Recent reading – science, careers, gender, policy and a look forward

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

This is an abridged collation of some of the interesting reading I came across/finally got round to over the Christmas break.

Careers and science

• Steve Caplan, Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Nebraska, questions whether the increasing focus on ‘translational research’ will restrict the next generation from asking the fundamental questions in basic science – and why this is dangerous.
• … Elsewhere, he argues that despite a lack of academic careers (relative to the number of PhD positions) we should train more students to PhD level if we also improve their training – not just preparing them for academic careers. (I tend to refer to this as ‘PhD 2.0’.) He also highlights this Individual Development Plan tool from AAAS’ Science Careers.
• Science Insider reports that a blogger who exposes scientific fraud has stopped posting following legal threats. Paul Brookes, Associate Professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, hopes to set up a new site with his real name behind it. (In related news, Fang Shi-min – a freelance science journalist and biochemist – recently shared the inaugural John Maddox prize for uncovering scientific fraud in China.)
• Times Higher Education publishes an article highlighting a US study, which argues that international groups of scholars bring complementary skills and ideas that aid research, resulting in a greater number of papers, which – in turn – are more highly cited.
• The BBSRC will announce full details of two schemes to support the translation of new ideas in biotechnology and bioenergy into commercial applications this month. Both will aim to foster industrial collaboration.
• Christine Fernandez, a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, summarises a workshop which gave eight tips to publish high impact.

Women in science

• The organisers of the SpotOn London conference compile a useful selection of resources for female scientists looking to raise their profiles online (some also apply to men).
• Curt Rice, Vice President for Research & Development at the University of Tromsø, writes a great article about how quotas raise quality, and how diversity is about more than social justice. He also includes a succinct account of the ‘paradox of meritocracy’.
• The House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee take oral evidence for their Women in the Workplace inquiry. The transcript of the session with Dame Professor Jocelyn Bell Burnell (Chair of the Royal Society of Edinburgh inquiry into Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), Kate Sloyan (Institute of Physics 2012 Very Early Career Woman Physicist of the Year Award winner), and Helen Wollaston and Trudy Norris Grey (both of the Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) Campaign) is worth reading.

Science for the economy

• David Docherty, Chief Executive of the Council For Industry and Higher Education, summarises the Growing Value report (PDF), which urges the government to make sustained, ‘steady-handed’, strategic commitments to research; prioritising collaboration between universities and business, and entrepreneurism.
• The Technology Strategy Board explain that the biosciences are a priority for them because they “could form the basis of a new technical revolution” (PDF, from page 12). They outline the opportunities for business and the challenges for innovation.

Openness

• Curt Rice (again), summarises a recently published paper on Open Evaluation, arguing that changes to how we evaluate are essential to the Open Access movement.
• The latest issue of The Journal of the Foundation for Science and Technology (PDF) features articles on implementing the Finch Report from Professor Sir John Enderby, as well as an article from Julian Huppert MP about how he uses social media. There is also a piece by Professor Pete Downes (former Chair of the Biochemical Society Policy Committee) about how universities can catalyse innovation. Crucially, he highlights that we must produce graduates who understand this and are interested.

The policy process

• Kirsty Newman (from the Department for International Development, but writing on her personal blog) says that when looked at in the right context, policy making processes need not be complex or complicated to engage with.

And finally…

• Nature has published a forward look at what they see the key stories of 2013 being, including the results of a clinical trial which uses human embryonic stem cells.

Staying connected

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

Following some interesting feedback we received from a survey of our members on gender equality issues and what the Society should be doing to support and celebrate women in science, coupled with discussions amongst our staff and Meetings Board and suggestions I have picked up during my long-running interest in gender equality in science, the Society has just launched a new grant scheme. The Stay Connected Bursaries will support the attendance of scientists with young children at our conferences from the start of next year – including those on parental leave, and those who require the attendance of a partner to look after a young child. We hope that this small step will go part way to overcoming one of the many challenges that scientists face in balancing a career with having a family; helping them to keep up to date with current research and maintain and develop contacts.

