<p id="pp">We approached our Integrated Human Practices from two perspectives: the traditional, integrating the Human Practices into the lab project; and the unconventional, integrating the human practices into itself. We thought we could make the biggest impact in both Human Practices and the lab if we provided cohesive, reassured arguments for our methods. </p>
+
<h6>Lab Integration:</h6>
+
+
<p id="pp">By interviewing academic and industry researchers about their understanding of kill switches, we could analyse whether they are effective biosafety mechanisms and if they are appropriate for use in either industry or academic research.</p>
+
+
<p id="pp">Dr Tom Ellis influenced the design of our kill switches by corroborating our theory that multiple kill switches in one system would reduce the error rate significantly - creating a fail safe, in the same way that broad spectrum antibiotics significantly reduces the chances of failure. We had planned on making an operon of KillerOrange and KillerRed, to both broaden the spectrum of light at which the reactive oxygen species are produced, but also significantly reduce the error rates of one. Dr Ellis argued that multiple kill switches in one system might have “less than one in a billion escape rates”.</p>
+
+
<p id="pp">Due to time restraints with our project we decided to focus on providing significant analysis on the kill switches individually, however advice from Markus Geshater of Synthase Limited indicating that multiple kill switches in one system would be unfeasible and the different systems would need to be truly orthogonal to be effective. He explained that if in an industrial setting your synthetic system is producing a protein, then having one or multiple kill switches that are reliant on protein production would reduce the efficiency of production of your desired protein. Furthermore these kill switches could potentially be circumvented by the overexpression of a useful enzyme that is being commercially produced. Consequently, we felt assured in dropping the idea of a multiple kill switch system, because, as our kill switches rely heavily on protein production, and we want to provide analysis for future teams wanting to use kill switches in the future, if their synthetic systems relied on protein production, then our kill switches would be unfeasible. Instead we looked to design three distinct kill switches to test the efficiency of enzymatic, metabolic and DNA degradating mechanisms</p>
+
+
<h6>Outreach Integration:</h6>
+
+
<p id="pp">We have extensive public engagement and education work in our Human Practices section, focusing early on how to best to influence the public in both lower and higher education on engaging with and understanding synthetic biology. But for the equality and diversity section of the Human Practices, we needed to created a well reasoned and grounded project, which both highlights the work of academics at the university and shapes more grounded opinions of equality and diversity in science. Consequently, we wanted to integrate each individual interview into the next, drawing from ideas from previous interviews, so we could properly discuss the problem of gender inequality and the issues raised by both academics and students. This is the best way to create a discussion between the academics as they are providing analysis and personal insight on the opinion and experiences of the academic before. It also allows us to discuss in depth, issues such as the problems associated with maternity and paternity leave in science or the need for massive social and structural change.</p>
+
+
<p id="pp">We also wanted to go some way to integrate the public engagement and education sections into itself, evolving the project as we go. The board game developed through a series of prototypes to the version we have now; we plan on improving it after this year’s iGEM is concluded. The insight of the teachers and students at both the schools we visited and the science fairs shaped the we designed the gameplay of BioMech, as we used them as focus groups, testing all aspects of the board game. For example, from the first addition that we tested at The Judd School, whilst the students thought the 3D printed counters were a good and fun idea, they and the teachers recognised that they would be easily lost; as the game progressed, the game would become more cluttered with more counters used. Furthermore, the students found the original colour matching rules difficult to understand and so we simplified them. </p>
We approached our Integrated Human Practices from two perspectives: the traditional, integrating the Human Practices into the lab project; and the unconventional, integrating the human practices into itself. We thought we could make the biggest impact in both Human Practices and the lab if we provided cohesive, reassured arguments for our methods.
Lab Integration:
By interviewing academic and industry researchers about their understanding of kill switches, we could analyse whether they are effective biosafety mechanisms and if they are appropriate for use in either industry or academic research.
Dr Tom Ellis influenced the design of our kill switches by corroborating our theory that multiple kill switches in one system would reduce the error rate significantly - creating a fail safe, in the same way that broad spectrum antibiotics significantly reduces the chances of failure. We had planned on making an operon of KillerOrange and KillerRed, to both broaden the spectrum of light at which the reactive oxygen species are produced, but also significantly reduce the error rates of one. Dr Ellis argued that multiple kill switches in one system might have “less than one in a billion escape rates”.
