Читать книгу The State of Science - Marc Zimmer - Страница 21

Eric Lander, founding director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, wrote an opinion piece in the Boston Globe in which he said, “The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. To stay ahead, we’ll need to use all our assets. That means leveling the barriers for women in science and engineering, and closing the participation gap for underrepresented minorities. It also means expanding tech-driven prosperity beyond the two coasts.”^[59] This is particularly important because the economic center of gravity of the world is shifting as the populations and personal income of Africa and (especially) Asia are increasing. If the United States wants to stay competitive in the world economy, it will have to rely on technological and scientific advances. Science and technology are related to each other, and both will advance faster and further with an expanded and diversified talent pool.

For better or worse, the world economic system is based on growth. In the current system, countries and companies need to expand in order to thrive. Staying the same may be sustainable, but it is not economically desirable. The U.S. agricultural and manufacturing sectors have reached their maximum capacity; they can no longer expand. America’s economic growth is predicated on the production/design of new products (iPhones, solar panels, cars, etc.). We need new and improved products, high-tech merchandise enhanced beyond previous models. In other words, the expansion of the U.S. economic system is reliant on scientific knowledge and know-how.^[60] The use and insights gained from scientific breakthroughs such as CRISPR, optogenetics, and gravitational waves will keep the United States competitive in tomorrow’s economy. To do this we need to maximize our scientific talent.

All the hurdles and biases described here don’t apply only to women and scientists of color; they also apply to some white male scientists. Chapter 5 discusses Doug Prasher, who wasn’t confident enough to go for tenure at Woods Hole; didn’t continue working on green fluorescent proteins because he wasn’t being supported; and finally dropped out of science, missing the hundredth Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2008 by the tiniest of margins. His is another, very different, example of a “leaky pipeline”: the importance of “loudership” and old-boy network connections.

Frances Arnold, 2018 chemistry laureate, is optimistic. She thinks we may have turned the corner, “as long as we encourage everyone—it doesn’t matter the color, gender; everyone who wants to do science, we encourage them to do it—we are going to see Nobel Prizes coming from all these different groups. Women will be very successful.”^[61] Women perhaps, but I am not convinced that people of color will be fairly represented among STEM Nobel laureates in the next 10–20 years. Unfortunately the systemic, societal, economic, and educational (K–12) differences are too large and too entrenched to expect parity in the next two decades.

1.

McBride, J. (2018). Nobel laureate Donna Strickland: “I see myself as a scientist, not a woman in science,” The Guardian, October 20.

2.

Institute of Education Sciences—National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Total undergraduate fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, and control and level of institution: Selected years, 1970 through 2026, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_303.70.asp.

3.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Table 318.45: Number and percentage distribution of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees/certificates conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, level of degree/certificate, and sex of student: 2008–2009 through 2014–2015, Digest of education statistics: 2016 tables and figures, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_318.45.asp.

4.

Institute of Education Sciences—National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Total undergraduate fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, and control and level of institution: Selected years, 1970 through 2026, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_303.70.asp.

5.

National Science Foundation. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering, https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/static/downloads/nsf17310-digest.pdf; Ashanti Johnson, M. H. O. (2016). How to recruit and retain underrepresented minorities, American Scientist 104, 76–91.

6.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering, https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=190946.

7.

Harris, A. (2019). The disciplines where no black people earn Ph.Ds: In more than a dozen academic fields—largely STEM related—not a single black student earned a doctoral degree in 2017, The Atlantic, April 19.

8.

James, R., Starks, H., Segrest, V. A., and Burke, W. (2012). From leaky pipeline to irrigation system: Minority education through the lens of community-based participatory research, Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 6, 471–479.

9.

Pennington, C. R., Heim, D., Levy, A. R., and Larkin, D. T. (2016). Twenty years of stereotype threat research: A review of psychological mediators, PLOS One 11, e0146487–e0146487.

10.

Yosso, T., Smith, W., Ceja, M., and Solórzano, D. (2009). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates, Harvard Educational Review 79, 659–691; Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., and Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice, American Psychology 62, 271–286.

11.

Harris, A. The disciplines where no black people earn Ph.Ds.

12.

Xavier University of Louisiana, Office of Planning, Institutional Research and Assessment. (2018–2019). University profile.

13.

Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. (2019). Top 100 degree producers, https://diverse education.com/top100/pages/index.php.

14.

National Science Foundation. (2013, April). Baccalaureate origins of U.S.-trained science and engineering doctorate recipients, https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/.

15.

Association of American Medical Colleges. (2012). Diversity facts and figures, https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/report/diversity-facts-figures.

16.

Mervis, J. (2014). When it comes to diversity grants, NIH hopes bigger is better, Science, November 4.

17.

Morgan, W. (2018). No black scientist has ever won a Nobel—that’s bad for science, and bad for society, The Conversation, October 8.

18.

Board, N. S. (2018). Science and engineering indicators 2018, National Science Foundation, https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/.

19.

Redden, E. (2018). International student numbers decline, Inside Higher Education, January 22.

20.

