House of Commons - Women in scientific careers - Science and Technology Committee

Women in scientific careers - Science and Technology Committee Contents

2 Background

Why gender diversity matters

THE ECONOMIC CASE

4. The Coalition Government has "committed to work together to tear down the barriers to social mobility and equal opportunities in Britain, and build a fairer society".[8] It considers that "no one should be held back because of who they are or their background" nor should they "be defined simply by these characteristics".[9] The Government's December 2010 report on The Equality Strategy - Building a Fairer Britain stated that "inequalities matter to all of us" and that "failure to tackle discrimination and to provide equal opportunities, harms individuals, weakens our society and costs our economy".[10]

5. The UK needs to address a shortage of skilled scientists and engineers: in our 2012 report on Educating tomorrow's engineers, we highlighted estimates that around 820,000 science, engineering and technology (SET) professionals will be required by 2020.[11] The Society of Biology stated that "increasing women's participation in the UK labour market could be worth between £15 billion and £23 billion [1.3 - 2.0 per cent of GDP], with STEM accounting for at least £2 billion of this".[12] In Scotland, it has been estimated that "a doubling of women's high-level skill contribution to the economy would be worth as much as £170 million per annum to national income".[13] The economic case for diversity in science has been recognised by the Government: in July 2012, Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, stated that "women [...] make up less than a fifth of all employees in the science sector" and that "there's no way we can generate the number of scientists and engineers the economy requires without addressing this situation".[14] Simply put, the UK economy needs more skilled scientists and engineers and this need will not be met unless greater efforts are made to recruit and retain women in STEM careers.

THE BUSINESS CASE

6. The 2002 Report SET Fair: A Report on women in Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) identified gender diversity in science as a "business bottom line issue" and highlighted that "SET companies with few women employees are drawing on only half the talent pool and risk addressing only half the marketplace".[15] Gender diversity is perceived to improve workplace culture; a 2010 study of public attitudes and perceptions about diversity by the Government Equalities Office found that diverse organisations were "more able to deal with problems in a holistic manner compared to institutions with limited diversity".[16] University College London (UCL) stated that:

The Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council stated that "there is a business case for mixed gender teams" and that because "diversity of knowledge and social capital in teams is vital in production of new ideas", having a "lack of women may have a significant impact on the robustness of policy decisions and research innovation".[18] UCL Engineering stated that "the diversity of thought leadership and problem solving brought by having more women on a team is well documented in business terms" and that "academia needs to be more creative about retaining these women for the benefit of other staff and also students".[19] Increasing the proportion of women at professorial and other senior levels in academia is considered to have a positive impact on both men and women. UCL stated that "the presence of women professors not only has a significant positive effect on the confidence and self-esteem of female students, but also on that of male students who develop leadership abilities and emotional wellbeing as a result".[20] A joint written submission from Oxford Research and Policy and Katalytik stated that "many institutions have found that implementing good working practices benefits all staff [...] whereas bad working practices tend to adversely affect women more than men".[21] In short, "what benefits women benefits men too".[22]

7. Gender diversity does not universally bring rewards for business. A 2013 Government literature review on The Business Case for Equality and Diversity stated that "studies appear to have found evidence that firms have reaped business benefits from equality [and] diversity, but not all firms in all contexts at all times".[23] The review found that "how diversity is managed is also crucial: if appropriately, it can bring benefits to business, if poorly, it can increase costs".[24] In June 2013, the Royal Society published an "invitation to tender for research into two questions relating to the business case for diversity in the scientific workforce".[25] The two questions were "What evidence is there that establishes the business case for diversity in the scientific workforce?" and "Are diverse teams more likely to do good science?"[26] The research would "consist of a literature review and key interviews looking at the economic case for diversity" and would "establish the difference diversity makes to science, looking at optimum group size and diversity in relation to a range of productivity measures".[27] The announcement of this project provoked some debate in the media about the need for a business case when solid moral arguments already existed for improving diversity.[28] Gender diversity in STEM can bring business benefits if well managed. The business case for diversity in science is being reviewed by the Royal Society and we expect that its findings will highlight how STEM organisations can maximise the business benefits of diversity in the workforce.