The introduction of this scheme follows the recent changes to our conference proposal guidelines (Focused Meeting proposal linked as an example), which now state that we aspire to a 40% female speaker representation, and that at least 25% of the invited speakers should always be women. This should also help to boost opportunities for newer investigators, amongst whom women are more readily represented.

Celebrating women in science

Our ability to bring these issues to the forefront of our policy considerations has been helped by top-level buy-in. This is widely recognised – not just in scientific organisations – as being a vital component of achieving sustainable change. Next year is the 100^th anniversary of the admittance of the Society’s first female members and throughout the year the Society is organizing a variety of events, activities and initiatives to celebrate women in biochemistry and across science. Most of these have been informed by the survey These activities will take place across our departments, so keep an eye on our website over the next few months and into 2013.

Whilst I’m on the subject of celebration, Ada Lovelace Day is fast approaching, this year to be held in conjunction with the Women’s Engineering Society. Featuring performances from Helen Arney, Dr Suzie Sheehy, Gia Milinovich, Dr Helen Scales, Helen Keen, Dr Alice Bell, Sarah Angliss and Sydney Padua, the Institution of Engineering and Technology will host this celebration of the achievements of women in STEM on October 16. It should be a fun night and bring inspiring role models to the fore, a simple solution which still plays an important part in encouraging women to stay in science. The organisers are also using a crowdsourcing site to raise money in order to create a charitable organisation, securing the long-term future of the event and expanding the group’s activities. You can find out more about Ada Lovelace Day at the Finding Ada blog.

Athena SWAN awards need more judges

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

The Athena SWAN Charter is rising in profile all the time, especially now that research funding is starting to be dependent on institutions possessing the associated awards. The Equality Challenge Unit, who administer the scheme, expect a considerable increase in applications for the next round of awards, which will be judged in early 2013.

Athena SWAN awards are awarded to universities or individual departments who demonstrate a commitment to embedding best practise regarding gender equality, with a focus on STEM subjects. To date, only two Gold applications (Silver and Bronze awards may also be applied for) have been successful – the Chemistry departments at the Universities of York and Edinburgh are invited to take a bow.

My experience of sitting on a judging panel in the previous round was very positive. There is a time commitment – I may have been slowed down by the fact that it was my first time – up to eight applications are discussed by each panel, and these fairly weighty documents must be read in advance in preparation for a day-long panel discussion session in London. In return, you get expenses paid, lunch (featuring sushi when I attended) and an invite to the awards ceremony. Crucially, however, you also get an insight into the practises of a variety of universities and departments – best practise to learn from and a closer look at the more dubiously received policies that some institutions have in place. For panellists based in universities, this can be a useful way of reflecting on their own institutions.

I have written fairly extensively on the subject of gender equality in science, both in this blog and in our members’ magazine, The Biochemist. But it is through respected and practical schemes such as the Athena SWAN Charter (which the Biochemical Society co-funds) that the difference is really made.

If you have an awareness of the issues facing women in STEM and are interested in becoming a panellist, please email athenaswan@ecu.ac.uk to sign up or ask for more details. Panellists are taken from a wide range of backgrounds and men are especially invited to step forward, as they are currently in the minority on judging panels.

Women in Science debated in the House of Commons

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

Yesterday, Valerie Vaz, MP for Walsall South, organised an adjournment debate on women in science [transcript here]. I recommend you read it. She set out clearly what many others fail to do: that the matter of equality and diversity is not only a social justice issue, but also of vital importance to our competitiveness, and the government needs to do more about it.

Ms Vaz, a Biochemistry graduate, referred to a recent survey run by the Biochemical Society, which sought to bring to light the main problems facing our members, and some solutions to these. Issues associated with having a family – including childcare and the detrimental effects of taking maternity leave or working flexibly/part time within the traditional academic career and funding structures, featured highly in the responses. Furthermore, more female than male academic staff are on fixed-term contracts, and Ms Vaz reported that the gap is increasing.

