“Fundamental changes in the culture and opportunities at America’s research universities are urgently needed. The United States should enhance its talent pool by making the most of its entire population.” These strong words came from Donna E. Shalala, former Secretary of Health and Human Services and currently president of the University of Miami. Shalala’s words in a press release announcing a report from the National Academies (1) have major implications for us.

Since 2000, more than half the bachelors degrees in science and engineering have gone to women, and, as reported by Kuck et al. in this issue, women received one third of all chemistry Ph.D. degrees in 2003. But the fraction of women on faculties of Ph.D.-granting institutions is much smaller than a third. Even for young faculty there is a significant disparity between the top 50 federally funded chemistry departments, with about 20% women assistant professors, and bachelors degree-granting institutions, where more than 40% of assistant professors are women. Kuck et al. conclude that it will take a long time before the fraction of women faculty at research universities mirrors the student ­population.

Comparison studies show that women faculty are more likely than men to feel that colleagues devalue their research, that they had fewer opportunities for productive collaboration, and that their colleagues did not respect them (1). Supporting any colleague’s research, being open to collaborations, and respecting others seem obvious collegial behaviors that will benefit everyone. The research extant indicates that differences in performance based on gender are very small. A recent review of meta-analyses of research on psychological gender differences concludes that it would be much more appropriate to talk about “gender similarities” because in most cases the differences are small or trivial (2). Thinking in terms of the very large similarities rather than small differences between genders (or among other groups) could result in significant improvements in gender balance and in this country’s overall research effort.

Emphasis on gender or other performance differences can affect admissions, hiring, and promotion of women or minority groups, even though the differences are tiny. Such emphasis on differences can also lead to stereotyping of women or minorities as lacking mathematical or scientific aptitude. If some scientists adhere to such stereotypes, they are likely to carry over to the public. This can cause good students either to avoid science and mathematics altogether or to drop out along the way. Or it may result in advisors suggesting that some avoid science and mathematics while others are encouraged to pursue them.

Stereotyping can have more insidious effects. Research shows that performance on intelligence tests by African Americans suffers when their race is highlighted (3) and that women perform worse on mathematics tests when gender stereotypes are presented to them (4). This is referred to as “stereotype threat”. Worst are stereotypes that are attributed to genetic causes, which seem to be inexorable and beyond an individual’s capability to overcome. In a recent study, four equivalent groups were given two mathematics tests with a section between where essays were read (5). Each of the four groups read a different essay. The content of the essays was 1) gender differences in mathematics were due to genetic causes; 2) the cause was one’s prior experience; 3) there are no mathematics-related gender differences; and 4) a standard gender stereotype threat not specific to mathematics. Groups 1) and 4) scored the same on the second mathematics section and their scores were significantly below those of groups 2) and 3). The authors concluded that there is a strong tendency to assume that gender differences are genetic and immutable and that such an assumption can cause poor performance. When gender differences are assumed not to exist or are attributed to nurture rather than nature, performance is better.

The subtle effects on performance described in the preceding paragraph argue for emphasizing gender similarities and for attributing differences to experience unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, unproven differences may become self-fulfilling prophecies. Based on the National Academies report, there appears to be strong evidence that the current dearth of women in academic leadership positions can be accurately attributed to experiential differences that involve outmoded institutional structures and outdated attitudes and behaviors among faculty and administrators. Each of us needs to be vigilant to insure that what we do and think does not inhibit effective participation by any of our students or colleagues in science and chemistry.

Literature Cited

1. Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering National Academy Press: Washington, 2006; a news release summarizes findings and provides access to the report. (accessed Dec 2006).
2. Hyde, Janet S.; Linn, Marcia C. Science 2006, 314, 599-600.
3. Steele, C. M. Am. Psychol. 1997, 52, 613.
4. Aronson, J.; Fried, C.; Good, C. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 38, 113.
5. Dar-Nimrod, Ilan; Heine, Steven J. Science 2006 314, 435.