COVID-19 exposed many societal inequities, including longstanding disparities in science education and the scientific workforce. The pandemic particularly exacerbated challenges faced by female students, postdocs, researchers, faculty, and other professionals across the scientific community. Policies that kept people out of schools and workplaces disproportionately burdened women, who experienced an increase in family care responsibilities compared to men.
Lack of domestic support has made it difficult for women to remain engaged in their STEM career trajectories, from completing STEM courses of study to maintaining research productivity. Sadly, this comes as no surprise because of a deep legacy of gender inequities that continues to produce unequal outcomes.
The best path forward will require new policies and infrastructure that are forged with a deeper understanding of the support that women need to advance in science.
As society looks to recover from the pandemic, many see an opportunity to rebuild the scientific enterprise. A post-pandemic vision for the STEM community must include more girls and women, because their continued exclusion will only serve to reduce the talent and innovation of the scientific workforce. Women of color, who have faced the largest obstacles and played a major role in addressing them, should have a prominent seat at the tables in shaping the new landscape.
Certainly, there are complex social, economic, and political forces that have sustained this skewed system. The best path forward will require new policies and infrastructure that are forged with a deeper understanding of the support that women need to advance in science, and offering lessons on how we might rebuild.
For many years after its founding in 1848, governance of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — the oldest scientific society in the United States — reflected white male dominance in science. It wasn’t until 1971 that a woman, Mina Rees, became its president.
Mina Rees was a mathematician who had contributed to the war effort and then became head of the mathematics department at the U.S. Office of Naval Research. Although World War II highlighted the need to tap all available talent, the number of women in science grew sluggishly. Several prominent female scientists did serve as president of AAAS in the 1980s and 1990s, including Rita Colwell, and, most recently, Claire Fraser and Gilda Barabino. Thanks to these strong leaders, the culture at AAAS continues to change.
Today, 10 of 15 AAAS board members are women. At the heart of the organization’s evolution stands Shirley Malcom, who has long pushed for wide systemic change. From her start at AAAS as a research associate in 1975, she has focused on science education programs for minority students. She turned attention from the perceived failings of the students to the real failings of the institutions.
More than 40 years of persistence led to the launch of SEA (STEMM Equity Achievement) Change in 2017. This drew upon the Athena SWAN (Scientific Women’s Academic Network) initiative aimed at improving gender equality among scientists in the United Kingdom, but with the broader goal of building a community where all talent can thrive. Institutions that join SEA Change engage in continuous evaluation and improvement, operating from the understanding that the world cannot achieve excellence without a diverse workforce.
The normalization of women in senior leadership roles is a step toward empowering female scientists, but there is a long way to go.
More women than men earn a PhD, and close to half of doctoral degrees in STEM fields are earned by women. Data from the National Science Foundation on universities and four-year colleges in the United States show that in 2019, 45% of assistant professors in science, engineering, and health were women, but at the professor level, this fell to 28%.
AAAS is perhaps best known for publishing Science, and having one’s research published in this journal is considered a measure of success. But Science is also part of an inequitable system, and it too must improve. Indeed, when Marcia McNutt became the first woman to serve as its editor-in-chief (2013–2016), the journal began increasing female members on its Board of Reviewing Editors (experts who help make decisions on submissions). In 2015, only one-fifth of board members were women; today, it is one-third women—better, but not good enough. We see no difference in acceptance rates of papers by gender; however, in 2021, only 30% of corresponding authors were women. This is only one data point, but it reflects a pathology that plagues the enterprise.
We learn that it is not enough to change people—we have to change the system, and this takes the effort of many. We also learn that women and underrepresented groups still have to work harder than others just to be considered good enough, because the playing field is not yet level.