Women in Science

Have women had the same opportunities and options to participate in the work of science, either as scientists or as participants, as men? The evidence suggests not. Although inequities may be decreasing over time, men continue to hold about 70 percent of all research positions in science worldwide.

Why is this the case? There are undoubtedly a broad range of reasons. Gender inequities seem to be embedded in the processes that influence the conduct of research, including what is prioritized, as well as who does research, who is promoted, who becomes leaders, and whose contributions are valued. There has been considerable research on sex-based disparities in the health sciences focusing on how explicit or implicit bias differentially affects investigators. Women may also have a harder time getting hired in science than men. In an experiment, when sex was randomly assigned to curricula vitae, a hiring committee was more likely to choose male candidates. Once settled into scientific jobs, mobility and advancement remain uneven. Women have fewer publications, and as research shows, women on scientific teams are significantly less likely than men to be credited with authorship; both of these contribute to slower career trajectories. Women also have fewer collaborators and less research funding. And more than forty percent of female scientists in the United States leave full-time work in science after their first child.

Limiting the progression of half the population dooms us all to work that is half as effective as it could be.

Scientists are also unevenly distributed by genders across fields, and fields where women are more represented have not infrequently been considered less rigorous or valuable than others. It has been suggested that ideas around what constitutes worthy research originate from entrenched power structures most often developed by men. This, in turn, influences the chances of success for women scientists and entire fields. The more women there were in a field, the lower the overall grant-application success rate and evaluation of researcher quality, according to an analysis of data from more than 30 countries

There are abundant reasons why this is problematic. At a fundamental level, there is an injustice that has been carried out over centuries, limiting women from equal opportunity in science. Quite simply, science—aspiring to advance the edge of thinking in societies—should be better than this. This also has real practical implications for the success of science. The literature on the benefit of gender diversity to achievement in teams is abundant. Limiting the progression of half the population dooms us all to work that is half as effective as it could be. And the production of science through a male lens inevitably skews the questions we ask and the answers we settle on.

For example, in biomedicine, men are less likely to produce inventions relevant to women’s health. Male scientists have led fields with a greater focus on male clinical research participants, producing an evidence base that skews scientific findings. As recently as 2019, women accounted for only 40% of participants in clinical trials for three of the diseases that most affect women — cancer, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric disorders — despite representing 51% of the U.S. population.

What would be the way forward? Certainly, awareness seems a key first step, including leaning into the responsibility of anyone in a position to advance the cause of science to ensure equitable opportunities for all genders. There have also been calls for supporting studies of the scientific research process itself and the social organization of science, including how the funding and dissemination of research may be gendered. All of this seems worthwhile, particularly in the face of a challenge that has influenced science for centuries and is past time to be solved.

Previously in Observing Science: Innovation