Redden, E. (2018). New international enrollments decline again, Inside Higher Education, November 13.

21.

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. (2018). Press release: The 2018 Nobel Prize in Physics, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2018/press-release/.

22.

McBride, J. Nobel laureate Donna Strickland.

23.

Paul, A. (2018). Five women who missed out on the Nobel prize, The Guardian, October 7.

24.

Gibney, E. (2018). Nobel laureate Donna Strickland talks lasers and gender, Nature Podcast, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06995-w.

25.

Ford, K. (2017). Defeating the inner imposter that keeps us from being successful, TEDxMidAtlantic, February 22.

26.

Valian, V. (2018). Two Nobels for women—Why so slow?, Nature, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06953-6.

27.

The Nobel Prize. (2018). Nomination and selection of Nobel laureates, https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination-and-selection-of-nobel-laureates/.

28.

Garbee, E. (2017). The problem with the “pipeline”: A pervasive metaphor in STEM education has some serious flaws, Slate, October 17.

29.

Garbee, E. The problem with the “pipeline.”

30.

Maxman, A. (2018). Why it’s hard to prove gender discrimination in science, Nature News & Comment, May 15.

31.

Jarvis, L. M. (2018). Why can’t the drug industry solve its gender diversity problem?, Chemistry & Engineering News, 96.

32.

Urry, M. (2015). Science and gender: Scientists must work harder on equality, Nature-Comments, December 21.

33.

MassBio. (2017). A study of gender diversity within the life sciences sector of Massachusetts, http://files.massbio.org/file/MassBio-Liftstream-Gender-Diversity-Report-2017-C849.PDF.

34.

Fara, P. (2018). “Leaky pipelines”: Plug the holes or change the system?, National Public Radio: Cosmos and Culture, February 2, 2018.

35.

Mason, M. A., and Goulden, M. (2002). Do babies matter? The effect of family formation on the lifelong careers of academic men and women, Academe 88, 21–27.

36.

Trix, F., and Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty, Discourse & Society 14, 191–220.

37.

Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., and Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest, Science Communication 35, 603–625.

38.

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., and Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 16474.

39.

Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

40.

Nittrouer, C. L., Hebl, M. R., Ashburn-Nardo, L., Trump-Steele, R. C. E., Lane, D. M., and Valian, V. (2018). Gender disparities in colloquium speakers at top universities, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 104.

41.

Nittrouer et al. Gender disparities in colloquium speakers at top universities.

42.

Quoted in Maxman, A. (2018). Why it’s hard to prove gender discrimination in science, Nature News, May 15.

43.

Quoted in Maxman, A. Why it’s hard to prove gender discrimination in science.

44.

Funk, C., and Parker, K. (2018). Women and men in STEM often at odds over workplace equity, Pew Research Center, January 9.

45.

Goodwin, K. (2018). Mansplaining, explained in one simple chart, BBC, July 29.

46.

Cooper, K. M., Krieg, A., and Brownell, S. E. (2018). Who perceives they are smarter? Exploring the influence of student characteristics on student academic self-concept in physiology, Advances in Physiology Education 42, 200–208.

47.

Fox, M. (2018). Not smart enough? Men overestimate intelligence in science class: Even when grades show different, men overestimated their class ranking, NBC News, April 4.

48.

Fox, M. Not smart enough?

49.

Fine, I., and Shen, A. (2018). Perish not publish? New study quantifies the lack of female authors in scientific journals, The Conversation, March 8.

50.

Fine, I., and Shen, A. Perish Not Publish?

51.

Macaluso, B., Lariviere, V., Sugimoto, T., and Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Is science built on the shoulders of women? A study of gender differences in contributorship, Academic Medicine 91, 1136–1142.

52.

Storage, D., Horne, Z., Cimpian, A., and Leslie, S. J. (2016). The frequency of “brilliant” and “genius” in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across fields, PLOS One 11, e0150194.

53.

Fine, I., and Shen, A. Perish not publish?

54.

Staley, O., and Shendruk, A. (2018). Here’s what the stark gender disparity among top orchestra musicians looks like, Quartz at Work, October 16.

55.

Carter, A. J., Croft, A., Lukas, D., and Sandstrom, G. M. (2018). Women’s visibility in academic seminars: Women ask fewer questions than men, PLOS One 8, e0212146.

56.

Jarvis, L. M. Why can’t the drug industry solve its gender diversity problem?

57.

Bear, J. B., and Woolley, A. W. (2011). The role of gender in team collaboration and performance, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 36, 146–153; Smith, Wendy K. T., and Babcock-Lumish, T. (2018). How many women does it take to change a broken Congress?, The Conversation, November 9.

58.

Koren, M. (2018). One Wikipedia page is a metaphor for the Nobel Prize’s record with women, The Atlantic, October 2.

59.

Lander, E. S. (2018). Will America yield its position as the world’s leader in science and technology?, Boston Globe, January 29.

60.

Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind, London: Harvill Secker.

61.

Gracia, S. (2018). Nobel Prize in chemistry goes to a woman for the fifth time in history, New York Times, October 3.

Chapter 3