Such issues are a considerable problem at an individual level, but also pose a great risk to our competitiveness, as diversity in research (as well as a well-motivated community) is benficial for research and innovation. Within academia, some universities and departments are doing a lot to address these imbalances, as I was recently exposed to when I joined an Athena SWAN judging panel for the first time. However, I also realised that some don’t “get it”.

Accountability

If we are to be an ‘innovation leader’ and secure the future strength of our science base, we need action now.  I hope to raise this at Monday’s Science Question Time event on science and growth. Mr Willetts has shown signs that he buys into his role in solving the problems (attending the debate was a good sign), and said yesterday that he is to be accountable for mainstreaming the expertise developed by the UKRC, which used to be funded by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Willetts points to his direction to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering to instigate a new diversity programme (the subject of the last Policy Lunchbox event). However, as the Royal Society of Chemistry points out, the funding for these programmes is relatively small. He needs to be doing more to promote change, and develop clear targets and a strategy. But I, and others, aren’t sure he gets the whole picture.

@jlush2 thank you. I think you are right.

—
Meg Munn (@MegMunnMP) June 14, 2012

Final note

Mr Willetts took the opportunity the debate presented to draw attention to BIS support for Vitae, which provides careers support for researchers. He highlighted its role in helping postdoctoral researchers, that oft-neglected community, and his acknowledgement of their need for support is welcome. However, Vitae itself may be heading the way of the UKRC, as the latest Research Fortnight cover story reports: ‘Funding councils throw Vitae £3m lifeline – But careers body still loses more than half its core funding’. Indeed, one of the activities that will lose core funding, RF reports, is the GRADschools programme for postgraduate researchers. Maybe not something to be shouting about then.

Further reading: MPs debate women in STEM (Campaign for Science and Engineering blog)

Improving diversity and tackling inequality in science

This is an edited version of a post which first appeared at the British Ecological Society’s blog

Equality and diversity in science was the focus of last week’s Policy Lunchbox, run at Charles Darwin House by the Biochemical Society and British Ecological Society.

Sarah Hawkes, Head of Scientific Engagement at the Royal Society (RS), gave a presentation about her work on the Society’s new four-year programme (scroll down), which focuses on removing the barriers to increasing diversity in the scientific workforce.

The science sector in the UK – and the RS itself – have been the subject of criticism for the notable lack of women amongst their ranks, particularly in more senior positions. In the UK, men are six times more likely than women to work in science, technology, engineering or maths (STEM) subjects, and of the 46 Fellows appointed at the RS in 2012, only two were women.

The RS’s new programme, funded by the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, aims to address this gender imbalance – as well as tackling other issues of diversity incorporating ethnicity, disability and socio-economic status – across both academia and industry. The idea is to learn from and build upon the number of equality initiatives which already exist to work towards three objectives:

1. Defining and understanding the scientific workforce;
2. Identifying barriers to entry and progression within the scientific work force, which a view to removing them, and;
3. In the long-term, increasing the diversity of the scientific workforce.

The programme will involve data gathering and a large scale policy study, significant work to engage with the scientific community, organising diversity events and activities, and engaging with the Athena SWAN initiative (which the Biochemical Society co-funds) and actors within education.

The scheme has strong backing from Sir Paul Nurse, PRS, who made a statement recently saying that “we must have an environment in which all scientists, including those from previously underrepresented groups, have an equal chance to excel”.

Much of the work so far has been to establish the programme and begin to embed it within the RS’s work. An initial scoping study has been carried out to identify existing data on the diversity of the scientific workforce and knowledge gaps that need to be filled. As part of this work, the programme is exploring the possibility of joining up existing datasets to reveal long-term trends, which may indicate whether the suggestion of some commentators – that it is ‘just a matter of time’ before equality will come about in science anyway – is true (I would propose that it certainly won’t any time soon, without more significant intervention).

