<p id="pp">We have extensive public engagement and education work in our Human Practices section. We focused early on how to best to influence the public in both lower and higher education with regards to engaging and understanding synthetic biology. 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 educated opinions on equality and diversity in science. Consequently, we aimed 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. We found this to be the best way to create a discussion between the academics as they are providing analysis and personal insight on the opinion based on their experiences and the experiences of the previous academics. This approach also allowed us to discuss in depth issues such as the problems associated with maternity and paternity leave in science and whether there is a need for massive social and structural change.</p>
+
−
+
−
<p id="pp">We also wanted to integrate the public engagement and education sections into themselves and as a consequence evolve the project as we went. Our board game, BioMech, was developed through a series of prototypes to the version we have now. We plan on further it after this year’s iGEM is concluded. The insight of the teachers and students at both the schools we visited as well as the science fairs shaped the way we designed the gameplay of BioMech. We used the people attending these events as focus groups, testing all aspects of BioMech. For example, from our first test at The Judd School we realised that even though we like using 3D printed shapes as counters, they cluttered the board space too much. The teachers also brought up how the counters would be easily lost or how they were even potential choking hazards. As a result we got rid of them. Furthermore, the students found the original colour matching rules difficult to understand and so we simplified them. </p>
<p id="pp">We have extensive public engagement and education work in our Human Practices section. We focused early on how to best to influence the public in both lower and higher education with regards to engaging and understanding synthetic biology. 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 educated opinions on equality and diversity in science. Consequently, we aimed 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. We found this to be the best way to create a discussion between the academics as they are providing analysis and personal insight on the opinion based on their experiences and the experiences of the previous academics. This approach also allowed us to discuss in depth issues such as the problems associated with maternity and paternity leave in science and whether there is a need for massive social and structural change.</p>
+
+
<p id="pp">We also wanted to integrate the public engagement and education sections into themselves and as a consequence evolve the project as we went. Our board game, BioMech, was developed through a series of prototypes to the version we have now. We plan on further it after this year’s iGEM is concluded. The insight of the teachers and students at both the schools we visited as well as the science fairs shaped the way we designed the gameplay of BioMech. We used the people attending these events as focus groups, testing all aspects of BioMech. For example, from our first test at The Judd School we realised that even though we like using 3D printed shapes as counters, they cluttered the board space too much. The teachers also brought up how the counters would be easily lost or how they were even potential choking hazards. As a result we got rid of them. Furthermore, the students found the original colour matching rules difficult to understand and so we simplified them. </p>
+
+
<h5>Background</h5>
<p id="pp">
<p id="pp">
The fundamental reason we have 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 better 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.
The fundamental reason we have 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 better 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 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 for a multiple kill switch system because our kill switches relied heavily on protein production and thus would reduce the efficiency of the product in an industrial setting. Instead of looking at multiple kill switches in the same system we looked to design three distinct kill switches to test and compare the efficiency of enzymatic, metabolic and DNA degrading mechanisms
Equality and Diversity
S3
Outreach Integration:
We have extensive public engagement and education work in our Human Practices section. We focused early on how to best to influence the public in both lower and higher education with regards to engaging and understanding synthetic biology. 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 educated opinions on equality and diversity in science. Consequently, we aimed 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. We found this to be the best way to create a discussion between the academics as they are providing analysis and personal insight on the opinion based on their experiences and the experiences of the previous academics. This approach also allowed us to discuss in depth issues such as the problems associated with maternity and paternity leave in science and whether there is a need for massive social and structural change.
We also wanted to integrate the public engagement and education sections into themselves and as a consequence evolve the project as we went. Our board game, BioMech, was developed through a series of prototypes to the version we have now. We plan on further it after this year’s iGEM is concluded. The insight of the teachers and students at both the schools we visited as well as the science fairs shaped the way we designed the gameplay of BioMech. We used the people attending these events as focus groups, testing all aspects of BioMech. For example, from our first test at The Judd School we realised that even though we like using 3D printed shapes as counters, they cluttered the board space too much. The teachers also brought up how the counters would be easily lost or how they were even potential choking hazards. As a result we got rid of them. Furthermore, the students found the original colour matching rules difficult to understand and so we simplified them.
Background
The fundamental reason we have 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 better 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 of the successes we had already had. 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, much like our work on the importance of understanding what a kill switch is. We therefore thought that we have the possibility of making a significant impact in this 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 could be done in synthetic biology to address these issues. Dr Smith encouraged us to 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 the University of Exeter as a case study for universities in the UK, we want to highlight if there is a problem with diversity and inequality by exposing the issue 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.
