Women of Science

With the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor underway, we have a woman in a very public spotlight who needs to prove herself to questioners who are mostly men. She's had to emphasize her devotion to the law, her detachment from emotion, and her all around stability. She'd probably get in trouble if she started talking about "women's intuition" or anything like that.

Now let's look at developments in science, where taking risks, going on a hunch and yes, intuition are all important. These are not words I'd associate with university or corporate science. In those often male-dominated labs everybody seems to be on tenure track or fretting about funding. But change is coming ... and it's female.

According the New York Times, women constitute about half of today's medical students, 60 percent of the biology majors and 70 percent of the psychology Ph.Ds. Though women remain a minority in the physical sciences and engineering that doesn't mean there are not female superstars in those fields.

Marissa Mayer, Google's employee number 20, was the company's first female engineer and its current VP of Search Products & User Experience. She seems to be doing ok, with a $5 million penthouse atop the Four Seasons in San Francisco. But she has taken some flak for being female, liking clothes, cupcakes and parties.

There's lots of bias out there. It's documented in blogs like Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted): Women, Science and Writing. A scientist known as Dr. Isis writes another influential science blog and I emailed her to ask about all this. She directed me to some data about women in science: While more than 50% of chemistry bachelors degrees are awarded to women, less than 32% of Ph.D's and 22% of assistant professorships are. Those careers hit the wall, some believe, because women are expected, pressured, conditioned or driven by biology to become mothers or pursue other non-career-advancing activities.

We know that men come from that planet over there and women come from the other one. The differences start early, with a shot of testosterone for male fetuses that helps them be competitive and assertive, and a shot of oxytocin for females that can help them read people's emotions. Studies have shown that men are better at spatial relations - like assembling Ikea furniture. Women are better at communicating. They are more likely to trust their intuition.

Shall I argue that these differences carry into adult life and change the way males and females do science? Touchy subject.

Lawrence Summers, past president of Harvard and current head of the White House's National Economic Council, got himself in hot water a while back for saying that innate differences between men and women may explain why lower proportions of women succeed in math and science careers. He set off a firestorm and later apologized - sort of.

Intuition is at the core of the risk-taking nature of science. Guys like to call intuition "a hunch." Thomas Edison was famous for hunches. But those making a career of intuition - placing it center stage - are more likely to be women.

Dr. Mona Lisa Schultz has a doctorate in Behavioral Neuroscience from the Boston School of Medicine and is the author of "Awakening Intuition." Dr. Candace Pert, formerly a section chief at the National Institutes of Health, is looking at the unconscious and its influence on illness, happiness and wellness.

I've been doing some research into integrative medicine and finding that a majority of the scientists involved are female. Why? They seem more willing than male scientists to invite intuition into the lab. They are the risk takers, making them more likely to be discovery makers. I am going out on a limb with that - just a hunch.

Comments

[Lee Schneider - Huffpost Blogger]

There's been a lot of discussion on ScienceBlogs about this - specifically the peer review process and how male scientists often dominate it. Thanks for commenting.

[avicenna]

I'm a woman and a postdoc (my doctorate is in Experimental Medicine / Immunology) and it is fairly obvious why women aren't as well represented in the upper echelons of academia - their approach and priorities of life and work are by and large quite different from that of men - on whom the current route of climbing the ladder is based. Women are less likely to be as nomadic as academics are expected to be - to uproot their family and move for a better position. Science is a way of life - not a day job. Being put out for 9 months while pregnant - and then forever after while your priority will be the welfare of your child leaves no room to burn the candle at both ends writing grants, having your life revolve around the cell cycle of you petri dish, and then writing up your papers. I have seen major burn out for those women who try to have a family and get the same recognition and progress in the scientific community. To them, they take a step back and ask themselves what they want their life to look like. Men aren't anywhere near as conflicted or burdened. I have been fairly fortunate with funding, getting papers out, and getting into productive collaborative groups - but I knew early that having a family is not compatible with my way of life - and I'm at peace with that.

[Lee Schneider - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, you're right. These points are brought out in Dr. Isis' blog in which she quotes a study: “So, the authors conclude, the solution is that women aren’t dropping out of math-intensive fields. They’re dropping out of time intensive fields. Women are expected, pressured, conditioned, or driven by biological urges to spend more time on child-rearing, housework, and other time-consuming, non-career-advancing activities. (Consider the accusations of being a “bad mother” levied against career women, and the relative silence surrounding career men.)” Good to hear that you and others are finding a way to step back and see what you'd like life to look like for you.

[impatient]

The big issue with women not doing well in some fields, after they get the degrees has little or nothing to do with anything except the fact that those male dominated fields (chemistry, physics and engineering) are not willing to make room for women.

Women are made to feel inferior and unwelcome. They say to themselves, "Who needs this?" And the male members (no pun intended) of those fields are more than happy with the end result---getting to keep their careers an all-male, no-girls allowed little secret club.

It'll change but I suspect it'll be at a glacial rate.