Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women

Abstract

Women make up over one-half of all doctoral recipients in biologyrelated fields but are vastly underrepresented at the faculty level in the life sciences. To explore the current causes of women's underrepresentation in biology, we collected publicly accessible data from university directories and faculty websites about the composition of biology laboratories at leading academic institutions in the United States. We found that male faculty members tended to employ fewer female graduate students and postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) than female faculty members did. Furthermore, elite male faculty-those whose research was funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, or who had won a major career award-trained significantly fewer women than other male faculty members. In contrast, elite female faculty did not exhibit a gender bias in employment patterns. New assistant professors at the institutions that we surveyed were largely comprised of postdoctoral researchers from these prominent laboratories, and correspondingly, the laboratories that produced assistant professors had an overabundance of male postdocs. Thus, one cause of the leaky pipeline in biomedical research may be the exclusion of women, or their self-selected absence, from certain high-achieving laboratories. etween 1969 and 2009, the percentage of doctorates awarded to women in the life sciences increased from 15% to 52% (1, 2). Despite the vast gains at the doctoral level, women still lag behind in faculty appointments. Currently, only 36% of assistant professors and 18% of full professors in biology-related fields are women (3). The attrition of women from academic careersknown as the leaky pipeline problem (4)-undermines the meritocratic ideals of science and represents a significant underuse of the skills that are present in the pool of doctoral trainees.A variety of factors has been suggested to influence the leaky pipeline in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Early career aspirations and choice of undergraduate major are significant departure points for women in certain disciplines (5, 6). For instance, women are awarded only 19% of bachelor's degrees in physics and 18% of bachelor's degrees in engineering, and correspondingly fewer women go on to graduate school in those subjects (1). In contrast, women are awarded >50% of both bachelor's and doctoral degrees in biology, suggesting that major leaks in the pipeline occur at later points in professional development. Gender differences in individuals' personal aspirations may explain some attrition from the academy (7). For instance, in surveys of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers (postdocs), women tend to rank work-life balance and parenthood-related issues as more important than men do, and the perceived difficulty of raising a family while working as a tenure-track faculty member causes more women than men to leave the academic pipeline (8-12). Such preferences are likely constrained by societal ...

Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder

“…There is now copious evidence that women are disadvantaged in STEM fields (51)(52)(53) and that this disadvantage may relate to gender stereotypes (11) and consequent biases against women (or favoring men) traversing the STEM pipeline (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17). Of course, people should not passively accept such evidence, even if it appears in preeminent peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Science, PNAS, or Nature)-suggesting the quality of the research was sound.…”

“…Some within the STEM community have turned to these methods and ideas as an explanation for the consistent underrepresentation of women in STEM fields (8,9) and the undervaluation of these women and their work. Specifically, many scientists have systemically documented and reported (including in PNAS) a gender bias against women-or favoring men-in STEM contexts (10-17), including hiring decisions for a laboratory-manager position (10) and selection for a mathematical task (11), evaluations of conference abstracts (12), research citations (13), symposiaspeaker invitations (14), postdoctoral employment (15), and tenure decisions (16). For example, Moss-Racusin et al (10) conducted an experiment in which university science professors received the same application for a laboratory-manager position, either associated with a male or female name through random assignment.…”

Leading scientists favour women in tenure-track hiring test

“…These principal investigators hire more male postdoctoral researchers than female ones 3 -despite the fact that women receive the majority of biology doctorates. Postdocs from such elite labs also tend to be chosen for assistant-professor positions, perpetuating the cycle 3 .…”

“…These principal investigators hire more male postdoctoral researchers than female ones 3 -despite the fact that women receive the majority of biology doctorates. Postdocs from such elite labs also tend to be chosen for assistant-professor positions, perpetuating the cycle 3 . Other studies have found that individual faculty members of both genders view female students as less competent than their male counterparts when judging qualifications for junior positions in a lab 4 .…”

Interactive Panel on Perspectives and Practical Skills for Men as Advocates for Gender Equity

“…Two recent papers which I have found useful are Moss-Racusin et al's 2012 PNAS paper (Science Faculty's Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students) 8 and Sheltzera and Smith's 2104 PNAS paper (Elite Male Faculty in the Life Sciences Employ Fewer Women) 9 .…”