If 60% of biology students are women, why do only 10% become profs?

[jeskill]

I wasn't sure if this should go under general biology or politics. There was a story in the telegraph (the link and story are below) about a paper by Peter A. Lawrence that Science was going to publish but retracted right before the publishing date. The actual paper can be found at PLOS, and the link is at the bottom.

 

I think this is a very interesting paper, but it doesn't convince me that the overlying reason why women don't become PhDs is because they are less aggressive. I think that he's way underestimating the problems that come with being a woman and trying to have a family and do a PhD. Men just aren't expected to do as much work as women. While there are men who will be stay-at-home dads, they are still few and far between. I think this issue is more cultural than the author wants to believe.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml;jsessionid=R2SCQNKZZJTYJQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/connected/2006/02/07/ecnthink07.xml&%5C1sSheet=/connected/2006/02/07/ixconn.html

 

Scientists are split on the different ways men and women think

(Filed: 07/02/2006)

 

An academic row has erupted after one of the world's leading scientific journals refused to publish an article which claims that men and women think differently.

 

Peter Lawrence, a biologist and fellow of the Royal Society, accused Science of being "gutless" after it explained that its decision was because the piece did not offer "a strategy on how to deal with the gender issue".

 

In his paper, Mr Lawrence questioned why, when 60 per cent of biology students are female, only 10 per go on to become professors.

 

This "leaky pipeline" has been blamed on discrimination and a lack of choice which, if corrected, will produce equal numbers of men and women in science.

 

But Mr Lawrence dismissed "the cult of political correctness" that insists men and women are "equivalent, identical even" and argued that "men and women are born different".

 

The journal considered the article for seven months and, after making a number of changes, gave Mr Lawrence a publication date, proofs and a chance to order reprints.

 

But at the last minute he received an e-mail from Donald Kennedy, the editor-in-chief, in which he said that the journal was not going to publish the article.

 

The piece "did not, at least for us, lead to a clear strategy about how to deal with the gender issue," said Kennedy.

 

"So much has been written on all sides of this problem that it sets a very high bar for novelty and persuasiveness, and although we liked your essay we have had to decide to reject it."

 

Mr Lawrence, a developmental biologist who works at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, said: "It was a lame excuse. I could not get it published for reasons that I think were political."

 

Mr Lawrence's piece - Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science - has since been published online by the Public Library of Science Biology and has become one of the most popular articles over the past few days, attracting about 60 e-mails, almost all from women.

 

One woman reader said that the men who want to avoid the issues the article raises "are simply running scared of getting lynched like Larry Summers", a reference to the Harvard president who caused a furore with a speech in which he raised the issue of whether women have less innate scientific ability.

 

The most vociferous criticisms of Mr Lawrence's ideas have come from Nancy Hopkins, a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who accused him of "mashing together true genetic differences between men and women with old- fashioned stereotypes. In so doing, he perpetuates the very problem he is trying to address about why so few women get to the top in science".

 

Science is reeling from having published two papers that contained the most notorious fraud of recent years, Prof Hwang Woo-Suk's human embryonic stem cell research.

 

Over two years ago, the journal was also criticised for trying to influence a Congressional debate by publishing a widely reported paper linking the drug ecstasy to brain damage, which was subsequently retracted.

 

rhighfield@telegraph.co.uk

 

Here is the paper:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040019

[tejaswini]

pure stereotyping, what is studying science got to do with gender.whether man or woman need the same concentration, same calibure, same interst and the right attitude.

[jeskill]

pure stereotyping, what is studying science got to do with gender.whether man or woman need the same concentration, same calibure, same interst and the right attitude.

 

Just to play devil's advocate, why do we have stereotypes? Are the stereotypes "on average", true? If so, is this because females and males are hardwired differently or is it because we're brought up differently? Or, is it a mix? If it's a mix, then how much of genetics actually plays a part in the discrimination?

 

I know this is a touchy subject. I'm a female hoping to do a PhD myself. I was brought up by a single mom who's a doctor and a feminist and taught me that I could do anything I wanted to. I call myself a feminist, which I believe means that women should have equal opportunity.

 

At the same time, I do wonder sometimes if women and men think differently -- if the reason why the workforce is disportionate is because of this. I think that Lawrence may be taking it too far with the whole nurturing vs. ruthlessnes bit. I think it's much more complicated then that. But I also think that "typical female" qualities (for lack of a better word) tend to be looked down upon in the workplace. I don't think that's a good thing.

 

I also think, as I stated above, that by fixating on the putative genetic differences, he shoves the whole family vs. work problem under the rug.