GENDERED RESEARCH

8. UCL stated that the "differential access of women and men to leadership in the higher education sector [...] influences the nature and process of knowledge production and the ways in which they can influence discourses and practices".[29] Portia Ltd stated that "the historical absence of women in research—as participants, as subjects, and as beneficiaries—has resulted in science having more evidence for men than for women, and in the 'male' being accepted as the norm in study design, and in the application and communication of research".[30] For example, Portia Ltd explained that "nearly all that is known about the effects of environmental pollution is based on studies involving men, but overwhelmingly, pollutants affect women and men differently".[31] Portia's A-Z of Why Gender Matters in R&D highlights other examples of where gender bias in science has had adverse consequences.[32] For example:

a) there are no female crash dummies, even though women's and men's anatomy differs, women have, for example, less muscle around the neck and upper torso and experience greater risk of injury as a result;

b) our understanding of pain starts with the male rat model;

c) calculations of radiation dosage are based on an absorption model of a middle aged man; and

d) in most anatomy books the majority of images are of a man's body.[33]

A 2013 European Commission report on Gendered Innovations: How Gender Analysis Contributes to Research provided further examples:

Portia Ltd explained that:

It stated that "findings such as these have huge implications for diagnosis and therapy, and for health economics".[36] The Commission stated that: "thirty years of research have revealed that sex and gender bias is socially harmful and expensive" and that "gender bias also leads to missed market opportunities".[37] It recommended that "the current generation of researchers needs to learn how to exploit the creative power of sex and gender analysis in their research design".[38] In addition, the Open University suggested that "UK Research Councils should follow the example of the Irish Research Council and require all research bids to include a statement on sex-gender dimensions and implications of the research proposal".[39] Research Councils UK (RCUK) has published a statement on its "expectations for equality and diversity" but it does not include encouragement to consider the gender dimension of research.[40]

9. We suggest that the national academies, learned societies and research funders review how gender analysis can improve research findings within different STEM disciplines and formulate guidance on the matter. Research funders should encourage the consideration of gender dimensions of research from funding applicants.

The leaky pipeline

10. The Open University explained that "the pathway to an academic research career typically starts with a PhD followed by a number of short-term research contracts prior to gaining a permanent academic/research post".[41] The leaky pipeline describes the "gradual loss of women working at each career stage following postgraduate training, from Postdoc to Lecturer, Senior Lecturer and Professor".[42] Academic research careers are competitive and many men and women do not reach senior positions. Dr Bryn Jones, Visiting Fellow at the School of Physics, University of Bristol, stated that "we train a very large number of people to PhD standard" although there are "a much smaller number of research assistant posts" and "the number of permanent positions is very small".[43] The Academy of Medical Sciences highlighted that "women are still less likely than their male colleagues to advance to senior positions in academia [...] despite their growing numbers in undergraduate and postgraduate courses since the 1970s".[44] As a result, universities "lose a substantial proportion of the pool of talented staff available to them".[45] Although women make up 44.5 per cent of academic staff across higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK, only 20.5 per cent of professors are women.[46] Women are under-represented at professorial levels across academic research careers in all STEM disciplines (typically 17 per cent although there is variation between disciplines).[47] The WinSET Committee at the University of Nottingham stated that "it is important to differentiate between the STEMM[48] subjects" because "the points in the pipeline which are critical for women's proportionality do vary from subject to subject".[49] For example:

11. In some STEM disciplines, the under-representation of women is a result of girls and women choosing not to study the subjects that lead to STEM careers. In others, women may be well represented at early stages of study and career but fail to be retained and to progress to senior levels. For example, Sarah Dickinson, Manager of the Athena SWAN Charter, Equality Challenge Unit, explained that "in specific areas like chemistry, [...] it is a retention issue, whereas in engineering and physics it is a recruitment issue".[51] Although this Report focuses on retention rather than recruitment, we recognise that poor retention of women scientists has implications for the recruitment of girls and women - these issues are explored later in this Report.

