Nobel Laureates Call for Gender Balance in Science

How much dd Abert Einstien's first wife Mileva help/assist him in his theory of relativity? As well as his other work.

Which is a good example.

p911

Good Point. Rosalind Franklin is another great example.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/rosalind-franklin.shtml

One tends to wonder if it didn't have more to do with chauvinism with in the scientific community

This is a complex issue. Ever since childhood I have been intrigued as much by heroes of either sex. The goddesses Athena, Diana, and Ceres/Demeter; Atalanta; Hypatia; Queen Elizabeth I, Lady Ada Lovelace, Clara Barton, Marie Curie, Emmy Noether, Marina Whitman, Carol Bartz, and any number of authors. In one company I worked for, the head pressure vessel designer was a woman; and I know of a few industrial refrigeration operators who are women.

And yet there seem to be lingering hindrances to full acceptance of women in such fields. How much of this owes to subtle discrimination, and how much to self-selection (part of which might stem from the subtle discrimination), is hard to tease out.

More power to those who succeed.

this is a classic case of the lack of connection with the elite and the rest of the world. They should go out and ask the women that are unemployed or their husbands are unemployed and are losing their homes if they are worried about women in science.

I think the same handicap exists for male college students in sports programs. They have to make a choice because they can't pursue both. It also needs to be adjusted for poor people. This same problem for women exists in business too. I think the guy from Harvard is likley too ig-orant to stay in his current post. I also don't believe that special help for disadvantaged segments should come at the expense of oppotunity for those that aren't disadvantaged.

Let me begin by saying I don't think you're a chauvinist at all, but I do think your reaction stems from a misunderstanding of what is trying to be accomplished by the statement.

It seems like you are acknowledging that the system is unfair but your argument is that it is also unfair to the poor, young men, etc.

Nothing you said indicates that we can't try to improve the current system to be more accommodating, and not just for women, but also for the poor etc. One's suffering never justifies another. Does the very act of pointing out an injustice deserve such vitriol?

You speak as though the Earth was created and the current academic system came into being and has been that way for all time. The world changes, systems change to adjust to that changing world, but those changes can only come when we are aware of the issues.

What these women are doing is pointing out "your explanation that we are intellectually inferior isn't valid, here is the true reason for the lack of women in higher positions in science". Is it so wrong for them to be indignant at the idea that women are somehow inferior? I don't think so.

I agree with the basic underlying point these women are trying to make about work in general that at the earlier stages in womens careers many women prefer to opt out try to focus on children rather than career. I use the term opt out because I have known many women who graduated with science degrees, and after typically 6 months to 2 years of working, they decide marriage and family is a better option than the drudgery of the work place. The problem with what these women are stating is how do you change a system to allow women to stop working for 20 years losing many of their skills in the process and then bring them back to immediately promote to a level of their peers are now at, with a lack of 20 years experience relative to those peers. The best solution is to modify a society to reflect a more equitable system for child rearing and family, where there is no automatic option to choose to quit the work place for women so they are equally competitive and of equal experience/education level with the similar men. I have never known anyone educated in science who would not desire more involvement of women in the industry, it seems to be women who soon after college desire not to have to work in the industry for the low pay and demanding work loads.

jasonsomething here.

The system will always be unfair. let me qualify that by saying that i have no problem with a movement towards the betterment for all, but lets be realistic. We're dealing in tradeoffs. And no where in the article did it mentions equality for all, or improvement for the sake of academia (which should be the real reason, since more qualified personel in the field is better for everyone) It mentioned one specific group. And that will be the driving force until they achieve their aims or abandon their campaign. Yes, the world changes, and yes change is sometimes good. But lets call this what it is. Some women, who feel slighted, want to change things for their benefit (no one else's benefit is mentioned, or probably cared about). And additionally, how do they plan on going about it? As someone else mentioned, how do you keep someone current in a constantly changing work environment after they've been absent for 20 years? Well obviously they have to do due dilligence and keep up with changing conditions individually, not as a group calling for some unknown and unqualified change. So here we are again. A few people, running off at the mouth about needing to 'change this' and 'change that' without actually detailing a plan is just another group of people who feel marginalized and are abliged to show it. Then the grouping effect kicks in and people from all walks of life come storming out of the woodwork to take up the cause. You want to effect a cause for women to ward off the disconnect from current events caused by rearing a family? Awesome. Instead of crying foul to some 'chauvanistic machine' and calling for a change to the mechanics of professional society try a more individual approach. Stay current, and when the kids are grown give it your best shot (or maybe your husband stays home with the kids and YOU work; or some combination thereof). I'm willing to bet these two women chose not to have kids, or perhaps did not have wanting suitors and so feel a bit ill natured about the whole thing anyways. I don't know. Maybe they have good intentions. It sounds more to me a bit of misandry (just a bit mind you) mixed with a desire to effect change, without really knowing what to do, or how to do it. Better they stick to their science.

As a female working toward my bachelors degree in electrical engineering at a school that has several more guys than girls, I can see how there are several differences between genders. I think that the basic thing that needs to be realized is that there is a big difference in the overall personality and composure of both the genders and the profession they are seeking. Becoming a scientist (or doctor or this or that...) takes determination and persistence. While it may be inconvenient to take a break to 'have a family', if it is a value of theirs and they have the determine and persistence, they will find a way to do it.

