"Barriers to and Opportunities for Women in Science"
Dr. Rita R. Colwell
Director
National Science Foundation
Washington College
October 17, 2001
See also slide
presentation.
If you're interested in reproducing any of the slides,
please contact
The Office of Legislative and Public Affairs: (703)
292-8070.
[title slide]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
Thank you, Dr. Sherman, for that kind introduction.
Good evening and greetings. My thanks go out to President
Toll for inviting me and to Washington College for
hosting this event.
Johnny is a good friend of mine. He's supported and
encouraged me in many of my personal endeavors. So
each time I visit Washington College, I always feel
right at home.
When preparing my remarks, I recalled three phrases
that have resonated with me throughout my career.
The first I heard in high school when I wanted to take
chemistry. My teacher told me I'd never make it in
chemistry. Simply put: women didn't have the necessary
rigor and intelligence.
The second phrase I heard a few years later when applying
for graduate school, my department chair informed
me that "we don't waste fellowships on women."
The third, I read in a letter I received after my husband
and I both applied for post-docs and got them at the
National Research Council. Shortly after the award
letter, I received another notifying me that their
anti-nepotism rule precluded offering fellowships
to husbands and wives. They would give me lab space,
but no money.
Eventually I obtained funds from the National Science
Foundation as a Research Assistant Professor. So you
could say, I've come full circle in my career. NSF
jumpstarted my career, and now I want help others
get a similar start.
That's why I was eager to come talk to you.
I've titled my remarks, "From Glass Ceiling to Crystal
Ball: A Vision of Women in Science."
[bullet slide]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
I will begin by taking a look back at the journey of
early women scientists. Then, we'll look at where
women stand today in science from elementary school
up through the labor force. Finally, I'll cite a few
examples of NSF sponsored programs to attract girls
and women into these fields.
But first, I want to share a bit more about my own
history, including - some of those not so fond memories
that bear upon today's topic.
When my high school chemistry teacher told me I would
never make it in chemistry--that angered me, but also
galvanized me. I had begun to see science as a way
to understand the world and as a way to make my way
in the world.
As an undergraduate at Purdue University, many of my
counterparts were majoring in home economics, learning
how to make soufflés while I was learning how to balance
equations.
In my senior year at Purdue, I found the encouragement
of a good mentor--Professor Dorothy Powelson. It was
rare in those days, back in the fifties, to have a
woman professor.
She opened the door, or should I say lens, and I became
entranced by the microscopic world. That enthusiasm
was an asset when encountering various roadblocks
along the way.
For example, for my master's degree research, I counted
186,000 fruitflies to study cross-overs in the linkage
map of Drosophila, the fruitfly. Now we have the entire
genome of Drosophila sequenced!
How science has changed! Yet, girls and women still
have a long way to go to achieve equity in all phases
of scientific and engineering education and careers.
The problems are highly complex and not all solutions
are clear. That is why I prefer to discard the metaphor
of the "glass ceiling" as too fragile to bear the
weight of what we need to learn and change.
Instead I will offer the crystal ball as a symbol of
being able to see our way through and beyond established
strictures that keep girls even today from taking
flight through the discovery of science and engineering.
This new metaphor presents us with clearer vision and
a multitude of futures.
Knowing the past often helps when we want to change
our future. Women have a long and distinguished history
in science although we still do not learn much about
past pioneers.
It is eye-opening to bring to light a few of these
poorly known and even tragic stories.
Some of you have probably read or heard of the scientific
bestseller, Galileo's Daughter, by Dava Sobel.
NSF's National Science Board has given its public
service award to Sobel for her book.
As we read Maria Celeste's letters to her father, the
eminent Galileo, the dynamic personality of his daughter
is revealed. She copies his manuscripts for him and
takes avid interest in his scientific inquiries.
We can speculate how Maria Celeste--with all her intelligence,
energy, and perseverance--might have succeeded in
science herself in a later era that would not have
consigned her to the life of a cloistered nun.
