Discrimination against women in science is real, pervasive, and subtle. The facts are indisputable. A 1993 National Science Foundation study showed that the average income of women Ph.D.s from all scientific fields was 78 percent of the men's average [1]. Female faculty among all disciplines in colleges and universities have lower average salaries, at every rank, than men with comparable achievements. They are less likely to be tenured, and they tend to work at less prestigious institutions [2]. They are promoted more slowly, are overrepresented in the lower ranks and among the unemployed, and are underrepresented at the top. Furthermore, the inequalities become greater as a woman's career advances through the ranks [3].

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) recently released a remarkable little report that summarizes how tenured female faculty members discovered such problems there and persuaded the administration to make substantial changes. The paper, A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT, was printed in the March 1999 issue of the MIT Faculty Newsletter and distributed on the World Wide Web.

The report is striking for several reasons. First, MIT has openly admitted its discrimination against women, with strong statements from President Charles M. Vest and from Robert J. Birgeneau, dean of the School of Science. In the report, Lotte Bailyn, chair of the MIT Faculty, writes that this discrimination "stems largely from unconscious ways of thinking that have been socialized into all of us, men and women alike" [4]. This discrimination was thoroughly documented through data acquisition and interviews with the female faculty in the School of Science. Finally, the report reflects an extremely constructive five-year effort, marked by collaboration with senior male faculty and administrators who were persuaded by the arguments of the female faculty. Benchmarks for measuring equity have been created and used to redress inequities and recruit more female faculty. In 1999, the School of Science increased its tenured faculty by 40 percent.

Junior women faculty at MIT believed that gender bias wouldn't affect their careers, but they felt increasingly marginalized and excluded from important roles in their departments as their careers progressed. Although they were equal to their male peers by standard criteria (such as membership in the National Academy of Sciences or the American Academy of Arts and Sciences), they often received lower salaries, less lab space, fewer awards and resources, and less credit for outside activities. Furthermore, in 1995, the percentage of women on the faculty had not changed for at least 10 and possibly 20 years.

In addition to addressing these disparities in money and resources, Birgeneau worked with department heads to ensure that women be more included in all activities, and to recruit greater numbers of talented women. The provost has reportedly met with the deans of the other MIT schools to create committees to monitor and redress inequities, based on ongoing discussions with all the female faculty members.

The MIT effort really began when Nancy H. Hopkins, a professor of biology, was turned down for additional laboratory space in 1994. Using a tape measure and floor plans, she discovered that the men in the biology department had 50 percent more floor space than the women. A discussion with two other female faculty members led them to discover areas of gender discrimination that had pervaded their careers. They took informal polls among the 15 tenured women faculty to gather more data, then brought a proposal to Birgeneau, asking for a committee that would detect, correct, and prevent inequities. The first committee consisted of one tenured woman from each of the six departments, in addition to three senior faculty. According to Hopkins, this type of collaboration with powerful male faculty was very helpful. It built gender alliances and taught women how the system worked.

The major obstacle in gender discrimination, according to Hopkins, is simply that both men and women tend to undervalue women. At MIT, women faced slight disadvantages at every step in their careers. Over the course of years, these disadvantages accumulated into great inequities. As Bailyn stated, women just don't fit the model we all have in mind of a good scientist. They aren't as tall, they are less likely to pound home their points, and their style of working is different. For example, they tend to publish less, but their papers are more frequently cited than those of their male peers.

Virginia Valian of Hunter College's Graduate Studies program has developed an approach that helps explain why women continue to suffer inequities. Her book, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women, claims that men and women share common gender schemas - implicit, unconscious hypotheses about gender differences that originate in childhood. Gender schemas are not wrong; they are an essential part of cognition. While stereotypes are hypotheses that imply a negative view of a social group, the broader term schema encompasses accurate, inaccurate, positive, negative, or neutral hypotheses. However, errors creep in when schemas are formed, applied, and maintained. Schemas can be corrected, at least partially, by making them conscious and challenging them with reason.

To illustrate a perceptual gender schema, Valian cites a lab experiment in which college students evaluated the height of men and women in photographs containing a common reference point (the same desk). The subjects rated men as taller and women as shorter than they really were because of the gender schema "men are, on average, taller than women" [5]. In fact, most men are taller than women, although there are many exceptions to the rule. Similarly, men and women tend to associate "great scientist" with men because historically the majority of scientists (great and not-so-great) were men.

Valian's work validates what Bailyn and Hopkins describe about inequities at MIT. She claims that investment in women has been so slow because women suffer from an accumulation of small-scale biases based on gender schemas. She advises that women make mountains out of molehills, since mountains are indeed made from molehills. She offers a number of remedies that women can apply. Briefly, major points include:

• Discerning small disadvantages (such as the negative effects of not letting a woman teach a large lecture course)
• Noticing gender schemas in everyday life (for example, the saleswoman who looks at a husband when talking about a food processor's motor, then looks at the wife when speaking about cuisine)
• Challenging our hypotheses about gender and success (for example, conducting thought experiments in which you switch sexes when someone has been evaluated)
• Increasing the numbers of women in candidate pools (women receive better evaluations if they are at least 25 percent of any group)
• Learning to reason more closely, creating institutional policies that address even small imbalances
• Ensuring that objective performance criteria are used and known by all

Hopkins states that gender schemas will really change when equitable policies are enforced. "You have to fix the systems. Then the hearts and minds will follow." She urges younger women to stay focused on their science to avoid discouragement, letting the more secure, senior women faculty fight these battles. In fact, science seems to be the key to MIT's progress in this area. For both the women and men behind the reforms, the passion and respect for science is defeating a long tradition of gender inequity.

Christopher G. Edwards is a Boston-based science management consultant, writer and editor.

Andrzej Krauze is an illustrator, poster maker, cartoonist, and painter who illustrates regularly for HMS Beagle, The Guardian, The Sunday Telegraph, Bookseller, and New Statesman.

---

Tell us what you think.

Endlinks

Women in Science: Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty? - a collection of essays documenting the challenges facing women in science. From Scientific American.

Barriers to Women in Academic Science and Engineering - focuses on the experiences of women in Ph.D. programs and as faculty members.

Biased Science - Camille Paglia call the MIT report an inobjective, "a priori exercise in social engineering, beginning with a stacked committee." From Salon.

Women in Biology Internet Launch Page - an extensive collection of links to the history of women in science, career issues for women scientists, and related Internet resources. This site was reviewed in the HMS Beagle In Situ article Internet Resources for Women Biologists.

Committee on Women in Science and Engineering - advocacy organization.

Association for Women in Science - news and issues related to achieving equity for women in science and engineering.

Women in Sciences and Engineering - brief facts, plus images of relevant presentation slides.

Women in Science Internet Resources - a list of discussion groups, Web sites, and email addresses.