October Journal Club – “Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students”
In October, the Biochemistry DEI committee held its inaugural journal club. The goal of this journal club is to highlight scientific papers studying issues of DEI in the sciences, as well as those describing evidence-based practices in increasing DEI. This month, Dr. Katherine Stefanski of the Sanders lab presented a 2012 PNAS paper exploring the contribution of subtle gender biases to gender disparity in the biological sciences. In the paper, 127 biology, chemistry, and physics faculty were asked to evaluate an application for a lab manager position, in which the name on the application was either male or female. Across the board, male students were rated higher than female students, by both male and female faculty members. The primary issue was a perception of lesser competence in the female applicants, which mediated lower salary offers and mentoring interest from prospective PI’s. Importantly, previous studies (cited in the paper) have demonstrated conclusively that this perceived lack of competence in females has no basis in their actual ability.
During the discussion, several people indicated that while they were not surprised by the findings, they were disappointed. Science is perceived as a highly objective field, and scientists like to think that they look at everything objectively. However, as pointed out in the PNAS paper, those in objective fields are actually more susceptible to implicit bias, typically because they are unaware that they have it. It seems that none of us are completely immune from their influence. And, it was pointed out that this paper clearly demonstrated that implicit bias against female scientists has statistically significant consequences for their career opportunities, even at early stages. In order to bridge the gender gap, this bias needs to be addressed.
The journal club also discussed several possibilities to help mitigate the impact of implicit biases. One of these was having a briefing on DEI prior to important hiring and admissions decisions, such as IGP admissions and faculty hiring meetings. Another option included actually considering gender when reviewing applications, rather than attempting to be gender blind. For instance, one could consider the possibility that a female applicant received fewer opportunities than a similar male applicant because of implicit bias earlier in her career. It is also possible that biases played a role in shaping the language of a female applicant’s letter of recommendations, or even the way she writes about herself.
Outside of the hiring or admissions process, several people thought that encouraging younger female students to pursue STEM careers would help to create a new narrative that opposes the implicit bias against female competence. The importance of carefully considering what you say around younger students and trainees was also brought up, as this helps make sure that bias isn’t propagated. All in all, the undercurrent of the entire conversation was that simple awareness of the reality of implicit bias can help to combat it.
Leave a Response