Due to time restraints with our project we decided to focus on providing significant analysis on the kill switches individually, however advice from Markus Geshater of Synthase Limited indicating that multiple kill switches in one system would be unfeasible and the different systems would need to be truly orthogonal to be effective. He explained that if in an industrial setting your synthetic system is producing a protein, then having one or multiple kill switches that are reliant on protein production would reduce the efficiency of production of your desired protein. Furthermore these kill switches could potentially be circumvented by the overexpression of a useful enzyme that is being commercially produced. Consequently, we felt assured in dropping the idea of a multiple kill switch system, because, as our kill switches rely heavily on protein production, and we want to provide analysis for future teams wanting to use kill switches in the future, if their synthetic systems relied on protein production, then our kill switches would be unfeasible. Instead we looked to design three distinct kill switches to test the efficiency of enzymatic, metabolic and DNA degradating mechanisms
Outreach Integration:
We have extensive public engagement and education work in our Human Practices section, focusing early on how to best to influence the public in both lower and higher education on engaging with and understanding synthetic biology. But for the equality and diversity section of the Human Practices, we needed to created a well reasoned and grounded project, which both highlights the work of academics at the university and shapes more grounded opinions of equality and diversity in science. Consequently, we wanted to integrate each individual interview into the next, drawing from ideas from previous interviews, so we could properly discuss the problem of gender inequality and the issues raised by both academics and students. This is the best way to create a discussion between the academics as they are providing analysis and personal insight on the opinion and experiences of the academic before. It also allows us to discuss in depth, issues such as the problems associated with maternity and paternity leave in science or the need for massive social and structural change.
We also wanted to go some way to integrate the public engagement and education sections into itself, evolving the project as we go. The board game developed through a series of prototypes to the version we have now; we plan on improving it after this year’s iGEM is concluded. The insight of the teachers and students at both the schools we visited and the science fairs shaped the we designed the gameplay of BioMech, as we used them as focus groups, testing all aspects of the board game. For example, from the first addition that we tested at The Judd School, whilst the students thought the 3D printed counters were a good and fun idea, they and the teachers recognised that they would be easily lost; as the game progressed, the game would become more cluttered with more counters used. Furthermore, the students found the original colour matching rules difficult to understand and so we simplified them.
Equality and Diversity
Background
The fundamental reason for targeting equality and diversity within science, is that synthetic biology has the chance to be hierarchically and systematically equal from the beginning. If those working in the field can encourage the importance of diversity to younger generations, then when synthetic biology becomes more well recognised publicly as a field of science, it has the possibility of being known for its progressive nature towards gender, racial and socio-economical equality.
We started our work on Equality and Diversity after we spoke to Dr Robert Smith of Kings College London, at the UK iGEM meetup in Westminster. He spoke to us about our progress with Human Practices and some the successes we have already had, however he emphasised that our idea for a study into diversity and equality in science had not really been performed, to his knowledge, at iGEM before. We therefore thought that we have the possibility of making a significant impact in the field by highlighting and addressing some of the issues surrounding a lack of gender equality and diversity in science overall.
The original plan was to create a short video highlighting the some of the issues surrounding a lack of gender equality in science and demonstrating what synthetic biology could do to address these wider issues. Dr Smith encouraged that we could look more broadly at diversity in science as well, emphasising that the problem doesn’t just stem from gender inequality, but also from a lack of diversity in terms of ethnicity, religion, disability and background.
Using statistics gained from the Equality and Diversity office at the University of Exeter, and further statistics on gender inequality within the College of Life and Environmental Sciences (CLES) and the College of Engineering Mathematics and Physical Sciences (CEMPS) provided by Athena Swan, we want to highlight the problem with inequality and diversity to a wider audience.
We aim to achieve this by focusing on three distinct areas:
Firstly, the initial reaction of students and academics to the concept of gender inequality and diversity within science. With this we hope to gauge whether sexism in science is a widely recognised issue across the UK in higher education or if not enough is being done to publicise the problem. We also want to understand how the definition of diversity changes across the world.
