a part of the scientific field. Women will continue to grow in that field and speed up scientific progress, but it cannot be achieved without the cooperation of open minded males who can see each applicant for their individual qualities rather than the notions that come from their gender. Just as the famous quote by Sojourner Truth goes, “If my cup won’t hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?”, similarly, we need open mindedness in the hiring stage in order for us to grow in this field and mold this new idea of women succeeding in science.
As it has been said by many, “you cannot be what you cannot see” (Frazee), and to touch upon this idea, many little girls are kept from believing that they could become a scientist because so little have succeeded in the field or have been recognized for their work. We do not read enough about the females who have made a difference in the STEM field and all of the basic biology courses are focused on the discoveries by white males. Little girls aren’t exposed to role models that look like them when it comes to STEM, thus so few girls state that they want to go into these fields at a young age. This is a loss for the future generations, for there will be less and less women interested in pursuing a career in STEM because it’s seen as “not worth the effort”, especially if history has shown them constantly having their ideas be second to mens and their efforts be unrecognized. Imagine all of the great discoveries by women currently that are not recognized, such that we could have a better quality of life, a quicker chance of finding a cure to a disease or illness, a better way to reduce pollution, etc. if we just shine a light on women’s efforts in the sciences and their discoveries.
Science is a never ending stacking of building blocks, where new ideas are built upon past ones. New ideas constantly replace the old ones and redefine what we believe to be the truth. The flaw in our current system is that, we reject to acknowledge women’s discoveries, especially in the Nobel Prize awardings, thus we fail to establish a new building block and can’t move further along the path of progress. We prevent advancement in the sciences and society as a whole. We are left at a halt until a male scientist that has better connections and is better recognized to either “discover” what women have already discovered, or take over the work of women and claim it as their own, to create this building block for us. This slows down progress by a huge factor of years or even decades, thus there is this pressure for immediate change. The inequality in the STEM field must be addressed before hope for women succeeding in STEM is lost in women currently facing struggles in that field, and for the little children who make up our future.
Works Cited
Feeney, Mary K. “Why Don't More Women Win Science Nobels?” Quartz, Quartz, 11 Oct. 2019.
Frazee, Gretchen. “Why the 2019 Nobel Prizes in STEM Struggled with Diversity.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 14 Oct. 2019.
GutermanOct, Lila, et al. “Statistically Speaking, 2019 Nobel Prize Lineup of 11 Men and One Woman Was Bound to Happen.” Science, 16 Oct. 2019.
Mehta, Devang. “The Science Nobel Prizes Are Sexist, Racist, and Misleading. Let's Rethink Them.” Massive Science, 3 Oct. 2017.
“Nobel Prize Awarded Women.” NobelPrize.org.
“Nomination and Selection of Peace Prize Laureates.” NobelPrize.org.
Shenoy, Rupa “Only 20 Nobels in the Sciences Have Gone to Women. Why?” Public Radio International.
Sojourner Truth. Aint I a Woman? Paw Prints, 2012.
“The Enlightenment.” The British Library, The British Library, 11 Apr. 2018.
“What Was the Enlightenment?” LiveScience, Purch.