Women in Science Should Look Within : Sexism: Exclusion from male networking is one obstacle; another is the reluctance of successful women to reach out.

The recent announcement of Nobel prizes brought the highest levels of excitement and pride to the recipients and their institutions.

Because one prize was awarded to two professors in the biochemistry department of my current institution (the University of Washington) and one to a professor in the chemistry department of my previous institution (Caltech), I have been surrounded by many discussions of these prestigious awards. During these discussions, I am frequently asked when I think a woman in the sciences will win the Nobel Prize. Although women scientists have won the prize before, it has been rare.

Have the prospects improved? Not nearly enough.

There has been a growing consciousness that women have been denied opportunities in male-dominated fields. Consequently, there have been improvements for women who are beginning scientific careers. Women have been specifically recruited into graduate schools. They have been sought after in scientific industries as well. As a result, the percentages of women in graduate schools enrolled in the physical and life sciences has grown. In some institutions, they represent 50% of the class. There are more women postdoctoral fellows and increasing numbers of women assistant professors.

It is, unfortunately, at this point that the success of women begins to pale compared with men. Statistics indicate that fewer women are given tenure and promoted to full professor than would be expected, given the number of women in junior positions.

Why do women in science hit this glass ceiling? One of the most common explanations offered by men is that women suffer from the pressures of combining a career with children. While this is undoubtedly a contributing factor, I do not believe it is the crucial factor in limiting women’s success. If it were, one would not expect to find growing numbers of women with good publication records at the postdoctoral and assistant professor levels, where there are more women with young children than at the associate and full professor level.

The explanation arises from less visible sources. Women continue to suffer from subtle forms of discrimination that become more damaging as they advance along the academic track. They are left out of male-dominated, informal networks of communication and interactions in which valuable information is exchanged and profitable collaborations are set up.

They are also excluded from more formal Paul Conrad is on vacation.

channels that promote visibility, such as chairing meetings and writing reviews. Addressing these problems requires a conscious effort to provide a climate in which women can flourish. Some specific steps would include supporting women’s centers on campuses, encouraging organizers of major meetings to invite women to speak and recruiting women onto editorial boards of scientific journals.

A second problem is the scarcity of mentors and role models. There are so few examples of women who have risen to the top of their fields that it is usually not possible to establish firsthand relationships with women who can pass on their expertise to junior colleagues. Yet for both men and women, mentoring is a critical ingredient to success.

Navigating any career path in an academic environment usually involves discerning unwritten rules and establishing important contacts. Both these processes are immensely facilitated by mentors. All four speakers at a recent University of Washington panel on women in academic medicine focused on mentoring as a critical issue. Two of the women described finding mentors (men in both cases) as turning points in their careers.

Because women face challenges unique to their sex in pursuing careers in science, the ideal situation is for women to mentor other women. The scarcity of women mentors is one obstacle to this; another is sometimes presented by women themselves. Many women are reluctant to be identified with what they consider “women’s issues.” They feel that such an association would detract from their success, which was earned without special recognition of them as women scientists.

For some women, this eagerness to be recognized only as scientists results in denial of the unique struggles they may have faced (or seen other women face) in male-dominated professions. I have met several women who believe that they have achieved their success solely on their merits. I believe this is a narrow perspective. If these women were the first to enter their fields, it is not likely that they would have met with the same degree of success. Other women have gone before them and broken down many barriers, a process that is not complete.

The more successful a woman in science is, the more opportunity she has to influence male-dominated infrastructures and to provide a valuable role model. Thus, it is gratifying when women recognize this responsibility, accept the challenge to be more than passive role models and engage in a conscious effort to create a nurturing environment for junior colleagues.

When science is a true meritocracy, these issues will lose their meaning. Until then, there is a lot to be done by both men and women before Nobel prizes are distributed equally to women.