Last month, I had the pleasure and privilege of leading the discussion during the Power Hour, an hour-long conversation about issues women in science face as they navigate different stages in their careers, at the Gordon Research Conference on Bioorganic Chemistry. Bioorganic GRC is one of my favorite scientific meetings that I keep coming back to and keep enjoying year after year. So when this year's co-chair Carole A. Bewley asked me to lead the Power Hour, I jumped at the opportunity to combine several of my longstanding interests and articulate some of the information that frames my thinking when it comes to the critical importance of achieving gender equality in science.

In this post, I will summarize some core messages that I delivered in an attempt to empower those in attendance to start, or persist, in their quest to understand the issues surrounding women in science and take action.

Gender equality is a global issue

Although I've been actively supporting girls and women in STEM fields for more than a decade, most my efforts were within US-based organizations. So most of the news and information that routinely pops up on my radar is rather US-centric, which paints my perspective. However, gender equality is, of course, one of the most pressing global issues of our times and one of the Sustainable Development Goals that the United Nations released last year to map out what governments, private sector, and individuals should aspire to in order to "transform our planet."

In support of these issues, UN Women has launched their ambitious Planet 50-50 by 2030 campaign. With all this as a backdrop, I was curious to ask how far is academic science from achieving gender equality and whether there are any lessons learned that we can share with other sectors. Overall, the US-based picture varies from field to field, with women being underrepresented in most fields, and biological and biomedical sciences doing better than the rest. Still, there is a great deal of work to be done, especially when it comes to those in leadership positions, who are still, by and large, male. And this brings me to the well-known "leaky pipeline" problem.

Science's leaky pipeline has burst

The question of why we've been unsuccessful in converting all highly educated women into leaders has been debated for years, if not decades. The problem, often referred to as the leaky pipeline, is often given as the centerpiece of discussions related to gender diversity in science. The basic premise is that, if we were only to patch the pipeline by recognizing this as a real problem and supporting women as they progress through their careers, this would fix everything.

In my view, this would indeed help many things, especially if applied to women in fields like mathematics and computer sciences with same zeal as to men in nursing and early childhood education. But, I am concerned that by focusing on the leak we may lose sight of a more significant problem that is looming in the background, the fact that staggeringly low levels of PhD trainees of either gender are interested in pursuing research careers in academia. Now, some will interpret this to be the consequence of the PhD bubble, the fact that we are overproducing highly trained and educated workforce that has traditionally gone on to teach and do research in academic setting without creating enough of the academic positions for them to transition to, and to me this is a very likely explanation. Some may not view this as a problem – we need highly educated and creative people not only in academia but in all segments of our societies – and this is also a fair sentiment. What worries me is a trickle down effect where the numbers of those interested in careers in research, in academia or elsewhere, continue to decline we will have a real global problem on our hands.

So, while we are fixing the gender leak, we should also work globally to expand a range of research career options and make them more attractive to more diverse groups of people.

Money matters

One issue that I've not seen talked about much in the context of the leaky pipeline but strikes me as critical is money.

We had number of thoughtful posts about gender pay gap on in the past (here, here, here, here, and here), and it is undisputable that women earn less than men for equal quality and quantity of work and that this disparity has a long-lasting effect on them personally, their careers, and their families. What I found really troubling is that not only are women paid less but they receive less money per grant (about 20% less based on the NIH data) and less in early-career institutional support.

Information in support of less startup money comes from a Research Letter published in JAMA last year where the reported differences are shocking: "Overall, men reported significantly higher start-up support (median, $889 000 [interquartile range, $283 000-$1 250 000]) than women (median, $350 000 [interquartile range, $180 000-$775 000]; P < .001); 51 men (40%) and 11 women (12%) reported support of more than $1 million (P < .001)." As with any data, this can be taken with a grain of salt given the limitations of the study and the sample size. However, even if these differences are less significant, we can't escape the reality that women are given fewer resources and are, therefore, placed in the position of disadvantage from the very beginning of their independent research careers.

There is a clear need to conduct more thorough research into the question of not only gender-dependent pay differences but grant and institutional support differences as well. In this day and age, I expect us to do better.

Pink/blue world of unconscious bias

The problem of bias, especially unconscious bias, is another theme that comes up when talking about the role gender plays in shaping career trajectories of man and women, and the topic was covered in some depth on CrossTalk here and here. Perhaps the most influential research on this issue was a study published few years ago that showed that science faculty, both male and female, rated male applicants more highly on competence, hireability, and mentoring potential and offered them a higher starting salary. And before anyone says, "Well, it's obvious that this is because the guy was more qualified." I should point out that faculty were shown the same resume, with only one point of difference – some received the CV with a male name, others received one with a female name. What it boils down to is that we all have biases, and raising awareness of how these biases may affect our professional decisions is the first step to towards leveling the playing field, and removing invisible obstacles that are currently in place.

If you're interested in seeing details of what I covered, take a look at the slide deck I shared to set a stage for more in-depth discussion.

I concluded my presentation with some of the barriers to greater gender diversity that I see as important and suggestions on how to address them. These issues deserve a post of their own, and you can expect to see something on that topic in the near future.

As a parting thought, I want to thank Carole for giving me this opportunity, as well as everyone who joined us for the Power Hour. I was impressed with the discussion that turned out to be rich, open, engaged, and, in many cases, a very personal exchange of experiences, thoughts and ideas. One of the more remarkable aspects of this Power Hour was the fact that our male colleagues took genuine interest and actively engaged in the discussion, and the conversation continued well beyond this one hour and well beyond this one conference. This is critically important because we can't achieve progress on gender equality without deep cross-gender engagement and sustained efforts by both women and men.