Secondly, the work that is being done by academics at the University of Exeter to both publicise and change the problem of inequality within science. We want to use the statistics provided by the University Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity group and the Athena Swan group to understand how equality and diversity within science has changed over time. Furthermore we want to begin the discussion of what more can be done.
Thirdly, the role that students can have in promoting equality and diversity within various fields. We want to speak to student leaders about how they view the situation and what they think can be done to promote not just gender diversity but also diversity in terms of religion, ethnicity, disability and socio-economic background.
Through this work, we can open up the issue to a wider audiences, beyond just academics responsible for issues of equality and diversity within the department, to promote the fact that this is an issue that should be addressed by all.
Ultimately we want to leave a legacy that shows that we have made a significant impact locally but also opened up the discussion to a wider audience.
Does sexism in science exist?
Highlighting the issues:
We asked members of different iGEM teams their opinions and experiences of gender inequality in science to try to gauge, on a small scale, whether it is a widely recognised problem.
Although this is a difficult issue, it is one that needs to be resolved. We thought that by asking students without prior warning of the questions we could get a real understanding of their view of the issue without time to formulate a more PC version using data from the internet. We also wanted to capture their genuine reactions to the question of whether inequality in terms of gender in science exists to help us identify whether students are shocked by the idea of sexist biases in their field or if they have experienced it directly themselves. Obviously this is only small scale, but by asking students from across the UK we may be able to begin to understand how widespread the problem is known.
As a man, I have never experienced sexism towards me.
This was a feeling that was reflected in many of the interviews with male students, however for the majority, they still had more to say. Many of the male students interviewed, cited the gender inequality they observed as being prominent in the senior positions, with one student saying that “there is not enough female figures of authority in science, specifically in biology”. This is something that is easily observed within the university: when looking at professors in bioscience the majority of them are male. However this doesn’t mean that nothing is being done to change this, or that nothing has been done already to encourage more women into senior roles and this is something that we look into further with the second video.
Interestingly, male physics students had another view of gender inequality in science: one student saying “I was surprised by the amount of women in physics, even though it makes up a very small proportion” - they later went on to clarify by saying “I thought it would be less”. This is very poignant as it is an area physics governing bodies are trying very hard to address. There seems to be an innate understanding that fewer women are likely to take up physics at a degree level and we have heard stories of males being taken aside to discuss the prospect of physics degrees, with females not even considered by teachers.
The view that stood out the most came from a female student the University of Exeter’s team.
I definitely notice I get treated differently to some of the other males in the team.
Through highlighting the opinions of students in both our team and universities across the country, we have brought the issue of gender inequality home. There is no doubt that some students at University do not believe there is an issue, however the fact that there are people who have experienced it directly and students who have observed it indirectly, shows that there is at least an understanding of a wider problem. This initial understanding acts as a platform for us to talk to those at the university who are working on improving equality and diversity within Biosciences and Physics, as well as further emphasise the statistics that support the case for there being inequality in these fields.
What is being done?
Interview with Dr Andrew Griffiths - Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity lead for Biosciences at the University of Exeter:
On 24/08/16 we met with Dr Andrew Griffiths to talk about his role as the current Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity lead for Biosciences at the University and what he thinks could be done to improve these areas within the department. By talking to the point of contact to staff about these issues, we can understand what sort of issues are brought up recurringly, and what the university is doing to address these issues.
What I am really passionate about is trying to make sure there is greater equality in terms of diversity across the board, in terms of race and sexuality and making sure the working practices are as flexible as possible.
We asked Dr Griffiths what we could do to encourage greater diversity in science and he responded by saying that it’s less about encouraging a greater recruitment drive for people in terms of sexuality or religion, but more about ensuring there is flexibility and understanding of the pressures and unique difficulties associated. To encourage more people to be openly expressive about their identity we need to make sure “all the people in the workplace feel respected”.
Because of this, we realised that we can’t approach the apparent lack of diversity in STEM in the same way as we might with gender inequality in science. Whilst there are specific problems with encouraging more females to take physics at A level and take physics degrees, the issue of diversity is more complex.