A consultation and engagement conference held at the end of March also provided vital feedback from the scientific community, identifying the barriers and issues people working in the field experience. Areas including careers guidance, career trajectories, improving awareness of STEM careers, the importance of role models and widening Athena SWAN were suggested and will be used to shape the RS programme’s work. Further consultation and a large scale policy study this summer will also investigate whether the diversity issues in science are replicated in other sectors and help identify evidence to make a ‘business case’ for improving diversity. This is an increasing focus in Europe too, as the recent Gendera conference brought to light.

Consideration will also be given to different measures of ‘excellence’ within science, as women are particularly affected by the challenge of maintaining a reputation through publications. This is due to factors including maternity leave and the potential loss of association with a publication record if names are changed in marriage.

The programme will focus initially on the academic sector but, building on Sarah’s previous experience working on the Athena SWAN Charter, it is hoped the RS programme will collaborate with the Charter to broaden its scope beyond universities to pilot work in research institutes and, perhaps in the future, industry. This will also help any best practices from industry be absorbed more widely. Unilever, for example, drew praise at the 2011 European Gender Summit for its active approach to diversity.

Of course, in addition to reaching out to pursue diversity externally, the RS must address the significant gender imbalance within its own Fellowship which, in the last 10 years, has elected only 43 women as Fellows out of a total of 438 (at the Biochemical Society, we acknowledge a similar problem with our awards, which we are working to address). Although low, this is an improvement compared to previous decades and now with the significant support of Sir Paul, Sarah feels progress will be made faster. A major barrier to overcome is the fact that Fellows are elected based on nominations by existing Fellows, which means the demographic is likely to perpetuate without interventions.

Sarah suggested that Learned Societies can help the RS programme, and more broadly make progress with addressing diversity issues, by participating in satellite expert groups which the programme is hoping to establish and informing Sarah of their own diversity initiatives, or providing examples of role models and case studies. There may also be the opportunity to work collaboratively, to run joint mentoring schemes for example, and the RS may provide some funding for this. This is definitely worth keeping an eye out for.

More details of the RS’s work on equality and diversity are available on their website. Our thanks again to Sarah for giving such an interesting presentation, which is available here, and for dealing with all of our questions, especially the toughies from me!

Supporting women in research – peer mentoring

This guest blog post was written by Irene Jacobsen, a PhD student at the MRC Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, King’s College London.

More than 80% of people occupying the highest academic positions in the EU are men. Whilst the proportion is decreasing, only slightly more women are deciding to stay in academia, reaching for senior positions (Innovation Union Competitiveness report 2011). What then, does it take to get there? As a female PhD student who has only recently learned how the academic career ladder works – with fewer and fewer positions available the higher you climb – I started wondering what support was out there to help women bridge the 80-20% gap.

Enter King’s College London and the ‘’Peer group mentoring for women researchers’ taster day. Not quite knowing what to expect, I arrived to meet a refreshing group of people – crossing disciplines and age brackets – some wondering whether to stay in academic research after a PhD, some looking for support after decades in academia. All were women and all in research. Discussions started regarding the support that is out there or may be missing, with one particular contribution raising immediate interest: the Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard Foundation in Germany. Professor Nüsslein-Volhard, a Nobel Prize recipient in 1995, initiated a foundation that awards monthly sums of money to women in the early stages of a scientific career, who also have the extra responsibility of taking care of young children. The money can go towards childcare or help with household tasks, helping these women to continue to produce high quality work as well as raise a family.

Whilst we may have to wait for a similar initiative to come to the UK, an alternative way of organising more basic support – which is available to everyone regardless of nationality, discipline or age – was introduced towards the end of the day: Action Learning. First described by Reg Revans, the idea is for people to present any issues they may have to the other members of a small group. The group can then ask questions to clarify the problem and provide alternative viewpoints free of preconceptions, as they usually only see each other in this peer mentoring setting. This allows the person raising the issue to leave the session with new perspectives, explanations and possibly even more questions, which may (or may not) help them to reach a solution.

