SEB Bulletin March 2008
Achieving recognition in Science: votes for women?
It is exactly ninety years since women in the UK were given the right to vote. In the intervening years much has changed and we often assume that in the present meritocracy, women who attain high scientific achievement will inevitably gain the accolades and awards that this success usually bestows. However, the reality of the situation of learned societies in the UK such as the SEB falls short in terms of female representation. The Education and Public Affairs (EPA) Section has recently examined the achievements of women in gaining SEB awards and the representation of women in the senior management structures of the Society.
The drive to look for potential gender imbalances came from recent surveys by the Institute of Biology (1; IOB) and The Biochemical Society (2). The Biochemical Society found that only about 3% of its various prizes had been awarded to women (2). No single prize had been awarded to more than one woman, and several had not had any female recipients. An analysis of the membership data at the IOB showed a considerable drop-off in female representation at the higher levels of membership, with only 30% of Members and 6.5% of IOB Fellows being female. Moreover, while 40% of the 35 representatives in the branch committees are female, only 25% of the current central IOB committee members are women. So how does the SEB compare? At present, 10% of the SEB Council is female. For the Section committees, 29% of the 17 present Plant representatives are female. Similarly, 13% of the 15 Cell representatives are women but none of the 8 Animal Section Committee members are female. Of the current 10 committee members, the EPA committee currently has a 33% female representation. The IOB has had only one female president, Nancy Lane (2002 - 2004), since it began. However, the SEB has never had a female president. Of the President's medallists since 1997 the Plant and Cell Sections have only elected one female medallist each (see attached figure). In contrast, the Animal section has elected five President's medallists over the same period. Thus, like The Biochemical Society, the vast majority of the SEB awards have been given to men. Similarly, all of the past 12 IOB Huxley awards have been given to men. With regard to the SEB Special Lectures only one Woolhouse Lecturer and two Bidder Lecturers have been female over the past twelve years (see attached figure).
Achieving a more equitable balance of men and women in SEB management and recognition
To date, the membership pool of the various SEB committees has been largely self-selecting. To some extent the gender balance may reflect the gender distribution of researchers in the biological sciences. It is worth noting that in 2003-4 period 57% of postdoctoral researchers were female but most of bioscience professors (89%) were male (3). While these figures might go some way to explain the low numbers of female Special Lecturers, the SEB President's medallists are young scientists under 35 and there is a wide age range representation in the SEB committees. So the continuing failure of many women to reach high positions in academia is not the reason why female representation on SEB committees remains low and why the high scientific calibre of the female membership remains largely unrecognised by the Society. Until recently the gender balance was simply ignored. The history and culture of the SEB like other learned Societies has also played a part. It is well known that women are less likely to apply for positions than their male colleagues and until very recently there has been no positive encouragement for women to apply for SEB Council membership or similar high ranking positions in the Society. It is important to note that once I pointed out the present gender imbalance to SEB Council, the current president, Ian Johnston, was swift to act in seeking ways to achieve a gender balance in the SEB management hierarchy that more accurately represents the membership of the Society. However, many senior women remain haunted by the spectre of “tokenism”, and live in fear of being tainted with its slur in selection procedures. So a long term change in attitudes and culture is required to achieve an appropriate gender balance in SEB awards and manage-
ment structure. The current male-dominated environment is likely to be self-perpetuating unless women become more inclined to apply for roles in which they do not see any other women. One may ask whether it is likely that there will be a female SEB president in the next 5 years. I certainly hope so, as many studies have found that female scientists are discouraged by a lack of female role models and mentors (4). Similarly, the recognition for successful female scientists at the level of the President's medallists is likely to be encouraging to women at earlier stages of their careers. In this way, the SEB can provide additional support to career development and help prevent the perpetuation of a situation where few women reach the highest levels of academic science (5).
The SEB is striving to achieve a gender balance in its organisation and awards that is more representative of its membership. The full participation of women in all aspects of the Society will favour an increase in the recognition of women's (as well as men's) achievements and lead to greater career equity in the science and technology sector as a whole. However, there is no room for complacency. It is a time to keep the SEB foot on the accelerator so that SEB women achieve their full potential in the organisation, planning and future of the Society.
Christine H. Foyer
Professor of Molecular Agriculture
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
christine.foyer@newcastle.ac.uk