Government funding and support for diversity in STEM

12. The UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (UKRC) was established in 2004, following the 2002 SET Fair report.[52] The UKRC provided "practical help and support to girls and women in SET, including those thinking of a career in SET and those taking a career break".[53] Following the 2010 Spending Review, the Government's The allocation of science and research funding 2011/12 to 2014/15 stated that "from April 2011, funding for the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (UKRC) will not be renewed".[54] The Government's rationale for ceasing to fund the UKRC (which has since become incorporated into Women in Science and Engineering - or WISE) was that:

It considered that "better value can be realised through these broader activities and through better direction of existing diversity projects".[56] In the same 2010 funding allocation, the Government stated that diversity initiatives also "include the work of STEMNET and the STEM Ambassadors to encourage a diverse STEM pipeline; the National Academies' fellowships; Research Councils' PhD and fellowships awards; and the Big Bang Fair, and National Science and Engineering Competition".[57] However we note that many of these initiatives target STEM education in schools and do not tackle diversity in academic careers: STEMNET, the Big Bang Fair and the National Science and Engineering Competition are all largely aimed at school children.[58]

13. In its written submission to this inquiry, the Government explained that "BIS funds the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering to lead a programme of work, in partnership with the professional institutions, industry and others, aimed at understanding and addressing issues of diversity in the STEM workforce".[59] The Women in Science Engineering and Technology (WiSET) group stated that "the curtailing of the central role of the UKRC was too soon for mainstreaming".[60] The Royal Society of Chemistry stated that the UKRC "provided a single, immediately identifiable source of information, support and advice for women in STEM, and their employers" and suggested that a similar organisation should be re-created, "should the Government be unable to demonstrate that the current mainstreaming of diversity through alternative BIS funded programmes matches the success delivered by the UKRC".[61] Similarly the Science Council considered that the leadership of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering "must acknowledge and engage with the very large numbers of other organisations working to increase the numbers of women in the STEM workforce".[62] Table 1 and Figure 1 show Government funding for diversity programmes over the last two spending reviews.Table 1: Diversity activities funded by BIS between 2008 and 2015, in cash terms[63]

Financial Year

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

£ k £ k £ k £ k £ k £ k £ k

Royal Academy of Engineering 0 0 0 275 276 277 278

Royal Society 2,992 3,430 4,045 3,941 3,414 2,754 2,291

UK Resource Centre for Women in STEM 2,538 2,443 2,468 500 0 0 0

Daphne Jackson Trust 0 0 0 0 0 40

Total in cash terms 5,530 5,873 6,513 4,716 3,690 3,071 2,569

Total in real terms[64] 6,070 6,274 6,780 4,800 3,690 2,972 2,467

Figure 1: Diversity activities funded by BIS between 2008 and 2015, in real terms[65]

When we asked David Willetts MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science, why UKRC funding was cut, he responded that "it was a tough decision" and that "there was a view that some of the work could be done by the Royal Society or the Royal Academy of Engineering and more mainstreamed".[66] The Minister accepted that the total amount of Government funding for diversity in science had been substantially reduced.[67] He stated that "there is still a lot of work under way, so it is not as if we gave up on the cause; we have been very energetic on the cause" and highlighted the Vitae concordat, Athena SWAN and the work of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering.[68] Although we accept that difficult financial decisions had to be made by the Government in the 2010 Spending review, it is disappointing that spending dedicated to improving diversity in science was so significantly reduced. While we have no concerns about the quality of the diversity programmes of the National Academies, we have not been assured that they could have the same reach and impact as the UKRC had.

14. The Government should monitor the effects of its policies on mainstreaming diversity funding. If it transpires that cutting UKRC funding and mainstreaming has had a detrimental effect on the retention of women in STEM careers, the Government should increase diversity funding.

The Athena SWAN Charter

15. Several publicly funded initiatives exist to improve gender diversity in science.[69] However, the Athena SWAN Charter appears to be the most comprehensive practical scheme aimed at improving academic STEM careers. It is "a scheme that recognises excellence in science, engineering, technology, mathematics and medicine (STEMM) employment for women in higher education".[70] It was founded in 2005, with the first awards conferred in 2006.[71] The Charter is run by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU), a charity "which works to further and support equality and diversity for staff and students in higher education across all four nations of the UK, and in colleges in Scotland".[72] The ECU is funded by the four funding councils of the UK as well as Universities UK and GuildHE.[73] The Athena SWAN Charter receives additional funding from the Royal Society, the Biochemical Society, the Department of Health and the Scottish Funding Council.[74] To become a member of the Charter, a university (or research institute embedded within it) must accept and promote the six Charter principles, which are that:

a) Addressing gender inequalities requires commitment and action from everyone, at all levels of the organisation;

b) A change in cultures and attitudes across the organisation is required to tackle the unequal representation of women in science;

c) The absence of diversity at management and policy-making levels has broad implications which the organisation will examine;

d) The high loss rate of women in science is an urgent concern which the organisation will address;

e) The system of short term contracts has particularly negative consequences for the retention and progression of women in science, which the university recognises; and

f) There are both personal and structural obstacles to women making the transition from PhD into a sustainable academic career in science, which require the active consideration of the organisation.[75]

