Introduction
Our Human Practices is centred around improving
public engagement and tackling the lack of education of synthetic biology
in the UK and overseas. In particular we are targeting education at a
secondary school and university level, focusing on the interdisciplinary
nature of the subject and assessing diversity. We want to highlight the
benefits and potential applications of this new scientific field, as well
as trying to uncover the reasons why synthetic biology doesn’t get as much
positive attention as it should have.
We are working hard to introduce a new synthetic biology
module to The University of Exeter’s curriculum, which will be available
to students as soon as September 2017. For school children we have created
a board game, BioMech, which educates students in key synthetic biology
concepts in an easy to understand and engaging way. Furthermore, we have
visited school and fairs, giving talks and running workshops where we aim
to give children an introduction to what synthetic biology is and how it
already affects their lives for the better.
By interviewing researchers, academics and other
professionals within the scientific community and presenting
their opinions in a fun and educational way, we hope to have
made synthetic biology a more attractive discipline to the general public.
Education: BioMech
We initially had the idea of an educational
synthetic biology board game named BioMech early on
in the summer when we discovered the shocking lack of
synthetic biology education in the United Kingdom. The
aim of BioMech is to introduce secondary and sixth form
students to scientific field in a fun and interactive way.
The game teaches students to plasmid construction, biological
parts and other essential biological concepts like mutation.
Why did we decide to create a board game?
After researching synthetic biology education in the UK,
we discovered that there is a limited number of cheap and nationally
available educational resources for biology, with many teachers needing
to create their own material to inspire students. Furthermore, there is
also no education in synthetic biology for secondary school or A level students.
In response to this we decided to get into contact with Edexcel,
a GCSE and A Level exam board, and enquired the possibility of introducing
synthetic biology in the syllabus. They responded with “iGEM could produce
support resources, for the existing A level, which introduced ideas of
synthetic biology and which could be used as ‘stretch and challenge’
materials by teachers”. At this point we focused our efforts on making
BioMech an easily accessible educational tool that can be used alongside
the current syllabus, building on the cellular biology and genetics that
are currently taught at GCSE and A-Level biology. >
The aim of the game
The game teaches students about plasmid construction,
biological parts and other essential biological concepts like
mutation. The game starts with 10 BioBrick cards for each player
who places 5 cards on the board to construct their plasmid. The
winner of the round is the player that designed the plasmid that
will be most useful in a randomly chosen scenario, the most appropriate
plasmid is determined by card scores and player discussion. After a round,
5 more cards are dealt and the game continues, the winner is the person that
wins the most rounds.
Initial testing at The Judd School (July 2016)
Playing the game
After making an initial prototype the team took the game
to The Judd School, a secondary school in Tonbridge,
United Kingdom, to be tested by a group of GCSE students. We started
off the day by introducing the iGEM project as well as explaining
a few fundamental synthetic biology terms such as BioBricks and
plasmids. After forming two groups, the students began to play
the game under our supervision and quickly grasped the rules.
All of the students got involved with the game, often reacting
enthusiastically whenever a mutation occurred in a cell.
Interviews and Feedback
Even though the game was a hit with the students,
we still wanted to determine if the game was a viable option
as an education resource; the game needed to be able to educate
and inspire students. After the session we conducted a number
of interviews with some of the students, with a few saying that
they were much more likely to study biology after playing the game.
I barely knew about any of this before today, I’m definitely
much more likely to take Biology for A-Level.
We interviewed two teachers at The Judd School to ask if they would
consider using a learning resource such as our own in their lessons
and if they thought the board game would prepare their students for
entering iGEM in the coming years. The head of key stage 3, Dr Courel,
thought that as the game enables students to consider real life applications
for genetically modified organism, and that this would aid the students when
thinking about their own iGEM project. The head of biology at Judd School,
Mrs Andrew’s thought our game would make a great intermediate step between
theory in the classroom, and introducing students to the wet lab.
>
Improvements
The Judd School visit was both a successful and productive,
as we got plenty of high quality feedback from both students and teachers
on how we could improve the game to educate more effectively and reach out
to more schools.
The students suggested a number of minor improvements to
the gameplay through a short survey, the results of this can be found
here. The largest change to our game came after Mrs Andrew’s
asked if she could keep a copy of the game herself. We knew that we could not
afford to give board games out too everyone, so we came up with a new way to
distribute our game at no cost. Our board game BioMech is now online to download
for free on our wiki here, with full printing instructions.
