AWM Book Review

Who Will Do the Science of the Future? A Symposium on Careers of Women in Science

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Women in Science and Engineering. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000. 87+xiii. ISBN 0-309-07185-2 (paper), $25.25 list price, available at the web-discounted price of $20.20 by ordering from http://lab.nap.edu/catalog/10008.html; vailable for free on the web at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309071852/html/.

From: AWM Newsletter, July/August 2001.

Reviewed by: Marge Murray, Book Review Editor, Department of Mathematics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0123; email: murray@calvin.math.vt.edu.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was chartered by Congress in 1863 as "a private, non-profit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare." Among other rights and responsibilities, NAS "has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters" ([1]). In keeping with this mandate, the Committee on Women in Science and Engineering (CWSE) "was established in 1991. . . in order to coordinate, monitor, and advocate action to increase the participation of women in science and engineering" ([2]). The centerpiece of the 1999 national meeting of NAS --- for the first time, ever --- was a Symposium organized by the CWSE for the purpose of discussing the climate for women in science and engineering. The book under review is the written record of that symposium.

The NAS, like many honorary societies, is a conservative organization, and as such it has come under fire for its recalcitrance when it comes to electing women and minorities to its ranks ([3]). For example, a quick perusal of the online membership directory of the NAS reveals that, of the 112 living members of the Mathematics section, only four are women; of the 51 living members of the Applied Mathematics section, only three are women; and nary a one of the 26 living members of the Computer and Information Sciences section of NAS is female ([4]). At the height of the women's movement in the early 1970s, committees on the status of women were established by nearly every major scientific society in the United States ([5]). Given the glacial pace of change at NAS, the belated establishment of CWSE, though discouraging and perhaps even a little embarrassing, hardly comes as a surprise.

The good news, however, is that the CWSE --- under the leadership of its co-chairs, physicist Howard Georgi of Harvard and applied mathematician Lilian Wu of IBM --- seems intent upon doing constructive work on behalf of women in the sciences. In their preface, Georgi and Wu emphasize the "need to bring in many viewpoints to science and . . . to increase the variety of viewpoints by recruiting and retaining women in science" (p. viii). Indeed, the proceedings of the 1999 symposium reveal a concern for the nurturance of women's scientific talent at every stage of the "pipeline," from elementary school through retirement.

Unfortunately, the proceedings of this first Symposium suggest that CWSE isn't entirely sure how the problem of recruitment, retention, and promotion of women in science should be addressed. Many of the papers seem superficial, relying on anecdotal evidence and hearsay, and offering few, if any, references to specific research findings which document claims of success. This seems a startling omission, given the historical commitment of NAS to rigorous scientific research. Taken as a whole, the papers in this volume lack coherence, and produce a rather muddy picture of what our next steps might be in addressing the problems of women in science.

Both book and symposium are divided into four main sections. Part I, "The Next Generation: Science for All Students," consists of three papers, ostensibly addressing issues of women's access to science education. The first two papers, by physicist Leon Lederman and educator Marcia Linn, describe innovative programs in science education which seem likely to have the unintended (but pleasing) consequence of increasing the retention of girls and women in pre-college science curricula. In both cases, the advantages for female students are not described explicitly; indeed, they seem to come as part of a package of positive educational outcomes which benefit students of every race, class, ethnicity, and gender more-or-less equally. In the third paper in Part I, Richard Tapia, an applied mathematician at Rice University, addresses the special needs of minority women students of science. Again, Tapia's comments are anecdotal, but much more clearly relevant to the topic of the symposium. His main point seems to be that the success of minority women in mathematics and the sciences depends upon an understanding of and sensitivity to their needs, not merely as women, but as members of a specific ethnic minority group.