We have a high proportion of women in the undergraduate biology programmes to men, the critical point is after the undergraduate degree, after the post doctorate training.
This statement is concurrent with the observations made by the students in the video highlighting initial observations of sexism in science. Dr Griffiths went on to infer that a leading factor for this might be related to women wanting to have a family at this stage.
From our own personal experience, in Britain it is almost always encouraged for women to take maternity leave and seen as strange for the male parent to take equivalent time. According to Gov.uk, employees can choose to take either 1 week or 2 consecutive weeks’ paternity leave however the statutory maternity leave is 52 weeks - just by observation, this is clearly unequal. Comparing this to Sweden, parents are given 480 days paternity leave, where parents are encouraged to share this between them. Recent legislation has changed this so that shared parental leave is an option, according to Gov.uk parents can take the rest of the 52 weeks of maternity or adoption leave as Shared Parental Leave. Questions should be asked however, about whether the government is doing enough to promote shared parental leave as opposed to individual maternity or paternity leave.
Perhaps we should trying to promote paternity leave allowing flexibility for men to look after the children so the burden doesn’t fall on women all the time.
Dr Griffiths further emphasised that one of the factors for fewer women at levels after post-doctorate, might be because of the burden Britain places on maternity leave and how unstable jobs in academia might dissuade women from taking positions higher up. We identified this as an issue to look further into as it is something that is theoretically, relatively easy for the government and governing science bodies to address, considering countries like Sweden are setting the example of equal maternity and paternity leave.
Dr Griffiths acts as a lead for Bioscience in the Athena Swan group, and he emphasised the kind of difference Athena Swan has made for improving gender equality at the university. One of the key impacts of the group is that it has provided junior academics mentors and role models that give them more confidence to put themselves up for promotion. He highlighted how this is a difficult issue to address as a man, without sounding patronising, but it is an important one.
From this meeting we were able to narrow down a few areas to discuss:
A potential lack of confidence in women and how that might affect their decision to apply for more senior roles and the importance of role models on encouraging confidence
The issue of maternity and paternity leave and how that might affect women’s decisions to take fixed term post-doctorate positions
How to ensure there is flexibility in the workplace to accommodate all
Meeting with Dr Eduarda Santos - former Equality and Diversity lead for Biosicences
On 26/09/16, we met with Dr Eduarda Santos to follow up on some of the questions raised in the meeting with Dr Andrew Griffiths and get a different perspective on the issue of gender inequality in science. In initial email conversations with Dr Santos, she made us aware of certain views that her local community imposed upon her when she was having a child.
You don’t love your child enough, to give up your job for your child
This opinion is shocking and almost unbelievable that someone would question her commitment to her family and her love for her child because of her decisions about not giving up her career to devote full attention to her child. The consequences of views like these are quite severe, in that it can seriously affect the mental health of an individual. When asked whether by putting such societal pressure on women, whether mental health issues can arrive, she said yes, there is a lot of social pressure put on young mums which can lead to diseases like depression.
Consequently, we are again led to question whether shared parental leave would relieve some of this pressure put on women? In fact, the ‘Swedish model’ of parental leave and balancing career with family commitments shows some very desirable qualities that employers would look for: ability to multitask (especially under pressure), commitment to career, etc. However, Dr Santos warned us about attributing the fact that fewer women are taking up jobs in higher up roles within Bioscience to maternity leave - Maternity is an easy excuse.
Dr Santos emphasised that just because it seems like there is a correlation between fewer women taking roles beyond post-doctorate level and women wanting to start a family, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this is the only explanation.
The difficult bit is changing the attitude of supervisors to post docs...men specifically but also women - who don’t realise it, but can be very discriminatory (too)
The need for supervisors to act as role models to young, inspiring post-docs is very apparent, especially as role models are so important for undergraduates and postgraduates, so why should this stop at levels beyond this?
To conclude this meeting, we asked Dr Santos what she thinks needs to be done to improve gender equality in science and her response was thus:
“Social change” - on a massive scale, ie structural change within Britain to encourage a more inclusive environment for all.
“Discussions with undergraduates” - opening up communications with students to publicise the problems of gender inequality in science, but also to highlight what students can do.