The ECU explained that "once Charter signatories, universities and their STEMM departments are encouraged to submit for Athena SWAN Charter recognition awards at Bronze, Silver or Gold level".[76] There are currently 94 members of the Charter.[77] There are currently 58 HEIs with a total of 259 awards between them.[78] In July 2011, the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies outlined "her intention that all medical schools who wish to apply for NIHR[79] Biomedical Research Centres and Units funding need to have achieved an Athena SWAN Charter for women in science Silver Award".[80] We considered whether other research funders should require universities to hold Athena SWAN awards in order to qualify for funding. Professor Dame Julia Higgins, Royal Society, stated that:

She also stated that "the great success of the SWAN awards has been that they have been voluntary" and they "have appealed to the one thing that academics have, which is a huge sense of competition".[82] Dr Leslie Thompson, Research Councils UK (RCUK), stated that "the research councils, following the lead of NIHR, decided not to go down the route of mandating Athena SWAN, but talked to the sector about the issues of diversity broadly, not just women, and produced a statement".[83] The RCUK Statement of Expectations for Equality and Diversity states that those in receipt of Research Council funding are expected to:

a) promote and lead cultural change in relation to equalities and diversity;

b) engage staff at all levels with improving the promotion of equality and diversity;

c) ensure all members of the research workforce are trained and supported to address disincentives and indirect obstacles to recruitment, retention and progression in research careers; and

d) provide evidence of ways in which equality and diversity issues are managed at both an institutional and department level.[84]

It would not be practical to mandate that applicants for research funding must hold Athena SWAN awards, although we commend the Chief Medical Officer for taking this step with some NIHR funding streams. We recommend that all public research funders should require applicants and recipients to demonstrate that they are taking steps to improve equality and diversity. Each research funder should publish and disseminate this expectation and what actions will be considered sufficient to meet this criterion.

16. The NIHR announcement led to a rapid increase in Athena SWAN applications which had already been "gaining momentum".[85] The ECU stated that "this is a very welcome step, and one that provides an opportunity for medical schools and higher education institutions to take the lead on creating gender parity".[86] The University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine's Athena SWAN Governance Group highlighted the need for "improved resourcing of the Equality Challenge Unit" as "the exponential increase in applications by universities and their constituent departments for recognition of efforts in increasing support for women in STEMM has in no way been matched by adequate expansion of the ECU".[87] When we asked the Minister about increasing Government support for Athena SWAN, he responded:

17. The Athena SWAN Charter is a comprehensive scheme that is widely supported across academia. With increasing demand, the Equality Challenge Unit may require additional resources and the Government should respond positively to any such request.

8 Government Equalities Office, The Equality Strategy - Building a Fairer Britain, December 2010, p.6 Back

9 Government Equalities Office, The Equality Strategy - Building a Fairer Britain, December 2010, p.6 Back

10 Government Equalities Office, The Equality Strategy - Building a Fairer Britain, December 2010, p.8 Back

11 Science and Technology Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13, Educating tomorrow's engineers: The impact of Government reforms to 14-19 education, HC 665, para 9 Back

12 WSC 74 [Society of Biology] para 1 Back

13 Tapping all our Talents. Women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: a strategy for Scotland, April 2012, Royal Society of Edinburgh, para 3 Back

14 Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, Vince Cable delivers speech on UK science, openness and internationalisation, Press Release, 12 July 2012 Back

15 Set Fair: A Report of Women in Science, Engineering and Technology from The Baroness Greenfield CBE to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, November 2002 Back

16 WSC 29 [UCL] para 12; The Government Equalities Office (2010), Representation of women in business and government: Public attitudes and perceptions, Government Equalities Office, 12 March 2010 Back

17 WSC 29 [UCL] para 16 Back

18 WSC 64 [Medical Schools Council and Dental Schools Council] para 6.2 Back

19 WSC 59 [UCL Engineering] para 20 Back