Across most industries, women are paid on average significantly less than men, and science is no exception. In 2008, the median salary for women in science and engineering was $60,000, a full $24,000 less than the equivalent male salary.
And as much as it sucks that women make less than men, this is symptomatic of an even larger problem within the sciences: an institutionalized sexism that prevents women from achieving as much similarly qualified men.
As the introduction to Nature's awesome special issue this week on the topic puts it:
According to the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers experience a smaller wage gap in relation to their male colleagues than women in non-STEM fields. That's less reassuring after playing with Nature's fun-to-fiddle-with but depressing interactive graphic quantifying the scientific gender gap. (Augh, lady friends, careful -- numbers are scary!)
You can choose to narrow the data by various scientific fields, ages and types of degrees, but the gap persists. On the bright side, if you're a female computer and information scientist under 29, your median annual salary will only fall a $1,000 short of your male colleagues' -- unless you're comparing master's degrees holders, in which case the gap widens to $9,000 a year. For psychologists and biological life scientists under 29, women actually make a little more than men.
Of course, salary isn't the only marker of how science has remained a boys club, and differences in pay aren't necessarily the result of overt discrimination. Women disproportionately drop out of scientific careers early on, possibly because of the demands of raising a family, a lack of female role models and a perception that these careers are "not for them," as Hannah Valantine, dean of leadership and diversity at the Stanford School of Medicine, says.
Despite the fact that almost half the doctorates in science engineering the U.S. and Europe go to women, only about a fifth of full professors are female. There's also the lack of women invited to speak at conferences, the lack of women on high-level committees, and the lack of women serving on corporate scientific advisory boards.
So how do we fix it? Eight experts from around the world weighed in on the best ways to zip the gender gap shut in Nature's Comment section. From beyond the paywall, here are a few of the ones we can all take to heart:
Pay attention to what's not happening:
Liisa Husu, a gender studies professor at Örebro University in Sweden, brings up the point that outright discrimination and belittlement aren't the only reasons for a Petri-dish glass ceiling. It's also what we're not doing:
Invite women to speak at conferences and events:
As Virginia Valian, a psychologist at Hunter College and City University of New York, points out, it's rare to see women giving plenary or keynote speeches at scientific conferences. Some organizations strive to bring speakers from non English-speaking countries to diversify their lineup. The same should go for women:
Modify tenure timelines:
Child-rearing responsibilities still affect women more than men. Ben Barres, a neurobiologist at Stanford University, says we can encourage more women to choose tenure-track jobs by granting extensions to scientists who have babies, whether that's during their graduate or postdoc training or as an assistant professor:
Institute gender-bias training.
Jo Handelsman and Corinne Moss-Racusin of Yale University published a study in 2012 showing that scientists of all ranks and genders were complicit in gender discrimination. It found that a male candidate is more likely to be hired (and paid more) and mentored than a female. A little diversity training couldn't hurt, and, failing that, "we could paint murals of admired female scientists throughout the halls of universities," Handelsman and Moss-Racusin write. Yes.
Holy crow, commenters. Way to prove the article's point.
I think that woman are aiming lower that men in science.I have a idea,we could destroy stuckup "magzizes"(sorry for misspelling.)like seventeen that brainwashes girls that all that matters is makeup and boys and replace them with science!
The pendulum swings, then swings back. You can't halt the momentum. It's been swinging away from men and toward women. I don't think anyone can honestly argue otherwise. That's fine, it's the way the world works. The problem is, when you try to add to the natural momentum, you exaggerate the swing. Beneficiaries of the current swing are fine with that, huh? But eventually the pendulum will swing the other way, with nearly the same momentum. Then those current beneficiaries will be the victims. Isn't the better path to promote fairness? Right now male children are provided significantly fewer educational opportunities than are females, white males fewer still. That's adding to the momentum of the pendulum. It's not promoting a solution.
God had a wife originally, then history removed her from religion. Men and woman are important, BOTH!
Wow - what a lot of sexist comments! As a practitioner of research I would say that point 1 is incredibly important, i.e. inclusion. I've seen innumerable female colleagues sidelined for much less capable men - simply because they don't fit the mold of our scientific institutes. If nothing else - think of the science that has been lost. Increasingly, we also see science as a collaborative effort and - much as I don't like these generalities - women are often very good at collaborating. A truly level playing field is what we want - not favors!