by Females are always connected with such words as “sympathetic,” “tender,” “weak,” and “emotional” from a long time ago, and these tags based on gender have created a variety of barriers for female entry and exploration in the scientific arena. There are different kinds of bias against female scientists in society, and some are related to the long-lasting effects of morbid definition and stereotypes. Simultaneously, some are connected to the limited and unfriendly circumstance for female scientists in the field.
Generally, females in the scientific arena tend to encounter bias originated from the persistent stereotypes of science and scientists, emerged from simple gender discriminations, and caused by natural yet morbid fear among female peers.
One of the most subtle and influential biases against females in the scientific arena is questioning women’s science-based capability based on social stereotypes, which permeate females interested in the STEM field of all ages.
I was told that I was not considered a competitive candidate for science since middle school. I was suggested to study humanities rather than pursue any dreams in science. The rationale fueling these comments is simple: females are not good at science and mathematics, which is the so-called “rule-of-thumb” in society. Those comments tortured me for two to three years, and they still nudge me occasionally nowadays.
My experience is not random and rare. In fact, according to Joan Williams, “two-thirds of the women interviewed, and two-thirds of the women surveyed, reported having to prove themselves over and over again – their successes discounted, their expertise questioned.” Such a survey result elucidates that females’ capabilities were perceived negatively in the scientific field. Similarly, the reason behind such distinct bias arose from the long-nested stereotypes about gender and science. The stereotypes that connect masculine and science solidify barriers against females to exploring more in science significantly thanks to the stereotypes’ widespread and reminiscent influence among the population. Specifically, females are regularly regarded as the relatively weak and unsuitable candidates in the STEM field. People around females would constantly inoculate the thought that females are not suitable for STEM fields. Also, people will regularly doubt females’ contributions and performances in science.
Thus, it is clear that the bias originated from the social stereotypes regarding females and science could have long-lasting effects that serve as one potent barrier and discrimination encountered by females in the scientific field daily.
The gender discrimination towards female scientists during the resource acquirement or allocation process is another category of bias that female scientists occasionally endure.
One study suggests that “evaluation committees that hold implicit biases against women in science promote fewer women than men to elite research positions (The Scientists)” in the US. However, such a phenomenon is not limited to one nation: “women starting their first research labs tend to be paid lower salaries, have fewer staff and have access to less laboratory space than their male peers do, according to an analysis of UK scientists. (Else)” Also, one particular example is that Gertrude Elion, the Nobel Prize winner, faced the predicament that she could not pursue her dream in medicine “by 15 rejections for financial assistance from graduate schools throughout the country” (ACS.org) only due to the bias towards females in resources acquirement and allocation process.
These real stories delineate one cruel fact: the bias against females in resource allocation severely hurt female scientists’ future in the STEM field. The bias is simple: females are not chosen as the prioritized candidates under most circumstances; women should not be chosen to be out of the sphere of domesticity. As gender discrimination serves as the fundamental platform, the bias against females for research resources and opportunities in the evaluation committees is another significant and knotty barrier that a large proportion of female scientists encounter in daily lives. Without resources and desirable chances to improve, one would consider changing the direction of research or even the career, which means female scientists might decide to quit the STEM field because of the lack of resources. With that being said, the bias against females based on gender discrimination during resource allocation or acquirement process is a negative factor that keeps bothering female scientists in both research and academia.
Another bias occurs within female scientists’ circle, as female scientists tend to show competitive relationships with each other in the STEM field with limited resources for females.
As one scientist mentioned during the survey, “an older woman who “probably had to go through hell” made sure younger women did, too (Williams)” The idea seems surprising, as it is hard to believe those female scientists would show hostile gestures either explicitly or implicitly towards peers who have put similar amounts of effort to achieve thus far. However, after considering the profound connection between fear and rival sentiment, the mindset becomes understandable.
The fear could explain this sentiment: losing the hope of receiving resources is devastating for females to stay in the STEM area. Another female scientist confesses that she feels like she is competing with her female colleagues “for the ‘woman’s spot’ (Williams).” Given that there are limited resources and assistance for female researchers in the scientific field, the competition is inevitable among female scientists, which resulting in hostile relationships and the emergence of more negative attitudes and discrimination towards each other among females in the STEM field for the spark of hope, which is essential to stay in the field and pursue their dreams and goals.
As a result, the bias against each other among female scientists in the STEM field is a surprising yet substantial obstacle ahead of many female scientists.
Although the number of female scientists increased significantly over the past decades, the bias never faded. Instead, they tend to be more diverse: bias emerged from stereotypes, gender discrimination, and limited resources for female scientists are three striking ones that push female scientists away from their passion in the STEM field.
Literature Cited
“Biased Evaluation Committees Promote Fewer Women.” The Scientist Magazine®, www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/biased-evaluation-committees-promote-fewer-women-66355.
Colorado State University. “Even When Women Outnumber Men, Gender Bias Persists among Science Undergrads.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 29 June 2020, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200629164147.htm.
Else, Holly. “Female Scientists Get Less Money and Staff for Their First Labs.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 20 Mar. 2019, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00933-0.
“Gertrude Elion (1918–1999).” American Chemical Society, www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/women-scientists/gertrude-elion.html.
Williams, Joan C. The 5 Biases Pushing Women Out of STEM. 2 Sept. 2020, hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-stem.