“Empowering (women) to better deal with pressures” - potentially through more advice from senior role models
“Free choice as opposed to social pressure” - emphasising the importance of giving a distinct voice to women, so they can make decisions about their own life, career and family without local, social pressures.
Meeting with Dr Ceri Lewis - Senior lecturer in marine biology and tutor
Following the meeting with Dr Eduarda Santos on 26/09/16, we had another meeting with Dr Ceri Lewis. Dr Andrew Griffiths recommended we speak to Dr Lewis because he believed she would have an interesting perspective on gender inequality, having been aware of her own, and her students experiences on the matter. Dr Lewis had taken part in programmes, like the Aurora leadership programme, run by the University to improve attitudes to gender equality as well as give more confidence to women in their own abilities.
As Dr Santos talked about how women can also be very discriminatory, we were shocked to hear Dr Lewis’ personal experience of the effects of discrimination by a female role model.
She spoke of her PhD student who was an incredibly intelligent individual however lacked confidence in presentation skills. Dr Lewis stated that her worries were needless because her work had already been published, and it was at an extremely high quality in a very good journal, but she was still anxious and fiddled with her hair throughout her presentation. Despite the fact the presentation went well, a woman came up to her afterwards and said:
She would never make it in science unless she learnt to give a talk without sounding like a silly little school girl
This is shocking to think that a female role model would feel this is an appropriate comment for a nervous but aspiring young, female scientist. Dr Lewis argued that you could never imagine a man being told he gave a bad talk because of a mannerismnever imagine a man being told he gave a bad talk because of a mannerism and this kind of advice and influence has the potential to destroy all confidence in an individual.
Confidence is something Dr Lewis stressed needed addressing. In the initial interview with Dr Griffiths, he spoke of the difficulty in addressing womens’ confidence and how it might affect them applying to senior roles, however here, Dr Lewis argued that good role models and mentors are required throughout a student’s life to guide them in the right direction and to give them the confidence in their own abilities from the beginning.
We have to question what is the problem with confidence and how can we solve it? Dr Lewis said:
To succeed in academia, you have to be willing to put your head above the parapet, and talk, and tell people about what you do and why you’re great
Considering the problems that we have heard from different academics at the university about establishing yourself in science as a woman, it is understandable why this in-built confidence in your own ability is very hard to attain. Interestingly Dr Lewis highlighted that there is an ingrained difference and that many academic situations are built around the male world. For example, presentations. She had observed many male tutees stand up and be naturally confident in their ability to talk in front of a crowd, however, she noted that it is more intimidating for the female tutees. Consequently, we have to consider if universities are doing enough to promote confidence in all students.
There was a statistic, highlighted by Dr Lewis, that if men and women were applying for the same job, the male candidates would tend to apply if they met 5 out of the 10 criteria whereas the female candidates would only apply if they had met 9 or all 10 criteria. Considering this, it seems that higher institutions are not doing enough to inspire confidence in all their students and there is this bias towards one gender.
It is the unconscious bias that is holding people back now
The unconscious bias is a well-established concept which states that our brains make quick assessments and judgements about people, places and concepts without us being aware of it. Shaking the unconscious bias would potentially spell the end to ‘accidental’ inequality and sexism, in that people would no longer be unaware of certain actions that are offensive towards others. Dr Lewis argued that a lot of sexism in science is due to the unconscious bias but because of it, women have to work harder to be taken seriously and it’s really difficult to do anything about. Both Dr Santos and Dr Griffiths talked about the need for a massive social and structural change in science and in society for there a reversal of gender inequality and lack of diversity and this idea of the need to eradicate the unconscious bias compounds these thoughts.
When we spoke to the students asking their opinions on gender inequality in science, many commented on their observations of fewer women at higher levels of academia and how they didn’t know why the distribution was like this.