This meant that our original target of making our game accessible to all UK
students was a lot more realistic.
Production
After testing the game at a couple of science conventions
such as the Big Bang Fair South West and Britain Needs
Scientists, we were give feedback to help us make some minor improvements.
After this was complete, we began manufacturing the game.
The unboxing of BioMech can be seen below:
This new version of the game was played by students from
Colyton Grammar School. As part of our initiative
to make BioMech accessible to as many GCSE students as possible
we have began leaving copies of the game at schools free of charge,
in order to benefit the education of synthetic biology for GCSE and
A level students.
The Colyton Grammar School visit occurred on 18/07/16. Four of our team members – Alice, Andy, Joel and Jack – ran a one hour board game session with a class of 26 Year 9 students, falling at the lower end of of our target demographic (14-18). In an attempt to better understand how BioMech had been received, we conducted a survey with the students. The raw data (PDFs of surveys) and the full data analysis are available upon request.
Of the 23 responses to question 7 - “Did our board game change your perception of synthetic biology? If so, how?” - 78.3% were positive answers that indicated the respondent had enjoyed the game and had learned from the game. Answers included “It helped me remember most of the information because it was fun and engaging” and “It was a fun way for learning about synthetic biology”.
The criticisms however were that it was difficult for the students to understand how the game works without having had a demonstration done in front of them, first. Because of this feedback, we aim to create instructional demonstration videos to accompany the downloadable, online version of BioMech in an attempt to make BioMech more sustainably accessible without the need for our team to be there.
We demonstrated this in a year 9 physics lesson and in both the presentation and activities with the students, we were able to highlight the physics applications alongside the biology ones. It is interesting, therefore, how well received the game was to both the teacher and the students considering that prior to our lesson with them, they might have assumed that synthetic biology is a purely biology-based field. Consequently, we want to stress that BioMech is a board game that can be, and has been, used in non-biology based lessons and we think is a great resource for teachers and students to engage with the field.
Higher Education
Despite the possible applications of synthetic biology
and, as shown by the number of iGEM teams entering each year into
the competition, the interest of both undergraduates, overgraduates
and high school students for the subject is growing, there is very
little synthetic biology education in the UK.
Currently there is no education of
synthetic biology at the University of Exeter and
there are very few synthetic biology courses
and modules across the United Kingdom. However, we
want to target this gap in education of synthetic biology
at a university level.
In response to this, we have decided to
create two new synthetic biology module for 2nd and
3rd year students at our university. In these modules
we will give the students an introduction into
the fundamentals of synthetic biology, covering topics
such as plasmid design and construction, analytical techniques
and DNA constructs and genome integration. We are having a
large focus on biosafety and kill switches since we think this
is a major issue in the field. Furthermore, we want to help
the students to improve their research skills through a student
led journal club that will be run by former iGEM students.
Public Engagement
Desert Island Science
As another part of our human practices, we wanted to focus on engaging the general public with all sciences but significantly, with synthetic biology. In particular, we have created 'Desert Island...Science?' based on the format of the popular 'Desert Island Discs' radio show. This asks guests to choose two songs; one book; one luxury item; and a piece of lab equipment to take with them to a desert island. We also speak with them about their thoughts on a range of scientific topics, including the future of synthetic biology; the importance of collaboration between different scientific disciplines; and the promotion of STEM fields to all members of the public.
The guests we chose represent a range of areas of expertise, including Prof. Richard Kitney, Co-Director of the EPSRC National Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation; and prominent theoretical physicist Prof. Jim Al-Khalili.
Prof. Kitney is a biomedical systems engineering professor at Imperial College London and has been a pioneer of the field of synthetic biology for over a decade. During his episode of 'Desert Island... Science?', we spoke to him about using our human practices work in engaging young people with synthetic biology and our iGEM project and he has this to say:
We're just at the start of this revolution in engineering and biology, the sooner you can get young people interested in this field and, in my opinion, the whole of science and engineering, the better
It was really gratifying to hear a very prominent and important figure in synthetic biology confirm that our education and public engagement work is important and needed for furthering the field of synthetic biology. Prof. Kitney’s comments reflected a view that was shared by many parents and teachers at the science fairs and schools we visited: new, educational resources for aiding teachers and students in topics such as synthetic biology are necessary and these resources don’t have to be limited to GCSE-aged students and above. In the future, we could look into creating a version of our board game suitable for younger students, and a version suitable to older students, to improve the accessibility to a wider audience.
