credentials and skills. She found they were having a tough time being seen as strategic thinkers. Women are more likely to present multiple scenarios with backup plans, while men often only offer a single strategy. Women tend to see the backup plans as an important part of leadership, but management interprets the caveats as an indication of indecision. Women tend to say “our plan,” while men take ownership, calling it “my plan.”[56] Research has shown that this democratic leadership style, typically adopted by women, is long lasting and bridge building.[57] However, Harnden-Koehler has found that biotech companies are more interested in “strong” leaders, leaders with something she calls “loudership.”
In May 2018, five months before Donna Strickland was awarded the Nobel Prize, a page about her was submitted to Wikipedia but was rejected because she and her research had not garnered enough internet coverage,[58] another clear example of women not self-promoting as much as men.
Conclusion
Eric Lander, founding director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, wrote an opinion piece in the Boston Globe in which he said, “The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. To stay ahead, we’ll need to use all our assets. That means leveling the barriers for women in science and engineering, and closing the participation gap for underrepresented minorities. It also means expanding tech-driven prosperity beyond the two coasts.”[59] This is particularly important because the economic center of gravity of the world is shifting as the populations and personal income of Africa and (especially) Asia are increasing. If the United States wants to stay competitive in the world economy, it will have to rely on technological and scientific advances. Science and technology are related to each other, and both will advance faster and further with an expanded and diversified talent pool.
For better or worse, the world economic system is based on growth. In the current system, countries and companies need to expand in order to thrive. Staying the same may be sustainable, but it is not economically desirable. The U.S. agricultural and manufacturing sectors have reached their maximum capacity; they can no longer expand. America’s economic growth is predicated on the production/design of new products (iPhones, solar panels, cars, etc.). We need new and improved products, high-tech merchandise enhanced beyond previous models. In other words, the expansion of the U.S. economic system is reliant on scientific knowledge and know-how.[60] The use and insights gained from scientific breakthroughs such as CRISPR, optogenetics, and gravitational waves will keep the United States competitive in tomorrow’s economy. To do this we need to maximize our scientific talent.
All the hurdles and biases described here don’t apply only to women and scientists of color; they also apply to some white male scientists. Chapter 5 discusses Doug Prasher, who wasn’t confident enough to go for tenure at Woods Hole; didn’t continue working on green fluorescent proteins because he wasn’t being supported; and finally dropped out of science, missing the hundredth Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2008 by the tiniest of margins. His is another, very different, example of a “leaky pipeline”: the importance of “loudership” and old-boy network connections.
Frances Arnold, 2018 chemistry laureate, is optimistic. She thinks we may have turned the corner, “as long as we encourage everyone—it doesn’t matter the color, gender; everyone who wants to do science, we encourage them to do it—we are going to see Nobel Prizes coming from all these different groups. Women will be very successful.”[61] Women perhaps, but I am not convinced that people of color will be fairly represented among STEM Nobel laureates in the next 10–20 years. Unfortunately the systemic, societal, economic, and educational (K–12) differences are too large and too entrenched to expect parity in the next two decades.
1.
McBride, J. (2018). Nobel laureate Donna Strickland: “I see myself as a scientist, not a woman in science,” The Guardian, October 20.
2.
Institute of Education Sciences—National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Total undergraduate fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, and control and level of institution: Selected years, 1970 through 2026, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_303.70.asp.
3.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Table 318.45: Number and percentage distribution of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees/certificates conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, level of degree/certificate, and sex of student: 2008–2009 through 2014–2015, Digest of education statistics: 2016 tables and figures, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_318.45.asp.
4.
Institute of Education Sciences—National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Total undergraduate fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status, sex of student, and control and level of institution: Selected years, 1970 through 2026, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_303.70.asp.
5.
National Science Foundation. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering, https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/static/downloads/nsf17310-digest.pdf; Ashanti Johnson, M. H. O. (2016). How to recruit and retain underrepresented minorities, American Scientist 104, 76–91.
6.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering, https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=190946.
7.
Harris, A. (2019). The disciplines where no black people earn Ph.Ds: In more than a dozen academic fields—largely STEM related—not a single black student earned a doctoral degree in 2017, The Atlantic, April 19.
8.
James, R., Starks, H., Segrest, V. A., and Burke, W. (2012). From leaky pipeline to irrigation system: Minority education through the lens of community-based participatory research, Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 6, 471–479.
9.
Pennington, C. R., Heim, D., Levy, A. R., and Larkin, D. T. (2016). Twenty years of stereotype threat research: A review of psychological mediators, PLOS One 11, e0146487–e0146487.
10.
Yosso, T., Smith, W., Ceja, M., and Solórzano, D. (2009). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates, Harvard Educational Review 79, 659–691; Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., and Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice, American Psychology 62, 271–286.
11.
Harris, A. The disciplines where no black people earn Ph.Ds.
12.
Xavier University of Louisiana, Office of Planning, Institutional Research and Assessment. (2018–2019). University profile.
13.
Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. (2019). Top 100 degree producers, https://diverse education.com/top100/pages/index.php.
14.