It really kicks in PhD/postdoc level when you’re asked to talk a lot more and it becomes much more part of how people perceive how good you are
Dr Lewis indicated that a reason why fewer women stay in science at higher levels might be because of how they are perceived by peers and how they are judged for what they do. She said at undergraduate level...people can hide behind their computers however at more senior levels, more is weighted on how you present your data and thus you cannot hide in an anonymous essay. She said at the Aurora Leadership programme, she was surrounded by incredibly intelligent and important female scientists however every single one of them said they suffered from imposter syndrome at some point during their career. We therefore again have to question why there is this inherent lack of confidence and whether an undergraduate degree does enough to prepare students for their futures. Dr Lewis talked of her Masters student, a very intelligent woman who had published three papers whilst undergoing the Masters degree; who could have walked into any top quality PhD position. When she asked her about the prospect of future study, the student said:
I’m not sure I’m good enough
It is difficult to listen to all these accounts of the lack of confidence that female students and academics have in themselves and say convincingly that people are trying their hardest to stop this from being the case. Confidence is a real issue, and the consequences of a lack of confidence can be devastating.
In both the meetings with Dr Griffiths and Dr Santos we talked about the problem of maternity leave. Dr Griffiths proposed that more should be done to promote a parental leave, shared between both parents, relieving some of the stress and tensions normally felt by the woman during the early periods of family life. Dr Santos provided a very interesting and shocking account of how she was judged for her decisions on balancing family and career. Dr Lewis talked about her experiences of her friends who had left the country to go to Sweden for their Post-doctorate fixed term jobs:
Because they could have families...they could share leave...the paid time off was greater and that meant their ability to continue their career progression was better as a result
If academics are leaving the country to have better quality of life for them and their families then we need to take a hard look at our education system and university career progression. Dr Lewis did stress, however, that:
In the last few years, we have done an awful lot
It might seem that from these shocking personal accounts of gender inequality and ingrained lack of confidence in female students, nothing is being done by the university to make a difference, however with the work of Athena Swan, more women are getting a voice in science. The university are encouraging leadership and mentoring courses for women so they can compete with all their peers. All three of Dr Griffiths, Dr Santos and Dr Lewis have highlighted the work of the University on improving equality, diversity and inclusivity but it must not be forgotten that there is still inherent gender inequality and as Dr Lewis showed, intelligent female scientists still feel unworthy of applying for top quality jobs in science. This is something that needs to change.
Meeting with Dr Sharon Dixon - Head of the Inclusivity Group at the University of Exeter
On 27/09/16 we spoke to Dr Sharon Dixon, a senior lecturer in Sport and Health Science and current head of the Inclusivity Group at the University of Exeter, for her experiences of gender inequality and her view of what needs to be done to change the lack of diversity in science. Dr Dixon’s views compounded many that we had heard from the interviews with both students and academics over the process. Whilst Dr Lewis spoke positively about how much the university had progressed over the last few years in terms of equality and diversity, Dr Dixon commented on how bad the problem was before:
There was no recognised mechanism for reporting back to anybody, we didn’t really know who we were reporting to.
What was surprising was how long ago this was - only around 7 years. In that sense, the university, and universities in general, have come a long way in the last 7 years, coming from a system where the main role of the head of Equality and Diversity was receiving emails from students who require extra time in exams, which many would argue isn’t related at all to Equality and Diversity. Dr Dixon did warn however that:
By having Athena Swan, gender has taken over and has become the only issue
This confirms some of our fears about the fight to change equality and diversity in science. when we began working on equality and diversity, we had the view to look at diversity in science as a whole, however, the more people we spoke to the more we looked into gender inequality and the more we saw how much of a problem it was. Therefore we can understand why the university would be focusing so much on improving gender equality, however if gender has become the only issue then we cannot condone that. Dr Dixon went on to talk about the new Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity group was set up to combat other issues like disability, sexuality and ethnicity.
This university is very very positive, there is that support structure at this university
Dr Dixon echoed many of the views raised by Dr Lewis, of the importance of role models and mentors to the development of both students and academic staff. Dr Dixon did stress however that mentors and role models do not need to be gender specific, and this may be a way of changing the more unconscious biases in gender. If we encourage people that a mentor can be someone who has experience of certain experiences that you require help with, no matter the gender, then you might be able to reduce the pressure on certain individuals.