S4
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 recurring issues are brought up, 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 try 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
S5
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.
We were 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, aspiring 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 as follows:
“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.
S6
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 learns to give a talk without sounding like a silly little schoolgirl
It is shocking to think that a female role model would feel this is an appropriate comment for a nervous, but aspiring, young scientist. Dr Lewis argued that you could never 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 a 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.
S7
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 areas 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
S8
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.
S9
Meeting with Professor Michelle Ryan - Professor of Social and Organisational Psychology, Dean of Postgraduate Research and Director of University of Exeter Doctoral College
On 27/09/16 we concluded our research of highlighting the work of academics at the University of Exeter in equality and diversity. We interviewed Professor Michelle Ryan a Professor of Social and Organisational Psychology, Dean of Postgraduate Research and Director of University of Exeter Doctoral College about her research, what she believes the problem is of equality in science and how we can improve equality and diversity overall.
Professor Ryan is an incredibly inspirational woman and true role model for all, who we spoke to for over an hour. Her research into the ‘Glass Cliff’ is groundbreaking, highlighting the fact that those women who break through the glass ceiling are put in leadership roles in times of crisis or risk meaning they are expected to fail. Professor Ryan’s insight will help conclude our research as she can provide both statistics and reasoned arguments, due to her extensive research into this topic.
We need to almost embed an Athena swan ethos in everything we do
Professor Michelle Ryan had previously been heavily involved in the Athena Swan group and highlighted its importance in improving gender equality and diversity at the university and nationwide. Dr Dixon had commented that her department was trying to implement equality and diversity ethos directly into their work so they can drive forward changing attitudes in the College of Life and Environmental Sciences, however Professor Ryan suggested that Athena Swan activities and attitudes should implemented in not just the core sciences but also our own attitudes to work. She believed the reason why gender was being targeted so prominently at this university was because the has become a lot more visible and people have been more empowered to comment on the problem and act against it.
We know fifty percent of our student body are women so if you going to address one type of inequality that affects everyone, everyone is of a certain gender so it affects absolutely everyone
This provided us with a good answer for why the university was focusing so much attention on gender inequality and seemingly putting the changing of other forms of diversity on the back burner, that we hadn’t considered. But Professor Ryan did inform us that the University are in fact working hard to improve diversity as a whole at the university with the rise of groups like Stonewall, who fight for equality in terms of sexuality, but also programmes that look to improve racial and religious equality too. The conclusive point we were left with from Dr Wilson, was that we should make the whole University an inclusive and accepting place for all, recognising that science and scientific degrees are not gender specific subjects. Professor Ryan further emphasised this point, commenting that by embedding the ethos of Athena Swan into all our actions, we can make ensure the University is distinctly inclusive.
One of the main themes that has been recurring throughout this research highlighting equality and diversity at the university, has been the issue of the confidence of women. Professor Ryan had an alternative perspective to the majority of the academics we have met with. She highlighted that the issue with all the programme giving women leadership training and more confidence in their own abilities, is the fact that there is a fine line between improving and intervening.
I worry about them a little bit when they come across as trying to fix women as if there is something wrong
In the very first interview with Dr Griffiths, he suggested this same problem, that as a man he was uncomfortable with coming across in a patronising manner when trying to address issues of confidence in women. Dr Lewis argued that increasing the number of quality role models surrounding female staff and students is the key to improving confidence in areas like presentations and public speaking. However, here, Professor Ryan argued that you are in danger of coming across to women like so you don't know how to lead so we'll teach you how to lead properly or you're not pushy enough so we'll teach you to be more pushy. We hadn’t considered this perspective because of the personal accounts academics like Dr Lewis had shared about the importance of programmes for improving confidence in how it empowers women to respect themselves more. Furthermore, Professor Ryan applied this to the application process of jobs. It is recognised that men will apply for jobs if they meet some of the criteria whereas women tend to apply if they have met all, or almost all, of the criteria.
Another way you could see that is there is a problem with men, men putting themselves forward when actually they're not qualified
Professor Ryan argues that the problem shouldn’t necessarily be tackled by giving women more courses on leadership, confidence and empowerment, but perhaps we should be changing the attitudes of men. We talked with all the academics about what kind of social change is necessary for there to be a difference in equality and diversity in science, and Professor Ryan indicates that we should consider putting the same kind of focus on changing male attitudes to confidence as we are with women, except with the opposite circumstance.
