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