Seeing a male role model that has taken time off for reasons of child care would be just as powerful or even more powerful for males and females
From the initial interview with Dr Griffiths, to the interview with Dr Lewis, all academics have spoken about giving women more confidence in putting themselves up for promotion, however, Dr Dixon had a different perspective. She recognised that more needs to be done to give support to women and give them confidence to apply for more senior roles, however, she indicated that university culture was actually affecting the health of men, due to the pressure of promotion:
There are more young male (staff at Sport science) who are under pressure from the culture of the university to consider progression in terms of promotion, all the time
This makes us question whether we are doing enough to support staff of both genders in applying for promotion and if the focus on changing female attitudes to career progression and confidence is at the expense of male staff health and mental health. Consequently, we come back to the idea of a massive social and structural change that is necessary for there to be any progress in equality and diversity. It is more than just changing maternity/paternity support to parental leave, to which Dr Dixon emphasised the Scandinavian model is brilliant - and it’s more than just trying to alter people’s unconscious bias about gender - we need to consider changing societal judgements for the sake of health and mental health as well.
The social pressure that males can feel under to be the main bread winner is quite strong
This echoes what Dr Santos said about how maternity leave allows for a lot of social pressure on young mums. Consequently, we think that society needs to look hard at how the pressure is affecting all, especially young people in the developmental stage of adulthood.
Dr Dixon gave us a lot to consider for there to be a significant move in the right direction in equality issues. Our take home messages from the meeting were that:
“Only one person to do it and be positive about it for there to be a significant change”
“It’s not something that can be changed overnight”
Most gratifyingly, we asked Dr Dixon what more students can do to to improve equality and diversity, not just in science, but in general; her response was thus:
The kind of thing you are doing, what you are doing is drawing attention to it
Meeting with Dr Rob Wilson - Chair of Athena Swan Working Group at University of Exeter
On 27/09/16 we spoke to Dr Rob Wilson, a senior lecturer in Conservation Biology and current chair of Athena Swan working group at the University of Exeter, so we could see some statistics and figures behind the accounts we had heard. We also wanted to hear his opinion on the state of gender inequality in science and what he thinks needs to be done in the future, for there to be a significant improvement.
One of the areas Dr Sharon Dixon focused strongly on in our meeting with her, was how much the University had changed in 7 years. The Equality and Diversity department was once a department that dealt with people who required extra time during exams, yet now is concerned with issues of equality, diversity and inclusivity, trying to ensure the environment at the University is as welcoming to all students and staff as possible. Dr Wilson also commented saying that despite the fact that in permanent staff twenty-five percent are female this is a considerable improvement from where the situation was about five or six years ago however both ourselves and Dr Wilson agreed that there is much to be improved upon.
If you’re female in Biosciences here, you’re three times more likely to be part time than if you’re a male member of staff in the department
Dr Wilson provided us with some statistics that we weren’t aware of. The fact that considerably more women are working part time at the university than males is shocking when you consider that other than maternity leave, there is no obvious stand out reason for this. Dr Wilson questioned why there is a clear distinction between the number of females and number of male staff working in permanent positions at the University, suggesting that maternity could have a large role in that. However, we have to consider what Dr Eduarda Santos said about the fact that maternity is an easy excuse to explain these figures. Dr Wilson gave another account of an excellent female MSc student who was affected by a lack of confidence, echoing the accounts heard from Dr Ceri Lewis. The student said to him:
So whilst I’m doing my MSc I’m deciding whether I should do a PhD or whether I should have children because people have told me that you can’t do a PhD and have children.
The fact that this student was questioning whether to pursue a career in science further, or have a family is shocking and further emphasises what was said in the meeting with Dr Eduarda Santos. Furthermore, if role models and mentors around her were saying that it is impossible to do both and have a career, then we are left questioning again what can we do to change the attitudes of males and females alike? We need to emphasise that it is possible to have a family and a career and that higher positions in science aren’t just male roles. Dr Wilson highlighted for academic jobs in Bioscience at the University:
Thirty percent of the job applications are from female applicants, and about seventy percent of the applications come from male applicants.
We have to question whether this is symptomatic of inherent gender inequality in science, or if there are genuinely fewer women that want to apply for academic jobs in Bioscience at the University. Could this be due to a bias at the application processing stage of the process or is there some kind of unconscious bias involved that could be affecting this?
If you are seeing fewer seminars given by female scientists, if you’re simply seeing fewer female professors there than male professors, does that make you think that’s not me.