One thing that I think stems from this discussion is once a family is created that it takes constant maintenance. Before females were a driving force in the workplace, it was the stay at home moms that nurtured their family. I think that in order for females to get the career recognition they need, it has to be understood that what was once solid family roles (mothers usually did cooking and housework, aka common gender stereotypes - also works the same for males in the sense of automobile maintenance, etc.) needs to be adjusted so that the roles in the family are more balanced between the male and female.

When it all comes down to it, it is really the shift in what an idea of a fully functioning family and perfect career is that is causing people to consider, "is this fair?".

I agree, a paradigm shift needs to occur in the way we perceive the roles of women in the family. Something else to consider is that many intelligent women chose to take on jobs to augment family incomes rather than careers that have long term objectives, because it is socially acceptable amongst their peer group. It is not the case for men, at a young age they are taught that career comes first, and are considered to be losers for failing to advance in their careers or have a career. This creates a differentiation in motivations. Women have options, men really do not. When we remove the option of not having a career, I believe women would likely advance their careers more consistently and in a manner similar to men. Career women still tend to be frowned on by a large section of their female peers and perceived in a bad light, for the most part you dont typically see Gen X or younger men pereiving women with careers adversely, and you dont see men perceiving men with careers in an adverse light. The female peer influence to be a housewife instead of working is still very strong in society, and is still a viable alternative to working. Remove this alternative and the related influence for women and things would change.

One important thing worth noting is that, just because the career system bears no gender discriminations 5 great women had been honoured with the Nobel prize. In most of the institutions no such discriminations are laid and rather women hood is encouraged in all possible ventures.

It should be purely based on caliber and contribution at this serous level of expected responsibility, performance, outcome and contribution.

There could be race for excellence and surely not any feeling of being male or female at this level of status. One reality every one to note is the worthiness and outcome of the award which is rather a self testimony.

Hey Roger - Great topic!

Reminds me of more than a few tricky conversations I was having with my wife leading up to our last presidential election - is sexism or racism a bigger problem in America? Times were tense leading up to that election in my liberal upstate New York household, to say the least!

Sometimes, unfortunately, the free market fails us and it takes a law to get things done. Maybe we could learn from what the Norwegians successfully did to get more women (40%) on the boards of major companies there?: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111673448. BBC World Service radio also did a nice radio program on Norway's success.

I'm 43 and there were very few women - less than 10% as I recall - studying with me in most of my mechanical engineering undergrad and grad-level classes in the 80's and early 90's here in upstate New York. If they weren't with me in those classes, then they were not entering PhD programs later.

My own wife, approaching 50, a very smart woman, would have loved to have been an engineer, but was discouraged to follow that path because of her gender. She did get a PhD, but not in the hard-sciences.

Hopefully we can remedy this sexism - for my 5 year old daughter and her age group - with the sincere conversion of some old-school American macho guys out there - including educated ones with PhD's - who pattern themselves on the 60's Don Draper model. Tiger Wood's crash-and-burn may be lesson to them about male ego.

CORRECTION: "... then they were not entering PhD programs later." - Larry

Possibly, the structure of work in general needs to change. Some of us have inadvertently moved into shorter work weeks. Now if we just had more people employed and better pay equity so people could survive financially with shorter work weeks, concomitant with family roles that have been shifting since the 70's, people could spend more time with their families and doing things they love to do (which I think of as productivity) whether those things make money or not.

You seem to long for a social order more along the lines of the 1970s, where there were no expectations of women, which i think leads exactly to the condition these Noble Laureates are commenting about, rather than an equality of status.

Let me see if I have the an understanding of what you are attempting to say, in summary. Want more pay for less productive work so you can have more free time to do something non-productive. Afterall, money is supposed to be a reimbursement for productive labor useable to purchase the thing you want. Productive work always makes money somewhere, bnow it may be a different question as to who gets rewarded for the productivity.

Consider how most people spend their free time, drinking alcohol; rock climbing, hiking, traveling and other activities that destroy the natural environment; partying and parttaking in a variety of misconduct or misadventures (many of which incur substantial long and short term health expenditures);etc.. Serious scientific advancements are rarely discovered during unpaid hobby activities.

I am not really sure how this relates to being rewarded for the most innovate scientific work products. Scientific advancements take time, effort, knowledge, creativity, intellect, and a bit of obsessiveness. While you could spread this work load across a team, then you must also spread the reward, financial or otherwise, across that same team, and as everyone knows, it is horrible to be on any team where only a few of you possess the aptitude and fortitude to accomplish the ends, while the other want to put forth far less effort and still reap the benefits. Thus it is better to develop smaller more intensicve team efforts with out the dead weight. Thereby requiring potentially more individual effort and committment to the task, but also a large apportionment of the rewards for the effort.

I'm not sure where you got that about having "no expectations of women". Also, there are a good many activities people engage in which add considerably to the quality of life, but for which they aren't paid; volunteerism, community service, family commitments. When all the adults in a family work full time, there is less time for these. Often, the arts go unremunerated - Van Gogh - classic example. Marketing doesn't really address value, only what the buyer can be convinced is necessary, often for purely imaginary reasons, but it's all classified as productivity in the GNP - as are many of the "time wasters" you mention in your post.

Apocryphal or no, I'm not sure Newton was "working for wages" when he watched the apple fall. I think people need plenty of "space-out" time. I'm not sure the following is an exact quote, but, attributable to Buddha "Don't just do something, sit there."