A female road of science
Dr Monica Zoppè writes: The Nature News story 'Applicants challenge male order at Howard Hughes' (Nature 447, 242-243; 17 May 2007) highlights only some aspects of the gender imbalance that dominates the science system everywhere. All scientific funding agencies distribute money on the basis of competition, which is an attitude typical of males. Women are more inclined to collaboration than competition, and if forced to compete do so reluctantly. Some refuse even to take part, hence relegating themselves to the lower steps of the career ladder.
Women often feel that competition can easily degenerate into rivalry and open hostility, which is damaging to everyone, but is an issue often overlooked by men. If Howard Hughes, or any other funding agency, really believes that scientific excellence is equally distributed among men and women, then the best way to grant women their share of funding (50%) would be to have separate distribution avenues: one for men, in which male scientists set the rules and judge applications; and one for women, managed by and dedicated to female scientists.
This would be a very bold and unusual move for any funding agency, and it would need to run for several years before women could define a 'female road of science' independent of the typical 'competition road' to which we have had to adapt until now. Yet it may eventually allow women to demonstrate that a different attitude is possible, scientifically as good, or even better. Of course, it is necessary to define terms like 'success' or 'good science' according to a more (gender)-balanced value system: I am sure that many women are ready to participate in such a discussion, if it is started.
Monica Zoppè
Institute of Clinical Physiology
Pisa, Italy
Comments
Although I think Dr Zoppè's generalization about gender and competition is accurate enough to be useful, it is not the whole story. There are some men -- I am one! -- who dislike and distrust the level of competition in science today. There is increasing recognition among both male and female scientists that the current system is broken, and that a collaborative model would be vastly preferable -- see, for instance, this recent post right here on Nautilus, or Jean-Claude Bradley's Open Notebook Science efforts.
Having said that, I want explicitly to avoid making this comment another "what about the men?" whine of the sort that usually appear on any post where a woman points out inequities in the system. If a separate funding mechanism, run by and dedicated to female scientists, should come to be, I would be sorry to be trapped by my Y chromosome in the other, competitive, track -- but I would not oppose the new system in the slightest. Since my hypothesis is that greater emphasis on cooperation over competition would vastly improve the infrastructure of science, such a system as Dr Zoppè proposes can only benefit me as a test of that hypothesis.
Posted by: Bill Hooker | June 28, 2007 04:44 PM
I'm not sure separate but equal will work. I think women and other non white male humans are fully capable of doing excellent science if given the opportunity. I favor developing recruitment and offering their share of funding as an incentive. If their fair share of funding goes unused let it accummulate until there is sufficant incentive.
Posted by: Curt Webber | July 2, 2007 01:16 AM
Bill,
Thanks for mentioning UsefulChem as an example of open collaborative science. Indeed, the division really comes down to work style, not gender (even if there is some correlation between work style and gender).
A major difficulty with using the present funding system with open science projects is the way success is defined and assessed. Projects that meet and exceed their objectives on time or ahead of schedule are considered successful and researchers develop good track records in repeating that performance. It is thus only logical to write proposals for work that has largely already been done and this is a commonly used low-risk strategy when applying for funding. Doing science in a truly open way does not permit that and makes it more challenging to secure funding within the current system.
Posted by: Jean-Claude Bradley | July 4, 2007 11:40 AM
I think the discussion has drifted away from its original subject: the gender imbalance in scientific careers, and how to possibly correct it.
Now, as decision makers on this subject are (typically) males, I doubt that my proposal will ever be even considered.
I have never met anyone prepared to spontaneusly give up thier privileges, (except saints that have existed occasionally in human history), and i do not expect changes in the funding system at this time.
Here we are, locked in the system, forced to play male-games, with all the penalties of belonging to a different category.
Sorry for the generalizations, of course it's not all black&white, and I also want to stress that I do not attach any judgment to the different attitudes: they are just different, not better or worse, but maybe more adapted to different situations.
Apparently research is a competitive game...
Regards,
monica
Posted by: Monica | September 13, 2007 03:18 PM
It has been my personal experience that women are more inclined to engage in collaborative efforts. In my dissertation research on a Web environment for distributive collaborative research, I spent some time attempting to gather research that supported that view. I found no social science research that supported that view, but found much unsupported opinion in the business literature. Has anyone found good evidence?
Posted by: Charles S. Hendricksen | September 24, 2007 07:10 PM