If I put myself on the side of someone hiring I actually want someone who's actually qualified for the job
We would think that a way to make an immediate difference on this front would be to give the right kind of role models and mentors to people so to dissuade them from applying for a job if they are very under qualified, and likewise persuade people to apply for the job if they are qualified. Dr Sharon Dixon argued that these mentors don’t need to be of any one gender or any one background, just as long as they can relate to the person involved. Professor Ryan agreed with this perspective saying:
Any given individual may need to look to three or four different role models so they may need to look at someone as a scientist and then someone as a supervisor and then someone who has a good work life balance
This perspective is one we agree with, because it is unrealistic to believe that there is one individual for all, who can act as a multi-purpose role model. Another area where both Dr Dixon and Professor Ryan agreed was in the fact that the mentor could be at any level including direct peers we need to make sure we’ve got a variety of visible role models. Over the process of these interviews, the idea of a good role model has changed from being someone who just inspires an individual to do something, to a necessary part of every student and academics life. For improving equality and diversity, having a ‘diverse’ range of role models surrounding every individual already promotes diversity on the small scale, and could affect people’s preconceptions about gender equality up the levels in science. Professor Ryan highlighted:
(You can’t) just (say) this woman has been successful in science isn't she great, you really want to say anyone can be successful
As a society, we need to make sure that when it comes to role models, we are not just highlighting individuals who are successful in science, we want to people who are relatable, successful, interesting and engaging. Furthermore, this affects how we approach maternity and paternity leave in science. There is already a bias among men and women, that women take time off to have the child and men continue to be the breadwinner. Dr Dixon talked about the pressures men were under to provide for the family so soon after childbirth and the conflict this might cause in the family. This is especially shown if both partners were scientists as the male would pull ahead in terms of numbers of publications and academic impact and the female partner may be left feeling like an add-on to the career of the male partner. Professor Ryan stressed that It's important not just to show women who have children as being good role models we also need male professors or males that are successful who talk about having their children. Because of this, we may be able to inspire male partners to consider taking time off to be with the baby in a parental leave. Professor Ryan highlight the inherent bias with many male attitudes to parental leave saying:
When you ask men in areas where there is parental leave available to them they said they won't take it as it will harm their career
Whether changing this attitude is possible by give men more of the right kind of role models, or if there is another answer, what is clear, is that this attitude needs to change. If men are uncomfortable with taking time away from their career, preventing their career progression, but are comfortable with allowing their female partner to take time off, or leave their career altogether, then we need to focus on changing this societal bias. Professor Ryan highlighted an interesting question:
Do we ask whether men feel pressured to go back to work when they've got a small child at home?
We also have to ask if men feel pressured by their partners or if the pressure is stronger from society, affecting whether they choose to stay at home or go back to work. We also have to consider how women’s attitudes might change when they have their baby, they may be set on going back to their career as soon as possible, but this may change. From this series of interviews, we have deduced that this may be the problem with imposing a strict parental leave concept, without first changing societal norms. In the Scandinavian countries, both parents taking time off for their children is accepted and encouraged because is shows they are committed to both work and family, they have the ability to multitask and they compassionate qualities that are desirable in the workplace and at home. The fact that women who don't take leave to look after their children (are) often judged quite harshly” and that if men do take leave, they are often considered weird or ‘unmanly’, shows that the current concept of our parental leave may not be feasible in the UK’s society.
It is not just about making leave available it's also about how you judge people once they've taken leave
Professor Ryan further commented on the way society judges people in both the application process for jobs and in general; highlighting how it is a significant sign of gender inequality. We asked her if taking the names off of CV’s would help prevent discrimination against any one gender or race. Professor Ryan argued that whilst you could try to achieve gender equality by having a gender-blind system, this might not be the kind of gender equality you are fighting for. It wouldn’t necessarily solve the problem of women who have taken time off to have children, and hence have a large gap in their CV’s compared to men. Dr Wilson stressed that you need to change the attitude of the employer so that they will consider the potential in a female candidate alongside the publications of a male one; noting that the female candidate may have taken time off due to pregnancy and hence would have fewer publications. Professor Ryan stated: when I look at two CVs I don't just want to take them at face value as if they're equal because actually, I know society is not equal and hence a female candidate may have a reason for having a gap in the CV. Overall, she argued that unless we have a society that is not gendered taking the names of CV’s isn’t the same as equality.
Professor Ryan gave us some incredibly valuable information on what needs to be done to make a difference in equality and diversity in science and in general, which supported many of the conclusions drawn by the other academics. Overwhelmingly, all academics highlighted the need for a massive societal change in attitudes to gender equality and the unconscious biases associated. Furthermore, many academics said that we could make an immediate effect by giving students and academics role models and mentors to help guide their perspectives on society.