[gcol]

There may be some truth in the unpublished article, the statistics may be significant evidence, but if we are tempted to agree with the conclusions, Big Sister will surely belabour us with her handbag. There are bigger issues worthy of male martyrdom. It may one of those truths that dare not speak its name. Who wants to spend a week in the stocks with a "sexist pig" label around their neck? Count me out, brother.

[jeskill]

There may be some truth in the unpublished article, the statistics may be significant evidence, but if we are tempted to agree with the conclusions, Big Sister will surely belabour us with her handbag. There are bigger issues worthy of male martyrdom. It may one of those truths that dare not speak its name. Who wants to spend a week in the stocks with a "sexist pig" label around their neck? Count me out, brother.

 

I was wondering why so many people had read the post but not replied.

 

Just editing to add:

I do think it's possible to discuss this rationally. Although I understand your concerns, I'm not interested in labelling anyone a "sexist pig". I guess I'm also fishing for women to come forth and give their opinion as well, although I am interested in the male opinion too.

[abskebabs]

I read a similiar article in the independent[i think, it's been a while since I read it] by a woman who was investigating why women tend to have lower wages than men, and perhaps have slower career advancement.

 

The author highlighted an alternative reason for this and it was that was that women may be less assertive than men, for example at interviews, overall men tended to be more willing to negotiate a higher salary than women. This would result each year, as they progress through their career and the salaries increase by a fixed percentage[for example] the difference overall in average salries of the men and women surveyed would increase.

 

I know that the subject matter of why not as many women do PHDs is different, I just want to point out that the reasons for the disparities and differences between men and women in the workplace maybe more complex or subtle, than a simple case of how each is brought up, or any perceived genetic predispositions.

 

I do also agree with you that the lifestyles of men and women are still pretty different overall, and even though things are changing and there are phenomenon now like stay-at-home-dads.

[gcol]

I was wondering why so many people had read the post but not replied.

 

Just editing to add:

I do think it's possible to discuss this rationally. Although I understand your concerns' date=' I'm not interested in labelling anyone a "sexist pig". I guess I'm also fishing for women to come forth and give their opinion as well, although I am interested in the male opinion too.[/quote']

 

I hope that the ice has now been broken, and a nice discussion will proceed.

 

1. I will champion equal opportunities.

2. I will resist positive discrimination.

3. The differences between the sexes manifest themselves in many ways behaviouraly, I would be surprised if preferences for different academic regimes were not one of them.

 

But as the french say, "vive la difference".

 

P.S. If you have a reason why top chefs are mostly men, you may be nearer to answering your question.....

[zyncod]

I think the problem is that science is so ruthlessly competitive that it magnifies what might be small innate differences between men and women. Unlike many other fields, science, and biology especially, have such set career tracks that it's hard to deviate in any fashion and still be successful. Moreover, the time at which your finances are finally stable enough to start a family is the most difficult time in your career.

 

Man or woman, if you take 6 months off after having a baby (not too very much time) when your lab is only a few years old, that could set your work back a year or two. Science, for better or worse, is not based around the proposition that your personal life will take precedence.

[silkworm]

Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

Does this study assume that all biology students go on to become professors?

 

This sounds like selective numbers crunching for the sake of marketing, like dipping a dog in barbecue sauce so a man will bite him.

[jeskill]

Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

Does this study assume that all biology students go on to become professors?

 

This sounds like selective numbers crunching for the sake of marketing' date=' like dipping a dog in barbecue sauce so a man will bite him.[/quote']

 

Yeah, it does kind of seem like cherry picking is going on. It would have been nice to see a table or something that nicely sums up all the stats.

I don't think it assumes all biology students go on to be profs ... he just doesn't give the overall ratio of graduates. At least, not that I can tell.

 

I think the problem is that science is so ruthlessly competitive that it magnifies what might be small innate differences between men and women. Unlike many other fields, science, and biology especially, have such set career tracks that it's hard to deviate in any fashion and still be successful. Moreover, the time at which your finances are finally stable enough to start a family is the most difficult time in your career.

 

Man or woman, if you take 6 months off after having a baby (not too very much time) when your lab is only a few years old, that could set your work back a year or two. Science, for better or worse, is not based around the proposition that your personal life will take precedence.

 

I completely agree with you. (It's 9:20pm and I still at the frickin lab.)

 

I look at the female profs who have had very good careers. It seems like most of them have not had children. It's kind of scary if you think about it. I think some advisors are more understanding than they were in the past, but I know of some women who's PhD went down the tube after having a baby and finding their partner wasn't as supportive as they'd originally thought they'd be. Of course, others seem to handle it just fine.