Dr Wilson highlighted that one of the main aims in the intermediate term for the Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity group was to improve the number of seminars led by women so that they can inspire more young female scientists into the more senior roles of academia. In the long run, he said we’re just aiming to increase the proportion of female academic staff. Dr Wilson emphasised that role models and improving confidence will significantly help improving the gender distribution at the University.
It’s a lot to do with role models and making sure there are excellent female role models out there who can show people it’s not just to do with stooped old men in long white lab coats
What is interesting is that whilst Dr Wilson stressed the need for more excellent female role models, Dr Sharon Dixon highlighted that it isn’t necessary to have ‘female’ role models as such, but to have good role models of either gender that the student or academic can relate to. What we have found through this series of interviews is that there are female role models out there, it’s showing them that they are the role models that is the difficult part. People have biases for what they think a role model is, similar to the unconscious biases of what a Professor is or a female academic is. Dr Wilson said well it doesn’t surprise me that our young female scientists are perhaps less interested (in senior roles) if the image we have of a professor is a man in a suit or a white coat with little round glasses and a bald head. The unconscious bias has been highlighted as one of the main areas to tackle in order to change gender inequality in science and this must be involved in the massive social and structural change of in attitudes to gender equality and diversity.
Conclusively, Dr Wilson highlighted that one of the big aims of this is to make sure that the student and staff population feels empowered so that students and staff can challenge people if they are making inappropriate comments and those that cause offense. As both Dr Lewis and Dr Dixon both highlighted, giving women the confidence to represent themselves and the confidence to challenge for important senior roles, is incredibly important to improving immediate attitudes to gender equality.
Dr Wilson left us with some really key points:
He highlighted that there needs to be a massive social and structural change in science for that to be a significant difference in gender equality and we need to reevaluate how we are presenting professorship and senior roles in science.
Having the opportunity for shared parental leave, equalising the time available for maternity and maternity support is really important to make sure that people don’t really get left behind.Which clearly echoes the points of all of the academics we have spoken to about maternity and paternity leave.
Really importantly, Dr Wilson stressed that:
We need to make sure really that from the moment the undergraduate students walk in through the door of the university that they can see that being a scientist, being an academic, is not a male job and there’s no reason why it should be.
What is ‘diversity’?
The Gender Study - A Future Project
Paris Bettencourt in 2013 provided a detailed study of gender distribution in synthetic biology and iGEM. They found that women were not as represented as men within iGEM and equally there were fewer female supervisors of iGEM teams. They provided data to suggest that there is a significantly higher proportion of women to men in teams that win prizes compared with teams that don’t. They concluded their study with suggestions of how to improve the gender distribution within synthetic biology and iGEM, proposing that bonus points could given to teams with female supervisors, and iGEM should promote larger teams with more female judges, in the hope that this would improve the gender distribution within teams.
Our aim was to conduct a follow up study, looking at the distribution of male to female students and supervisors in iGEM teams in 2016. We wanted to compare the statistics to those gathered in 2013 to determine whether Paris Bettencourt’s Gender Study was successful in improving equality within iGEM. Then, if our study showed that there was a significant balancing of the distribution then it could indicate that small, impactful studies, like Paris Bettencourt’s, could be the key to improving gender distribution and diversity within the field and thus more teams should take up the mantle and work to improve equality and diversity. If, however, there was no significant improvement, then we would have to question whether this is due to a lack of follow on studies compounding the data, or if small scale studies, performed by iGEM teams, can ever be enough to make a significant change in the field.
Due to time restraints, we will be unable to undertake this follow-up gender study, however we challenge future iGEM teams, who struggle with Human Practices, to look at the impact they could make locally and nationally in equality and diversity, and perform a follow up study to Paris Bettencourt’s from 2013. We believe that iGEM teams have a fantastic opportunity to make a significant difference in this areas by highlighting the work of academics and researchers at their university working to achieve greater equality in their field of science, or in science as a whole. We also challenge iGEM to look more at ways of improving and encouraging greater diversity, so that synthetic biology can be recognised as a positive, progressive field of science and one that acts as a representative to the individual core subjects that make up it.