[Alice Evans
in her lab]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
Jumping several centuries to our own, we find women
who have accomplished much in science, but whose stories
are seldom told.
One is Alice Catherine Evans, who studied the bacterial
contamination of milk, and identified the organism
that causes undulant fever in humans.
At a time when bacteriology was in its infancy, she
challenged the wisdom of her scientific peers, triggering
enormous controversy in the medical and dairy communities.
Unfortunately, Evans' work extracted a heavy personal
toll. She contracted undulant fever while doing her
research and suffered its effects for two decades.
Her pioneering work led to the near-elimination of
undulant fever through the mandatory pasteurization
of milk in this country, starting in the 1930s.
Another example is Gerty Cori, also know as "the lab
genius" by her peers. She was the first American
woman to win a Nobel Prize in science.
With her husband as her scientific partner, Cori helped
lay the foundation for our understanding of how cells
use food and convert it to energy. Their work had
major implications for the understanding of diabetes.
Though described as an "exceedingly quick and brilliantly
intelligent" woman, she still faced discrimination
throughout her career.
When the University of Rochester's medical school offered
her husband a job, it was under three conditions,
the third being that he stopped collaborating with
his wife. When her husband refused, she was pulled
aside and told that it was un-American for a man to
work with his wife.
Later, when her husband was offered a position at the
Washington University Medical School in St. Louis,
the University bent their nepotism rule. They offered
Carl the chairmanship of the pharmacology department,
and regarded her as a technician.
Carl became a full professor at age 35, while she remained
a research associate for thirteen more years before
she was allowed to assume a professorship of her own.
Another woman who also received the Nobel Prize--Barbara
McClintock--nonetheless suffered from scientific isolation
during her career. McClintock won the Nobel for her
discovery of "mobile genetic elements."
Through her studies of corn, beginning in the late
1940s, she proposed the existence of transposons--genes
that can change position, carrying other genetic material
along. McClintock's discoveries had huge significance
for biology and medicine.
On a personal note, I can recall a college professor
of mine muttering that he was forced to teach us McClintock's
findings on "jumping genes," but that he did not believe
the theories of this "crazy woman."
[graph: science
gender gaps at ages 9, 13, and 17]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
It helps to learn about those few who preceded us.
Others with stories worth remembering include astronomers
Jocelyn Bell, physicist Lise Meitner, biologist Rosalind
Franklin, and the ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator
and Computer) women who programmed the first electronic
computer during WWII.
Even today, far too many girls and women fail to even
cross the threshold into science and engineering.
We know that obstacles and cultural conditioning begin
to appear very early in life.
In a study of young children reported in the book Athena
Unbound, a four-year-old boy told researchers
that "...only boys should make science."
Part of the problem today lies in what I call the "valley
of death" in education: grades 4 through 8, when girls
are discouraged--in subtle and not-so-subtle ways--from
pursuing science and engineering.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress shows
a gender gap in science proficiency as early as age
9. We can trace this through ages 13 and to age 17,
when the gap has widened further.
There has been little change in this trend over two
decades.
No doubt many of you have heard the term "leaky pipeline."
It's an apt phrase for the loss of women in science
and engineering throughout higher education, and continuing
in academia, through the route to full professor.
[Bachelor's
degrees earned by women: selected fields]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
It is interesting that between ages 25 and 34, the
typical American female is more educated than her
male counterpart. Women now earn more than half of
all college degrees, and over half of those in the
life sciences. Well over 40% of math and chemistry
bachelor's degrees also go to females.
But some developments are deeply disturbing. For example,
the percentage of women receiving bachelor's degrees
in computer science has been dropping since the mid-1980s.
We see a downward trend for both men and women--but
it's been more precipitous for women.
[US doctorates:
women]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
If we take a closer look at doctorates earned in the
United States by women, we see a divergence among
the disciplines. Women now earn around 40% of all
doctorates. However, this differs greatly by field.
In the life sciences, women earn over 40% of doctorates.
But in the physical sciences and mathematics, women
earn fewer than 20%. In engineering, they receive
a little over 10% of PhDs.