 

Is there any woman here who has kids and is doing OK in their PhD?

[gcol]

Her are two links that may be helpful.

The first is a full survey, the second is discursive as to reasons for the trend:

 

 

http://www.mines.edu/fs_home/tcamp/cacm/paper.html

 

http://www.ascb.org/news/vol20no8/wicb.html

[silkworm]

Are you sure the first one is the right link? I was going to look at their numbers, but that is talking about computer science and not biology so it doesn't appear to be from the same study.

[gcol]

Are you sure the first one is the right link? I was going to look at their numbers, but that is talking about computer science and not biology so it doesn't appear to be from the same study.

 

You are quite right. Could not find the original article study, but at first reading the statistics appeared similar. I also assumed the statistics were similar across other disciplines, And it might be beneficial to consider general trends rather than be discipline specific. Perhaps if I had doggedly used a greater variety of search parameters...... but that onus is on the original poster, I think.

[silkworm]

gcol, I see you working. But the thing is, you'd have to do the specific study in this case because the results were posted here from a second hand source (unless I'm missing something). The publishers may have just interpreted the results the way they wanted, or the agency who did it may have really saw this. We won't have a clue unless we see their data, so the original study is the only thing that will give us clarity here.

 

Thanks for the effort, but I feel teased right now.

[gcol]

A tease? Me? First time in fifty years I have been guilty of that. Almost makes me feel young again.

[jeskill]

I believe he got most of his stats from appendices III to VIII of this publication:

 

ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/improving/docs/g_wo_etan_en_200101.pdf

 

The book by Baron-Cohen that is cited is not online. I haven't had a chance to check it out at the library. I don't know if this'll help , but here are some other articles by this researcher:

 

Both articles below discuss how he categorizes male and female brains.

 

Basically, he says there are three main types of brains: empathetic, systematic and mixed. Baron-Cohen argues that on average, females have empathetic brains and males have systematic brains, although there are always exceptions. Baron-Cohen specializes in autism, and also argues that autism is an "extreme form of maleness".

 

 

This is a clip of a review of the aforementioned book:

 

McClure, I. 2003. Reviews: The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain British Medical Journal. 327:57 (5 July)

 

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/extract/327/7405/57

 

 

Here is a scientific article:

 

Baron-Cohen, S., R.C. Knickmeyer, M.K. Belmonte. 2005. Sex differences in the brain: Implications for explaining autism. Science. 310(5749): 819-823

 

Empathizing is the capacity to predict and to respond to the behavior of agents (usually people) by inferring their mental states and responding to these with an appropriate emotion. Systemizing is the capacity to predict and to respond to the behavior of nonagentive deterministic systems by analyzing input-operation-output relations and inferring the rules that govern such systems. At a population level' date=' females are stronger empathizers and mates are stronger systemizers. The "extreme male brain" theory posits that autism represents an extreme of the male pattern (impaired empathizing and enhanced systemizing). Here we suggest that specific aspects of autistic neuroanatomy may also be extremes of typical male neuroanatomy. [/quote']

 

I don't know how to take this idea of the "male mind" vs the "female mind". According to the article, 60% of males have the "male mind" and 60% of females have the "female mind". Can you really genderize systemic and empathetic behaviours if only 60% of that gender actually demonstrates that trait?

[gcol]

I am becoming confused:confused:

 

Are we trying to compare statistics (or the lack of) based on at least three avenues of statistical investigation? i.e.

 

1. Sociological differences.

2. Psychological differences in general.

3. Systemisers, empathisers, mixed, and the tendency of extreme systemisers, predominantly male, towards autism.

 

The 60% factor appears to only apply to case 3. Rather a narrow set of conditions? I suspect that surveys base on 1 and 2 would yield different percentages.

 

I have difficulty in finding truly objective opinions and articles. Each seems to begin with an assumption as to gender stereotypes, then conducts a survey around questions designed to support the assumption. Positive discrimination distorts the picture.

 

Never conduct a survey until you know the answer you want.

 

"Men like women for what they are: women like men in spite of what they are".I suspect at least 90% of men and women would agree with that!

[Hades]

seem accurate to me. while an undergraduate it was about the percentage, if not a little more. Very few of the women went on to graduate school. Some wanted to work as a medical technologist, a lab assistant, etc. Others didnt want to commit to the additional time graduate school requires. They wanted to start making money and begin the domestic route. When i was a seniormy girlfriend was already an rn making excellent money and there i was, another 4 years with a 25000 dollar stipend.