Where are all the women scientists?

By Madeleine Whybrow

The workplace has seen significant progress in terms of gender equality in modern times and is a reasonable success story for the feminist movement. In Britain today women enjoy more employment rights than in any other point in history. We have better pay and more opportunities than any of our predecessors, and are less likely to be discriminated against. However, it is clear that some areas are progressing faster than others.

Science, both in industry and in academia, has historically been male-dominated but this cannot excuse the extent to which this inequality is persevering, and in some cases growing. In 2012 women occupied only 13% of jobs classed as Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics (STEM).  By comparison, board directorship, classically an area singled out for lack of women, stood at 15% for FTSE 100 companies.

This state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. Science and technology is what drives progress, and those who understand it will be those directing our responses to the twin challenges of climate change and the coming energy crisis. Our understanding of biology and chemistry is shaping how we treat and maintain our bodies. Even in business, those with science qualifications are likely to earn more money and occupy more high-powered positions.

If women are consistently missing out on these opportunities, something needs to change. We need to examine why women are being pushed away from science, and how to attract them back. I am a female undergraduate at Imperial College, one of the UK’s leading universities and one of the few specialising in science and medicine. I have seen first-hand the lack of women at all levels of science, and the factors which make this the case.

Getting women into science is particularly challenging as there are so many obstacles at so many different levels. Even before children enter formal education, the sexes are split in terms of the clothes they wear, the friends they have and, crucially, the toys they play with. We believe that boys prefer toys such as building blocks, tractors, diggers and, later on, tree houses and bikes. Girls, on the other hand, play with dolls and stuffed animals and enjoy reading and arts and crafts. This means that whilst our daughters are being taught to be sociable and creative, our sons are building their spatial awareness and understanding of mechanical processes.

This is not just down to the preferences of the individual; children play with what they are given, that is, what adults perceive to be appropriate for the child’s gender. What’s more, the differences in toys and play styles are not just about skills, but aspirations as well. If we push our girls towards playing princesses and fairies and our boys towards astronauts and fire fighters, is it any wonder these gender divides follow them into their careers?

As our children move into schools, the issues around boys’ toys and girls’ toys become those around boys’ subjects and girls’ subjects. The same preconceptions surrounding the preferences of different genders shift on to academic matters.  While girls are seen to thrive in subjects that require creativity and empathy, such as literature and language, boys are pushed towards the logical rigour of the mathematical sciences and the practicality of the experimental ones. 

In the classroom, these views can all too easily become self-prophesising. Teenagers’ self-esteems are often painfully fragile, if a pupil believes their gender is impairing their progress in a subject, that could be the psychological nail in the coffin turning them off that area altogether. Worse still would be if a teacher’s perceptions of gender were affecting, consciously or not, the way they treated individual students.

Fortunately, matters are improving. In 2012 participation in science GCSE was nearing equal proportions but there is still a large drop off at A-level with lower numbers of females taking all STEM A-levels except biology. In physics A-level, only 21% of entries were from women, down from 22% in 2009.

At degree level, the picture becomes more blurred. Female participation in all science degrees is at an almost healthy 44% but the gender distribution is not evenly split, ranging from 83% women in Medical Sciences to 15% in Engineering. Any gender split that extreme is detrimental to students and to universities. Here, in particular, it shows that even when women get into science, they are staying within human rather than physical sciences.

After graduation, the next step for a young scientist is a PhD, a difficult decision for anyone and particularly so for a woman. Taking the doctoral route means that she will be starting her career in her mid-twenties, about the time that she will be thinking about, or even just perceived to be thinking about, having children. Maternity is a huge issue for women in all industries but going straight into graduate employment gives at least a few years’ grace to build the foundations of a career, a luxury not afforded to a PhD student.

This is compounded by the fact that, because PhD bursaries are not taxed, their recipients are not automatically entitled to employment rights such as sick pay, holiday allowance and maternity (or paternity) leave. Furthermore, the fast pace of scientific research means that, even if you have the right to it, taking maternity leave will still set you back in your career. It is no surprise that many women choose to leave the industry at this stage.

Faced with obstacle after obstacle, it is understandable that women are put off scientific careers and qualifications. This discouragement starts even before they enter formal education and follows them well into their adult lives.

However, is there anything we can do about it? Some changes, such as the legal right to maternity leave for PhD students would be straightforward. Changing the way society perceives differences in gender, on the other hand, will be much more challenging, though not impossible. Promoting female scientific role models, for example, would demonstrate that women are capable of matching men, as well as inspiring the next generation of women scientists. We should support and encourage these pioneers and broadcast their achievements for all to see.

By nurturing the next generation of female scientists, and gradually wearing away the myth that men are naturally better than women at science, I believe that we can achieve the change we so badly need. It is in everybody’s interests that the best scientific minds are able to work to their full potential. Whilst women are so underrepresented in science, this cannot be the case.


Further reading: - The statistics on women in science: www.wisecampaign.org.uk/about-us/wise-resources/uk-statistics-2012 - PhDs and employment law: www.jamiebgall.co.uk/phd-vs-employment-law/4575917180