Make sure they are obtainable so people can feel like they can be like them, that they are desirable or that they want to be like them and that they embody the same sorts of goals” (Prof. Ryan)
Importantly all academics have stressed the need for a change in attitudes to maternal, paternal and parental leave. All academics highlighted that first, societal attitudes need to change for there to be a significant difference, with Professor Ryan emphasising the importance of role models to encourage male and female partners that it is ok to take time off their career, and with Dr Dixon encouraging more support to both male and females in taking leave. Most academics stressed that the ‘Scandinavian model’ should be followed as an example of how to implement parental leave properly into culture.
Overall, we have examined the work of academics at this university who attempt to improve equality and diversity, at their different levels, in science. They have greatly informed us on the problems with gender inequality as well as how the university is, and plans on tackling the problem.
S10
What is ‘diversity’?
On 14th October 2016, we held a panel discussion to open up the debate about equality and diversity in science to a wider audience. We collaborated with the campus radio channel, Xpression FM, and the campus TV channel, XTV in order to reach the widest audience possible. To conclude our work on equality and diversity, we needed to bring the work that we had highlighted from the academic interviews to the students that were represented in the first video (that highlighted students understanding to the issue).
One of our team members, Jack, hosted the panel alongside both student and academic representatives who were qualified to give an informative understanding of the issue of gender inequality and a lack of diversity in science. There were two student representatives: Alec James, the current VP Welfare sabbatical officer for the Students Guild at the University of Exeter. His role as VP Welfare includes providing the students with a voice for making the university accessible and inclusive as he could communicate student’s issues with the leading academic boards. And Laura Howard, the University of Exeter academic representative coordinator for undergraduate students, specifically in STEM. Her role involves liaising with the student staff liaison committee (SSLC) in which STEM students who have issues with the quality of their experience get their voices heard. There were also two academic representatives: Dr Alison Hill, a senior lecturer in chemistry at the University of Exeter. Dr Hill has taken programmes like the Aurora leadership programme and is considered a mentor and role model to many, shown by her nomination for the teaching awards in 2012 and consistently high feedback ratings. Dr Rob Wilson, head of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity group in Biosciences at the university and senior lecturer in conservation biology. Dr Wilson was one of the academics we interviewed and he gave a really interesting, grounded perspective on the state of affairs at the university and how it should be improved. Through this discussion, we were able to establish a two way communication with the public with questions from the floor for our expert panel. The event was shared both on Facebook, with over 200 people interested in attending, and by the university, and as it was streamed live and broadcasted live on XTV and Xpression FM respectively, we were able to reach people from all across the country.
The audio file can be found here:
The video link can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIWHUrHcjoc
Key Points:
We tried to cover the key points that were discussed in the section that highlighted academics work on improving gender equality and diversity in their fields. Consequently we talked about issues related to the massive social and structural change needed for there to be a significant difference as well as specific points like the importance of role models, mentors and the problem of gender distribution at higher levels of science.
We began the discussion with the relatively simple question of 'what is diversity?’. Many people have a very narrow view of what diversity is, mostly commenting on gender, ethnicity, religion and socio-economic background. Laura viewed the definition of diversity as:
Getting representation from people of all different backgrounds, whether that be racially, sexual orientation, gender, socio-economic background. It is just representing people who are different
This goes further than organisations like the Royal Society of Biology and the Institute of physics who, whilst declaring they want to make their fields as equality, diverse and inclusive as possible, predominantly represent gender, ethnicity, disability and socio-economic background as diversity. Alec went further saying:
It is the whole core of who we are: where we come from, our background, gender, religion, our sexuality, but also hobbies, interests, friends and families
This is more in line with the Royal Society of Chemistry’s definition which includes: age, marriage/civil partnership, pregnancy, first language and geography amongst the more inclusive definition of diversity. We wanted to understand whether universities are doing enough to promote this kind of inclusivity and accessibility but individually what both the students and academics were doing to make university accessible.
