E-Letter responses to:

p-forum: Jo Handelsman, Nancy Cantor, Molly Carnes, Denice Denton, Eve Fine, Barbara Grosz, Virginia Hinshaw, Cora Marrett, Sue Rosser, Donna Shalala, and Jennifer Sheridan CAREERS IN SCIENCE: Enhanced: More Women in Science Science 2005; 309: 1190-1191 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Re: Re: The inherent risks of a career in science

Ilias Charlafti   (20 October 2005)

Re: The inherent risks of a career in science

Friederike Schlaghecken   (29 September 2005)

Self-Empowerment by Female Scientists

Clara B. Jones   (29 September 2005)

Women Scientists Also Work Outside Academia

Laurel Smith-Doerr, Department of Sociology   (13 September 2005)

The inherent risks of a career in science

Gayle M Gordillo   (13 September 2005)

Re: Re: The inherent risks of a career in science 20 October 2005
Ilias Charlafti, PhD student Biozentrum, University of Basel Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: Re: The inherent risks of a career in science	It is true that many times the choice between having a family or pursuing a career in science or even the combination of both is often enough presented as one that is faced exclusively by women, and in this respect I agree with the e-letter already posted. Still, I can see how the authors have made an effort to present the problem from the women's point of view and hence have probably involuntarily regurgitated the notion that these are choices that primarily concern women. In my view as a science-career wannahave, this choice exists mainly because (1) we persist in dividing students and young scientists into males and females and hence fall in the trap of feminizing or masculinizing their problems and anxieties, (2) good motherhood is still generally judged on whether the woman would sacrifice her ambition for her family, whereas a man can simply be a great weekend dad, and (3) female scientists have to prove their devotion by making the "ultimate sacrifice," that is, to sacrifice their wish to have a family. Science is passion, vision, and life, and none of that is necessarily synonymous with sacrifice or compromise or misery for that matter. When the choices we make in life are choices we are willing to make, then they should be ones that make us happy. And science today needs happy, balanced people, men and women, to perform it.
Re: The inherent risks of a career in science 29 September 2005
Friederike Schlaghecken, Lecturer Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, UK Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: The inherent risks of a career in science	Gayle M Gordillo, “woman/wife/mother/surgeon,” is obviously right in stressing that a career in science might be difficult to reconcile with family life. However, the implication that this is a specific female problem strikes me as odd. Does not the "man/husband/father/surgeon" face the same risk? As a female scientist (and wife and mother), I find the tacit assumption hard to stomach that there is only one person –- the woman –- who is primarily responsible for the family. Do we really want to see and present ourselves and our families in this way? Are we not undermining our own position by perpetuating the myth that while a career man might be simply a dad, a career woman needs to be supermum? Isn' it bad enough that this is the reality for many, and even worse that it is the image held up by the media (in the form of the belittled figure of “the woman who wants to have it all”)? All the more reason to avoid at all costs contributing –- if only implicitly -– to such a caricature that only serves to scare away promising young female scientists!
Self-Empowerment by Female Scientists 29 September 2005
Clara B. Jones, Associate Professor of Psychology Fayetteville State (NC) University Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Self-Empowerment by Female Scientists	The advancement and success of women in science depends upon several factors as pointed out by Handelsman et al. ("More women in science," Policy Forum, 19 August, p. 1190). These authors identify the "pipeline," "climate" within the academy, "unconscious bias" by evaluators and colleagues, and the challenges of "balancing family and work" as major barriers to women's progress in scientific disciplines. The Policy Forum highlights several key individual and structural barriers for women who desire positions at competitive research universities, but their discussion fails to emphasize how women might empower themselves to attain rewarding and rewarded careers in the mainstream of science. For several years, I have been very interested and privileged to discuss issues related to career choice and success with women scientists in their child-bearing years. My admittedly biased sample suggests that few of these young women--independent of sexual orientation--desire the "80-hour week" characteristic of some male and female professionals in the university. Most of my correspondents anticipated and desired a "balance" between work and family responsibilities, although these well-trained young women also hoped to publish and to earn the respect of their peers. I am writing to suggest that many women could maximize their success as scientists if they had theoretical (mathematical, including statistical) expertise and were not wholly dependent upon very time- intense laboratory and/or field work to accrue a record of research and publication. Many aspects of theoretical work can also be accomplished at home on a computer or with pen, pad, and calculator, and I think that a strong argument can be made that theoretical work is more amenable to interruption--say by demanding 2 year olds. Early--and continued-- mentoring and training in mathematics and statistics, especially techniques of modeling and/or comparative approaches, would provide the necessary skills for a career as a theoretician or dependence upon theoretical publications during the child-bearing and -rearing periods-- periods not only when most women are likely to be responsible for duties related to child care but also when women may want to minimize time away from a "central place" (i.e., home). This suggestion does not imply that many other adjustments are not needed to facilitate women's success in "high-powered" scientific careers (e.g., on-site child care). The theoretical "pipeline," however, may prove an efficient, satisfying, and productive solution for some women until longer-range solutions are achieved.
Women Scientists Also Work Outside Academia 13 September 2005
Laurel Smith-Doerr, Assistant Professor Boston University, Department of Sociology Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Women Scientists Also Work Outside Academia	The Policy Forum by Handelsman et al. is much appreciated for its timeliness and attention to existing scholarly literature on women scientists in universities. I would like to add, however, that not all women scientists work in universities. According to the NSF's 2001 Survey of Doctoral Recipients, 23.7% of women with science Ph.D.'s work in private for-profit firms. Not only do we need to study industrial careers in their own right, but comparisons to alternative work settings for scientists can help us to better understand the barriers to women in universities. In my own research on life science careers, I found that women Ph.D.'s were nearly eight times more likely to be promoted to positions of authority in flexible, flatter, laterally connected biotechnology firms than in more hierarchical universities or drug companies. In other words, the organization of scientific work in less hierarchical, flexible modes is a key factor in promoting equity. Universities need to be restructured, in addition to the ways that Handelsman et al. suggest, at the level of work. (Imagine, for example, that instead of university labs falling into the pattern of "postdoc mills," there was support for an interuniversity network of Ph.D.'s of differing experience and backgrounds to contribute equally to topical projects). The universities that lead the way in diversity-promoting institutional change will also be the most innovative in creating scientific and technical knowledge.
The inherent risks of a career in science 13 September 2005
Gayle M Gordillo, plastic surgeon The Ohio State University Respond to this E-Letter: Re: The inherent risks of a career in science	I read your recent Policy Forum "More Women in Science" and felt compelled to respond. I am a woman/wife/mother/surgeon and NIH-funded investigator trying to develop a career as a translational research scientist and dealing with all the issues addressed in the article. The competitive nature of funding research endeavors drives the typical 60-hour work week of most scientists and poses a daunting hurdle for many women. I feel like my career is a constant gamble to strike the right balance between three things: (i) how much I must commit myself to my career in order to get tenured/remain a competitive scientist/earn enough clinical revenue; (ii) how much time and effort I give to my husband/ household to stay married; and (iii) how much time and effort I give to my children to guide their growth and development. I have a deep passion for science, which I am sure many other women share, but you have to combine it with the willingness to risk your marriage, your career, or the happiness and well-being of your children. It is easy to see why many women would choose not to confront those risks on a daily basis.