As a member of such a group at the taster day, I was surprised to see how well it worked. Because it is not focused on providing advice, presenting an issue does not mean you will walk away with a sense of what you ‘ought to do’, but instead gives you an outsider’s view of your situation which may help you reach your own decision. The process is challenging, however, both for the ‘issue owner’ and the other members. The former may struggle to see the situation from a different standpoint and the latter to find the right balance between constructive questioning and careful listening.

Overall, the barriers for women in research in particular may be many, but the introduction to action learning does at least provide an opportunity for women in research to discuss in confidence the problems we face, and meet others who may present issues that you yourself could come across one day. Although I would first need to get used to the idea of disclosing personal problems to a group of people I know little about, I do see the undoubted value of having an objective, small and supportive peer group as one possible means of helping break through the barriers and increase the 20%.

Women and Leadership: Being the only man in the room

 

This blog post was written by James Lush, the Biochemical Society’s Policy Officer

Earlier this week, I attended a fascinating conference on Women and Leadership. This was held for the first time at Oxford Brookes University, comprising discussions around closing the gender gap with many distinguished speakers. These included Jacqui Smith (Britain’s first Female Home Secretary), Sara Thornton (Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police), Shami Chakrabarti (Director of Liberty) and Colonel Marian Lauder MBE of the British Army. It also included 137 female delegates, and me!

Never has my opinion been asked so many times. “You’re a man, what do you think?” With the conference ostensibly aimed at women (with no male speakers on the roster) it was interesting that the key message that came out was that to achieve equality, we need to change organisational cultures, and “change the men”. This is a phrase I heard several times, referring to the need for the ideology of the individuals at the top – almost exclusively male majorities – to be altered.

Whilst the majority of the discussion centred on the world of business, supplemented with other sessions involving high-profile speakers, parallels with science and research were apparent. In the very first session, Professor Susan Vinnicombe talked of the leaky pipeline with respect to management, law and accounting. This phrase is regularly used in relation to science, referring to female attrition in organisations as you look further through career progression. The Biochemical Society has looked at this in detail in the biosciences in its report ‘The Molecular Bioscience PhD and Women’s Retention: A Survey and Comparison with Chemistry’, produced in conjunction with the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, and the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2008. There has also been some discussion of this in Times Higher Education last week. Professor Vinnicombe highlighted that in law and accounting (as in the biosciences), female graduates outnumber males, but this does not translate to increasing numbers of women making it to board level. However, over the next two days the general consensus that emerged was that gender balance should be rectified because of the moral imperative, not the business case set out in Lord Davies’ report ‘Women on boards’.

Personally I found it interesting that the organisers chose not to invite any male speakers. One delegate who was looking at applying for Athena SWAN Charter recognition for her department told me that she had been asked to invite ‘enlightened men’ to an internal meeting on the subject. I personally hope these sentiments miss the point. But what was clear from the discussions I heard over the two days was that in order to address the gender imbalance we need to look at de-masculinising how organisations work. Here were some solutions that were proposed:

• Rethinking the criteria which are really most desirable in leaders, the assessment processes used to choose them, and the attitudes of assessors
• Giving in-depth thought to job design – are ‘core hours’ at work really necessary? Could full-time positions be shared (and not just secretarial positions)?
• Actively enforcing quotas and all-women shortlists for promotion or appointment (at the conference, quotas were often rejected as ‘tokenistic’, however, on all-women shortlists opinions were more mixed)
• Not looking in the obvious places and with the traditional criteria for impressive individuals.

Clearly these are focussed at the business sector and whether these could translate practically to the laboratory is another matter.  Regretfully there were no sessions geared towards science and I will be raising this when I give feedback. It would be very interesting to explore whether such open-mindedness would be possible in research, where it is well recognised that job security is poor for a considerable time after graduation, and that working consistently long ‘science hours’ is expected (required?). Furthermore, I am sure that scientists would make an imp0rtant contribution to the wider debate.

On the whole, I found the conference a very interesting personal experience, met some very impressive women, and picked up some interesting thoughts and ideas. However, I was disappointed at the lack of consideration for careers in science.  I wonder if I should expect a similar delegate balance at the forthcoming European Gender Summit?