The universities are responding both to the opinions of the students and the staff in (scientific) bodies, but also the top down drivers...Are they doing enough? They are starting to improve the amount they are doing -Dr Rob Wilson
This echoes much of what we heard from academics previously, that there is a significant improvement to equality and diversity, but there is still a long way to go. Alec James emphasised these points saying: It’s the responsibility of the university to remove those barriers, so that everyone has the opportunity to come here and the university has Widening Participation high on their agenda. What was interesting is that Dr Hill highlighted how the university is changing the way it takes new students into the university considering the socio-economic status, in an attempt to make the university more diverse, which is a very positive, forward perspective. However, Laura had a stark opposing view:
I would disagree in saying the university does enough to drive diversity. I was one of two other black girls on my course, and that is quite sad to see
Laura did go on to say that she recognises the university is working hard on Widening Participation activities and there is improvement, but her opinion stands out as shocking, and a reminder that we have to have a significant improvement in inclusivity for the effects to be widely shown and felt. The discussion went on to talk about whether the university was excluding students through events like the recent Snowsports White T-shirt social in which offensive comments were exposed, and conclusively both academics and students completely condemned this behaviour, and encouraged that measures were being put in place to prevent this from happening again.
Dr Rob Wilson reiterated the importance of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity group especially at changing the gender distribution between the stages from undergraduate to professorial roles. Dr Hill highlighted another problem with this distribution, in that part time academics find it very difficult to progress to the professor level. There is a large number of women who are on the education and scholarship route, which makes it very difficult to be promoted to associate professor, because staff need to have a senior management role to be promoted. Therefore Dr Hill argued that:
The lack of leadership roles for women that prevent them from being promoted to the senior positions
The discussion went on to talk more about the unconscious bias and whether attitudes growing up significantly affected people’s opinions now. Laura highlighted that it is not being taught well enough in schools so people need to do it themselves, meaning that we all should be more conscious and more aware of what might offend someone, because society has not progressed to the point where acceptance and understanding is taught to a sufficient level. Dr Wilson went on to argue that the path we map out for ourselves depends very much on the people we see as our role models and so he emphasised the importance that the University has a large number of diverse role models for students, which echoes what Dr Dixon and Prof. Ryan had said in their interviews.
We have to be careful with benevolent sexism, where we think that maybe this person wants to spend more time with their family so let’s give them some roles that don’t give them opportunity -Dr Rob Wilson
This was in response to questions about maternity leave and how attitudes need to change in order for there to be an increase in the number of women at higher roles. We previously heard Dr Santos in our meeting with her talk about how academics use maternity as an easy excuse and Dr Wilson is reiterating that this kind of attitude is present among academics and it needs to change.
In questions from the floor, a student asked what the university has lined up as a long term solution to prevent offensive activities like the white T-shirt social scandal from happening again, and excluding students from the university. Alec James responded by saying the staff at the Students Guild (the Student Union) are starting a research project looking into the diversity of their leadership and why it is what it is. Laura Howard went on to say:
We can do as much as we can to try to educate and inform people
Interestingly this brought an alternative reaction from the academics. Dr Wilson said that the staff need educating as well. We need to know what is acceptable to say, which could indicate the beginning of the social, structural change needed for there to be a difference. It is interesting that an offensive act like this one, could act as a catalyst for both staff and students to reevaluate why the university is as diverse as it is, but also it acts as a platform for significant change in attitudes, highlighted in Dr Wilson’s comments.
A second question from the audience asked:
How do you think that universities, in particular Exeter, can reach out to local communities to make sure that disadvantaged people can reach A-levels and Open Days?
Dr Hill responded by emphasising the University of Exeter’s role in the Exeter Maths School saying that since then, around 25% of students are going to Oxford and Cambridge. This action in setting up a maths school, which gives the students the opportunity to attend top class universities, is excellent because it shows how institutions are trying to get more students interested in physics, maths and computer science.
Conclusively, this panel discussion brought forward some of the opinions and ideas that we discussed with the academics, in highlighting their work on improving gender equality in their fields. Furthermore, we managed to establish a dialogue with students and gave them a platform for further discussion on this issue, which will continue to have lasting effect. The youtube video of the talk has over 90 views, as of the 16th October, and is expected to continue rising. This work, whilst concluded for our iGEM team, is far from over. We have highlighted the issues of gender inequality and lack of diversity at our University, however, the situation may be significantly worse at universities across the country and the globe. We hope that future Exeter iGEM teams take up the mantle, and try to make a significant difference in gender equality at the University. We hope with more discussions like this, and more work that shows the academics and students trying to make a difference, we can kickstart the social and structural change necessary for there to be a significant improvement in attitudes in the UK. The more people that are made aware of the issue, the more potential for action to take place.
We hope that future iGEM teams will look at the is research and approach more Universities, scientific bodies and even the government, to ask what they are willing to do to make a difference?
S 11
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.
