I’m declaring 2007 the year of women in science. In the wake of Larry Summers’ ass-minded comments at Harvard two years ago, several academic institutions have put the spotlight on women in science and engineering. We’ve started to see the results of that over the past few months. A National Academy of Science study called “Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering” came out in September and both Columbia and Harvard have been sponsoring conferences and lectures on women in science.

And as Kristin mentioned in her post, a great article by Cornelia Dean came out today in the New York Times about women in science. Since this article is about to go behind a subscription wall, here are some relevant exerpts from it:

At . . . the Massachusetts Institute of Technology . . . half the undergraduate science majors and more than a third of the engineering students are women. Half of the nation’s medical students are women, and for decades the numbers have been rising similarly in disciplines like biology and mathematics. Yet studies show that women in science still routinely receive less research support than their male colleagues, and they have not reached the top academic ranks in numbers anything like their growing presence would suggest. For example, at top-tier institutions only about 15 percent of full professors in social, behavioral or life sciences are women . . .

As the National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, women who are scientists publish somewhat less over all than their male colleagues — but if surveys control for the amount of support researchers receive, women publish as often as men, the report said . . .

Dr. Joan Steitz cited a study of letters of recommendation written for men and women seeking academic appointments. Though all the applicants were successful, she said, and though the letters were written by men and women, the study found that the applicant’s personal life was mentioned six times more often if the letter was about a woman . . .

She cited “Every Other Thursday: Stories and Strategies from Successful Women Scientists” (Yale University Press, 2006), a book by Ellen Daniell, a former assistant professor of molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In the book Dr. Daniell describes a group of female scientists who have been meeting regularly for more than 20 years to talk about their professional triumphs and travails, turning themselves into mentors and role models for one other.

There’s also a lot of great stuff in the article about how women are evaluated on the way they dress more than men are, and how difficult it is for women to be taken seriously when they are pregnant.

I’ll be reading the NAS study over the next few days, and will post here when I find interesting statistics.

I feel like I’ve probably blogged too much here lately about attempts to explain, or redress, the low proportion of women in the sciences. But here are a couple more links for you anyway. First of all, there’s more reaction to the recent Donna Shalala-led study on barriers to women’s careers in the academic sciences. Boston University’s group Women In Science and Engineering held a symposium to discuss “strategies for change.” From the Daily Free Press:

“Women have the drive and capability to succeed in science and engineering, and the problem is not simply the pipeline [to getting into the field],” Massachusetts Institute of Technology management professor Lotte Bailyn said. “The academic organizational structure and rules contribute significantly to under-representation of women in science and engineering.”

The symposium was part of WISE’s effort “to provide a united voice concerning climate concerns and hiring and retention issues,” according to the WISE website. Founded in 2004, the group aims to provide opportunities for female faculty and graduate students.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the infamous Lawrence Summers speech, “Harvard psychology prof Elizabeth Spelke published a study in which she found there were NO differences between male and female babies, children, and adults in terms of cognitive capabilities and aptitude in mathematical and scientific reasoning,” writes Thinking Girl at [insert witty title]. But linguist Steven Pinker rushed to rebut her findings, and the two held an online debate. “It’s long, but the gist of it is that Pinker takes a ‘nature’ line of argument and Spelke takes a “nurture” line of argument,” says Thinking Girl. She adds:

I’m with Spelke. I don’t think there are significant statistical differences in the cognitive abilities of women and men. I do think there are significant differences in the ways men and women are encouraged and socialized to think. (This is backed up by a study at U of Michigan, which suggests that women tend to choose careers based on their values more than on their skills.) All of Pinker’s points about “biological” differences between men and women have, in my mind (and Spelke’s), a sociological explanation. For example, Pinker says that men have different motivations than do women: men are more motivated by status than by family. My response to that point is that this has nothing to do with biology. Women are taught from childhood to care for other people, and men are taught that they must be providers and achievers. Is this difference in priorities really surprising?

She blames “crappy societal images” for steering women away from techy careers and fields. The whole post is very much worth reading.

This is interesting. Science professor runs the numbers on the female and male science/engineering/math faculty in her department, and finds that most of the women are married, but roughly half of them are married to male professors in the same university. Of those, most are married to a male professor of science/engineering/math. By contrast, most male faculty aren’t married to another professor at all. Her conclusions:

It is a myth that women have to stay single (and childless) to succeed as professors at a research university.

Women professors are commonly married to men who are professors, but the reverse is not nearly as common. This is not news, but I think these data highlight the well known fact that it is important for universities to deal with the infamous 2-Body Problem if they want to hire and retain women faculty. Dealing with the problem requires committing resources and being prepared to create positions within the same department or within different departments. This has to be handled at a high administrative level and not left up to departments.

So we now know that women have fewer job prospects in the academic sciences, thanks to Donna Shalala. But when women do get jobs in science or technology, do they earn as much as men? The answer is no, according to the Harvard Crimson:

Significant salary discrepancies still exist between males and females with equal degrees in the same science and engineering fields, according to a report released by the National Science Foundation (NSF) this week.

The largest discrepancy existed between men and women with master’s degrees in computer and information sciences, where men earned an average of $10,000 more than women.

Overall, men in science fields outearned women by 17 percent, according to the report.

I love the part where they insist that these trends don’t hold true for Harvard women, because they’re just so elite.