On the subject of engaging the general public, he said that:enthusiasm is the most important thing
in learning more about this exciting new field of science; which is something we want to encourage in all outreach work.
Another figure we spoke to was Professor Jim Al-Khalili, who works in the field of quantum biology as well as promoting equality and diversity in science. We spoke with him about improving the interaction and collaboration between different scientific disciplines, to which he said:
Synthetic biology is a very good example of where a multidisciplinary approach is absolutely vital
Having a prominent public figure, like Prof. Al-Khalili, highlight the importance of synthetic biology for science and research, we hope would relieve some of the biases and stereotypes associated with the field. As synthetic
is synonymous with artificial
and biology
is synonymous with life
, we can understand why many people we have spoken to, especially shown in the visit to the Judd School, think that synthetic biology involves designer life
. If more public figures can comment on the positive aspects of synthetic biology, then it is our hope that the public can begin to see what synthetic biology can do for each of the individual, core subjects that make up it.
On the subject of equality and diversity within science he said:
we still have a long way to go... If 1 in 5 undergraduate physics students are female then 1 in 5 physics professors should be female - that's where the problem is and it just gets worse and worse as you go up the career ladder
This was a view that was highlighted with many of the physics students interviewed in the equality and diversity work, as well as many of the academics. The Institute of Physics recognizes gender distribution in physics as a major problem from base to senior level and if more public figures, like Prof. Al-Khalili, and more students publicise the problem, then it could encourage more time and money to be spent on fixing the issue.
By posting the podcasts on both YouTube and Soundcloud, we opened a two-way dialogue with the public, allowing them to ask questions and learn more. As well as this, we wanted to help ‘humanize’ academics and researchers by helping members of the public to gain a deeper understanding of the scientific research being done today. By reaching out to prominent researchers of academia, prominent researchers of industry and prominent public figures, we hoped to engage the public with synthetic biology and science in general at all the key areas.
We hope that by framing these important questions in modern science in a relaxed and informal manner, the general public will be much more likely to engage with these issues and learn more about research in the field of synthetic biology and other scientific disciplines.
Westminister iGEM UK meet-up 2016
In August we travelled to Westminster for the
iGEM UK annual meet-up, an opportunity to meet other UK teams,
discuss our ideas and projects and have a chance to practise our
presentation in front of students and academics. Although our
presentation was well received we were also given very important
feedback, such as why we hadn’t incorporated biosafety into our
game and our module. Since then we have rectified these issues.
Furthermore, we were given talks about
the fundamentals of synthetic biology and also about
conducting reliable surveys for our outreach.
We also had the chance to set up collaborations with Glasgow and Edinburgh in addition to
helping Warwick by directing them to schools and teams that
they could collaborate with or mentor.
Science fairs and work experience students
Big Bang South West
The Big Bang South West Science Fair was one of the first places we tested BioMech. Our stall at the fair focussed on introducing students and teachers to synthetic biology and gathering information on how people perceive the field. Students were aged between 8 and 18, and there were teachers from a large variety of schools from across the South West.
For the fair, we wanted to show visitors the interdisciplinary nature of synthetic biology. We discussed how physics, chemistry, biology and engineering make up synthetic biology and demonstrated multiple applications within each of the core sciences. We created two leaflets: one which explained the basics of synthetic biology, and one which explained the iGEM competition. We made two companion powerpoint presentations to the leaflets which went in more depth, and played them on loop on two iPads on the stand. As well as this, we premiered a very basic form of our educational synthetic biology board game, for students and teachers try out. One student told us:
BioMech is more fun than the card games I played at a
card game convention in Birmingham
BioMech was well received by children of all ages, with the younger ones particularly enjoying the simplicity of the game and the clean aesthetics, whilst the older ones took a great interest in the descriptions of all the components as well as the mechanics the game offers. The fair provided us with some honest feedback from the children on our board game that we then kept in mind when designing our final version of the now highly user friendly and interactive version of BioMech.