Part II of the Symposium is devoted to problems specific to the discipline of computer science. In the first paper of Part II, William Wulf, President of the National Academy of Engineering, presents clear and alarming statistics on the declining participation of women in academic computer science. He then ventures several possible explanations for the decline. Here, Wulf seems to be engaging in speculation --- interesting, informed speculation, but speculation all the same. In particular, he argues that "[m]en seem to be interested in computers per se. They are fascinated by the device, the programming, and by the mathematics involved" (p. 35). By contrast, women are apparently interested in the computer only inasmuch as it can be used as a tool for achieving other ends. These assertions stand unsupported, and as such they constitute a dangerous generalization that can easily be used to shunt women away from areas of "pure" computer science to which they are not "naturally" suited. In the question-and-answer session for Part II of the Symposium, at least one member of the audience voiced serious concern about these generalizations, and Lilian Wu's response to this concern seemed to evade the issue rather than address it directly (p. 83). It is manifestly clear that the declining participation of women in computer science is a matter of pressing concern, as well as a fruitful field for future research.

Part III of the Symposium addresses "Strategies and Policies to Recruit, Retain, and Advance Women Scientists." Perhaps the most interesting and provocative paper in this section is that of Howard Georgi, who raises several questions and puts forward "A Tentative Theory of Unconscious Discrimination Against Women in Science." Specifically, he argues that the scientific community "unconsciously" selects for people who exhibit traits of "assertiveness and single-mindedness," while at the same time neglecting many other traits which could be of value to the enterprise of science (pp. 46-47). The questions Georgi raises are insightful and provocative, and could easily constitute a framework for future research. Also in this section of the Symposium, Karen Uhlenbeck offers a description of the Women's Mentoring Program connected with the Institute for Advanced Study and the Park City Mathematics Institute, and physicist Mildred Dresselhaus offers an entirely too-brief description of the situation for women at her home institution, MIT. While Dr. Dresselhaus reports heartening statistics, a member of the audience was quick to point out that "MIT . . . has zero tenured women in mathematics, and that has been the case for a long time" (p. 87). Indeed, despite good intentions, the Symposium did a rather poor job of addressing the persistent "glass ceiling" for women in science and engineering.

Part IV of the Symposium, "Advancing Women into Science Leadership," is devoted to a single paper by M.R.C. Greenwood, Chancellor of the University of California at Santa Cruz. In her paper she traces the increasing participation of women in science at every level --- from bachelor's degree, to Ph.D., through the faculty ranks, on up into membership in the NAS --- from the mid-1960s to the present day. She is clearly quite concerned about the various points at which the "pipeline" leaks and women abandon the pursuit of science. Her focus, naturally enough, is upon her own discipline --- the biological sciences --- where women's participation has been consistently greater than in the other sciences and engineering.

Interestingly, Greenwood makes the argument that "the proportion of current NAS members who are women is quite similar to the percentage of science Ph.D.'s awarded to women about 30 or more years ago, a time when many current members were receiving their doctorates" (p. 69). But upon close examination of the data, it is clear that this is not the comparison Greenwood is actually making. In fact, she finds a rough parity between the percentage of women scientists who earned their Ph.D.'s prior to 1969 and who are "currently employed in Research I and II Institutions" and the "percentage of current female NAS membership by section" (p. 70). On the basis of this comparison, one could just as easily argue that the pattern of discrimination against women in election to NAS membership has essentially kept pace with the same pattern of discrimination in hiring and promotion at Research I and II institutions!

On the whole, the NAS is to be commended for its willingness to come to grips with the problems of women in science and engineering. It is my sincere hope that future Symposia will deal much more systematically with these issues. It would be lovely to see the considerable research skills of the NAS brought to bear on the problem of shattering the glass ceiling. I look forward to seeing an NAS Symposium on the Glass Ceiling for Women in Science and Engineering in the not-too-distant future.

References

1. From the NAS website, http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf/WebLink/AboutNAS

2. From the CWSE website, http://www4.nationalacademies.org/osep/cwse.nsf

3. The elitism of the NAS is the subject of a recent, high-profile article in the academic press; see Jeffrey Brainard, "Elitism, Excellence, or Both at the National Academy of Sciences?" Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume 47, Number 35, May 11, 2001.

4. From the NAS online membership directory, http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf/WebLink/members

5. See Margaret Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action 1940-1972, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1995, Chapter 16.