All posts by Anne-Elizabeth Brodsky

Climate change, one Wikipedia post at a time

Unconscious Bias

We haven’t posted for a while, so why not start with good news? And dare I add, news that reminds us that writing matters?

Screen Shot 2018-07-30 at 5.05.42 PM

Take a look at this Guardian article: “Academic writes 270 Wikipedia pages in a year to get female scientists noticed.” Jess Wade, a postdoc in plastic electronics at Imperial College London’s Blackett Laboratory, took on the project when she realized that not only are minority researchers extremely isolated but also that many attempts to encourage girls and women range from being negative and ineffectual to shockingly misogynist and insulting.

Screen Shot 2018-07-30 at 4.50.55 PM

Case in point: Check out the “Science: It’s a Girl Thing” video from the European Commission, in which three women, seen first in silhouette lest we forget to think about their bodies, perform for a guy in a lab coat next to a microscope and, along the way, learn something about the chemistry of lipstick. I think. (That really is a screenshot from the video. For real.)

But back to the good news. Wade is inspired by a book you may know by Angela Saini called Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong — and the New Research That’s Rewriting the Story (2017). You can read a New York Magazine interview with Saini here.

The Guardian closes its article on Jess Wade this way:

What does she ultimately hope to achieve? “I guess it’s to make science a better place for everyone working in it, which happens when we recognise the contributions of these awesome women,” she says. “Then the girls who do come – because they will! – will come to a much more empowering environment.”

Guest blog post: Carol Greider, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor in Molecular Biology & Genetics and Nobel Laureate

collaboration & leadership, equitable policies & practices, Institutional Climate, JHU

Today we welcome JHU’s Professor Carol Greider to the WFF@H blog.

carol greider.png

One interesting conclusion that the recent NAS/NAE/NAM report on sexual harassment draws is that much of the leaky pipeline for women in science may stem from sexual harassment in academic science. (You can read more about the NAS report in Science Magazine, the Chronicle of Higher Ed, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.)

When I read this report, I was reminded of very similar issues here at JHU. We (along with many other academic institutions) are doing a poor job at resolving sexual harassment cases promptly and fairly. The NAS report is clear: by not addressing these issues, we are also contributing to the leaky pipeline of women in science.

The good news is that the NAS report offers clear suggestions. I see this as a unique opportunity for JHU to tackle this problem head on. There are many concrete steps we can take; just as a start I list a few below, although I note that there are many others we could also consider.

  1. Give OIE more support and more staff ASAP. The problem is not just that OIE is very slow to respond; the problem is also one of pervasive perception that OIE is not able to help and so people don’t report. What colleagues I know have experienced here at JHU is very similar to the story of poor institutional response at Columbia University. As things currently stand, we are no better.
  2. Establish less hierarchical mentoring environments. Empower and encourage Ph.D. thesis committees to discuss career and climate issues with students. Assign one thesis committee member as co-mentor for the student to address environment and progress towards personal and professional goals. (See K.A. Amienne’s Chronicle article on how a system that locates power in only a select few inevitably lists toward abusiveness.)
  3. Treat sexual harassment, as defined broadly in this report, as research misconduct. Sexual harassment in the laboratory dramatically slows down research progress. For that reason, as stated in the report, sexual harassment should be considered research misconduct. The same, or perhaps a parallel, equally rigorous process that is brought to bear on research misconduct cases should be carried out for sexual harassment cases, and funding agencies should be notified.

It’s often said that changing institutional “climate” and “culture” is difficult. This is true, but it is no reason not to tackle this issue head on. Many things that we do in our personal and professional lives are difficult and yet we do them because they are important.

Hopkins and other leading research universities should take concrete steps laid out so clearly by the NAS report. We should be leaders in making real change for women in science, and indeed increasing the overall effectiveness of the research enterprise.

Clearly, now is the time to act.

What can you do? You can start by sharing the NAS report widely, as well as this blog and other specific concrete recommendations. Join the conversation: There will be a report discussion Tuesday, June 26, that will be webcast; click here for more information.

It’s time to take part, even if, and especially, if you’ve never spoken up before.

Carol Greider

Daniel Nathans Professor & Director, Molecular Biology & Genetics
Bloomberg Distinguished Professor

June 21, 2018

Pipeline Leaks Require Institutional Transformation

collaboration & leadership, equitable policies & practices, Institutional Climate, JHU

In her recent blogpost for the Biophysical Society, our own Professor Karen Fleming comments on the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine’s new report on the Climate, Culture, and Consequences of Sexual Harassment of Women, focusing on the critical role of institutional climate and intentional institutional transformation. Please read it here.

Screen Shot 2018-06-17 at 8.33.40 AM

 

 

“Men are Sarcastic, Women are Hot: Gender and Language in Rate My Professors”

teaching

apple-3256487_1920In this article, Lucy Ferriss of Lingua Franca revisits Ben Schmidt’s searchable website for terms used on Rate My Professors, acknowledging both its limitations and its strange allure. Here’s an excerpt:

“If I came from another planet and had only this study and its attendant raw data to depend on, I would conclude that female professors are hotter, meaner, tougher, stricter, sweeter, less fair, less funny, stupider, uglier, and more idiotic than their male counterparts. Male professors, I would figure, are more likely to be exciting, sarcastic geniuses who teach great classes and give easy grades.”