[MIT graph
and quote]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
A couple of years ago, the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology took a close and courageous look at
women on its science faculty, releasing its study
in 1999.
Introducing the report, MIT president Charles M. Vest
wrote, "I have always believed that contemporary gender
discrimination within universities is part reality
and part perception. True, but I now understand that
reality is by far the greater part of the balance."
As the study began in 1994, the MIT School of Science
had only 15 tenured women, versus 194 men.
They found that women science faculty had been "marginalized"
throughout their careers, facing discrimination in
salary, awards, space, and other parameters.
We look forward to following MIT's response to the
report as it evolves. We all can benefit from the
lessons emerging at MIT.
[US total vs.
S&T workforce]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
Our problem is larger than the institutions of higher
learning. In more than 400 job categories in our economy,
women are found predominately in only 20 categories.
Women comprise less than a quarter of the total science
and engineering labor force. The S&E workforce looks
very exclusive. This is dangerous for the nation.
We need the talent of every worker in order to compete
and prosper.
NSF has taken several steps to reverse this trend.
We are, in essence, sealing the pipeline from beginning
to end.
[San Diego
Girl Scouts: collage]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
We have a number of programs that target girls and
women in science, engineering, and math at all ages.
An excellent program in San Diego intervenes early,
focusing on teaching about computing and science to
minority girls in grades four-through-eight. The program
is led by the San Diego Girl Scouts and the San Diego
Supercomputer Center.
Girl Scout adult teachers have now trained about 5000
girls on computers. The program is being expanded
to Houston. The girls' entire families get into the
act on Family Nights for hands-on computer learning.
[Carson City
gender equity]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
NSF funds gender equity research across the country,
planting seeds in the form of pilot programs. One
example, in Carson City School district in Nevada,
focused on 10 Hispanic girls who barely knew English.
Within a year, they had learned English using a computerized
tutor; learned to use computers; could make presentations
about a Geographic Information System; and were being
sought out by employers. Nevada's Department of Education
has picked up the funding of the program.
[Josietrue.com
website]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
Computer games--often the first exposure kids have
to computers--are one factor that can turn off girls.
They dislike the violent, repetitive and sexist elements
of the games that are widely available.
They ask for identity games in which they could create
a character or build a world, with chances to communicate
and collaborate. NSF has funded a game called "Josie
True," an Internet adventure in which a girl travels
back in time to rescue her inventor-turned-teacher
named Ms. Trombone.
The journey includes science, math and technology games.
[ADVANCE: bullets]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
On the other end of the NSF pipeline is our newest
flagship program to address the retention and advancement
of women in science and engineering: ADVANCE.
With over a $40 million investment, ADVANCE will spark
system-wide changes that foster a more positive climate
for women to pursue academic careers. Clearly, men
need to participate in these changes, and they are
also eligible for the three types of awards: Institutional
Transformation, Leadership, and Fellows awards.
Institutional Transformation Awards support
institutions in their efforts to improve the work
environment.
Leadership Awards recognize individuals for
their contributions toward increasing the participation
of women in academic science and engineering careers.
Fellows Awards jumpstart the careers of women
who've had limits placed on their advancement, like
family needs.
ADVANCE sends the message that NSF values and rewards
the hard work needed to change the conditions for
women in science and engineering. It gives participants
an opportunity to make a real difference over the
long-term.
[graph of NSF
support for women-targeted programs vs. all support
for women PIs]
(Use "back" to return to the text.)
I should also underscore that NSF's largest
investment in women scientists and engineers is through
all our other research and education efforts.
NSF support for women researchers has tripled over
the past decade to approach 500 million dollars.
Today, the frontiers of science and engineering seem
endless, yet we need the participation and perspectives
of all to probe as far as we might in every direction.
When we consider how to attract women and minorities
to science and technology, we begin to reexamine our
assumptions about education across the board, from
kindergarten to lifelong learning.
We need to change our thinking about how we educate
those who will carry out the research of the future,
and we look forward to Washington College leading
the way.
Thank you.
|