We also drew inspiration from the ‘Activities Booklet’ created by the William and Mary iGEM 2015 team. The sweetie DNA construction activity proved incredibly popular amongst the younger students and gave us an opportunity to talk to them about basic genetics as well as some synthetic biology ideas.
Britain Needs Scientists
The second science fair was Britain Needs Scientists, hosted at the University of Exeter. This fair was aimed at students aged 16-18 who were interested in STEM careers. Here we focused on tying the STEM subjects into Synthetic Biology and were able to discuss more complex aspects of synthetic biology.
Work experience students
Barnaby was a year 10 work experience student who joined the team from 06.06.16 to 13.06.16. As we hadn’t started working in the lab at this point, Barnaby helped with our Human Practises. Barnaby was in our target age range for BioMech, meaning his voice was invaluable in designing the game and writing out the rules - he told us from his view what would be engaging, what would be too complicated, and played a large role in shaping the game.
Juliet was a year 12 work experience student who joined the team from 18.07.16 to 29.07.16. Juliet worked predominantly with the lab team given her strong interest in Biology, and was incredibly helpful. She helped specifically with important duties like making plates and media for experiments done by the team, but was also a helping hand for early cloning strategies. Due to Juliet being with us for two weeks and joining us later in the project, she was able to integrate with the team more and engage with the project to a greater extent than Barnaby was able to. At the end of her work experience with us, she gave us a card which said:
The past two weeks have been without question the most enjoyable and useful work experience I have had!
Our time with Juliet was a reminder of the direct impact our work could have on school students and gave us the drive to work harder on improving education and public engagement with synthetic biology.
George was a year 12 work experience student who joined the team from 01.08.16 to 12.08.16. George, like Juliet, worked predominantly with the lab team as he had a strong interest in Biology and had A Level knowledge. George also integrated very well with the team as he was with us for two weeks, and developed a vested interest in following the project after he left us.
Our time with each work experience was very useful for both progress in the lab or human practices, and helping us better understand our target demographic. Barnaby was particularly useful, being a GCSE student himself, for feedback on early versions of the board game. His insight was supported by students at the Judd School and thus we were able to improve and better the board game from the criticism and feedback of those it might affect. Both Juliet’s and George’s help in the lab was invaluable, at a time where we were particularly busy, however their individual feedback of the human practices work, allowed us to improve and develop our work on public engagement. We therefore recommend that more iGEM teams take on work experience students as the experience itself is both mutually beneficial and very enjoyable.
Richard Dawkins Interview
We were very fortunate, on the 31st July 2016, to meet Professor Richard Dawkins in Exeter and managed to ask him some questions on his research and how best to engage with the public on topics within science. We filmed the interview, which can be found here: _____ Professor Dawkins was in Exeter as he was speaking at an behavioural ecology conference held at the university. Prof. Dawkins emphasised the importance of research in behavioural ecology as it is the explanation for why we are all here
and described how he felt about the University of Exeter:
I am very impressed with the University of Exeter, I haven’t been here before, it’s a lovely campus and it does need to be the most thriving university
Prof. Dawkins went on to talk about his role as the first Charles Simonyi Professor for Public Understanding of Science and how we can best engage with the public on science. He emphasised how we have to be careful about the language we use as talking down to the public and not being clear may hinder their understanding of the topic.
I tend to perhaps err on the side of just putting it out there
An important factor that he highlighted that we, and other iGEM teams may not have considered is that encouraging the public to engage with the field might not be such an active process and may be more passive. We need to rely on the fact that the science itself is utterly fascinating
and the public will seek it out if they have any kind of interest in it.
This interview informed us greatly as to how to better engage with the public. The video itself (at the time of writing) has 338 views, which is the highest viewed video on our channel. We therefore believe that a good way of engaging more people with our work and with synthetic biology, is by engaging more public figures with the field. This is what we ended up doing with our Desert Island Science podcast series (shown above), by interviewing celebrity scientists like Professor Chris Lintott and Professor Jim Al-Khalili.
Furthermore, Prof. Dawkins also gave us some really brilliant advice on how best to approach the public with such a complex and diverse field like synthetic biology. Whilst encouraging us to be clear and concise with our wording was just reassuring for us in what we have already done, the fact that he highlighted that we can be more passive in engaging the public with our field was more of a revelation because it meant that we could spend less time trying to find new, unique ways of publicising our work and more time making good quality content.
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.
What is ‘diversity’?
No content yet
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.
