Elitism, Excellence, or Both at the National Academy of Sciences?

Critics question why so few female and minority scholars are elected

By JEFFREY BRAINARD

Stand in front of the white-marble facade of the National Academy of Sciences building, or see its Egyptian- and Greek-style murals in the central hall, and it becomes

ALSO SEE: An Exclusive Club? A Byzantine Election Process A list of new members of the National Academy of Sciences

abundantly clear what members of the academy were after when they broke ground here nearly 80 years ago: a secular temple to science.

The temple honors the pioneers whose insights have changed how people live and work. But the academy's own members, who gathered here last week for their annual meeting, remain resistant to change.

Being elected to the academy is regarded as one of the highest honors to which an American scientist can aspire, after a Nobel Prize. It is a distinction that relatively few women, and only a smattering of minority scientists, have received. The academy's membership is overwhelmingly white, male, and concentrated at a select group of research universities. Critics call it an old-boys club, in part because only members may nominate and elect newcomers.

Only 7 of the 72 new members who were picked last week were women, and women make up just 6.6 percent of the academy's 1,960 American members. Only two African-American scientists are members, and the number of Asian-American and Hispanic members is also low.

Well-regarded scientists at middle-tier research institutions are also at a disadvantage. More than a third of the academy's membership comes from just 10 top research institutions. The federal government recognizes a wider distribution of scientific talent; those same institutions receive just 13 percent of federal research funds.

Defenders of the academy say the lack of diversity is undesirable but not surprising, given that women and members of minority groups have only recently entered science in significant numbers. Election to the National Academy is meant to honor a lifetime of scientific achievement, and the average age at election is 56.

Amid criticism that the pace of change is too slow, the academy's leadership and some members predict that its gender and ethnic diversity will gradually increase -- but not at the expense of excellence.

"Just because people deserve things doesn't mean they get them," says Carl Djerassi, a professor of chemistry at Stanford University and a member of the academy. "There will always be more people who deserve awards than get them."

The academy was chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government. Congress later created the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Engineering, which elect outstanding members in those fields.

The science academy remains the senior partner among the three. Election to it is considered more prestigious, partly because the other two bodies admit some members based on their public service or distinction as administrators. Election to the science academy is supposed to be based on groundbreaking contributions to one's field.

Other than prestige, the honor carries few tangible benefits. Members get a free subscription to the academy's journal, a framed certificate, and an invitation to the garden party at the annual meeting. Members are expected to participate in the annual election of new scientists and serve, along with some nonmembers, on committees of the National Research Council, the arm of the academy that prepares reports, many of them commissioned by Congress, on scientific issues. The reports have covered such topics as genetically modified foods, global warming, and federal priorities for research spending.

If the academy's membership were more racially diverse, the research council's reports would probably do a better job of studying issues that affect minority groups, says George Campbell Jr., president of Cooper Union, in New York City. Mr. Campbell is an African-American physicist who has served on some of the research council's committees, but is not a member of the academy.

True, he says, nonmembers outnumber members on those committees, and the panels tend to be more diverse than the academy as a whole. Nevertheless, he says, "I'm sure if there was more balance, you would have some issues' being addressed that are not being addressed" -- for example, a greater emphasis on environmental health hazards facing minority groups.

Membership also confers bragging rights. Many universities note in their promotional materials their number of academy members, a figure that can help recruit promising graduate students and junior faculty members.

Whether deserving female and minority scientists, or researchers at non-elite universities, are being excluded is ultimately a subjective question: The academy has no specific eligibility standards other than research excellence. Academy members contacted by The Chronicle were generally reluctant to discuss the merits of individuals, citing the closed election process.

Nonmembers were somewhat more open, and from those discussions emerged the names of several possible candidates whose scientific credentials probably rival those of some current academy members.

Among female scientists, one might be Darleane C. Hoffman, who made pioneering discoveries of heavy, radioactive elements. Ms. Hoffman, 74, a professor of chemistry at the University of California at Berkeley, received a National Medal of Science from President Bill Clinton in 1997. Last year, she was only the second woman to receive the American Chemical Society's highest award, the Priestley Medal.

Ms. Hoffman has served on several research-council study committees. "It always amazed me that I was considered good enough for that, but wasn't good enough to be elected," she says.

Some cited African-American scientists like Joseph A. Johnson III, who has published a well-regarded body of work about fluid and plasma physics. In 1995, Mr. Johnson, a professor of science and engineering at Florida A&M University, won the American Physical Society's Bouchet Award, which honors a distinguished minority scientist, and he is a fellow of that society. At Florida A&M, Mr. Johnson, 60, directs a research center, financed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, that studies how turbulence affects airplanes.

Mr. Johnson would like to think his accomplishments measure up. He adds that if he were elected, "it would send a message to students coming along that [African-Americans] presently working in science do receive our fair share of accolades."

Academy leaders for years have claimed to be working hard to ensure that deserving scientists are not overlooked. Judging such efforts is difficult because there is no single, accepted way to compare the accomplishments of all scientists.

A very rough yardstick is the proportion of senior faculty members -- full or associate professors -- who are women or members of minority groups. Those professors are considered more likely than lower-ranking researchers with doctorates to have made significant discoveries.

In 1998, women held 13 percent of the senior faculty positions in natural sciences at universities that had a Carnegie ranking of Research I or II, according to the Education Department's most recent National Study of Postsecondary Faculty. That's more than twice the proportion of women in the science academy's American membership. (The academy does not provide a gender breakdown for its310 foreign members.)

Just as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other universities have faced complaints that they are not doing enough to move female scientists up from junior ranks (The Chronicle, November 10), so too do critics say the academy should diversify more quickly.

"It's just astounding that in a lot of [scientific disciplines], there's not a woman who turns up on the final ballot, when you know that there are people doing interesting and exciting work" in those fields, says Maxine F. Singer, president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and an academy member.

Academy leaders point out that the number of female members has doubled over the past decade -- from 61 in 1990 to 129 today -- and they say the figure should continue to rise. They also maintain that comparing academy membership to current trends in higher education misses the point. Because the academy's selection process is based on career achievement, its current record should be measured against the proportion of female scientists in senior research jobs two or three decades ago, says R. Stephen Berry, the academy's home secretary, the title given the official who oversees the body's elections.

Precise information of that sort is not available. The Education Department's survey started in 1987, reporting that women held 10 percent of the senior faculty positions that year. Less-specific information for earlier years is available from the National Science Foundation. The agency reports that in 1973, the first year for which data are available, women held 6 percent of all senior faculty positions in academic science; by 1981, they held 9 percent.

The utility of those figures is limited, because they include positions at liberal-arts colleges, which are unlikely to produce the star researchers typically elected to the academy.

Two academy affiliates, perhaps because of their broader standards for selection, have picked a greater proportion of women. Women make up 26 percent of the Institute of Medicine's regular membership (which does not include senior or foreign members), and 18 percent of its membership over all. They make up 23 percent of members of the National Research Council's study committees.

"I don't think it's out-and-out discrimination," Ms. Singer says of the academy's lower numbers. "I think it's much more subtle. I think it has to do with people's [images] of what a scientist should look like, and act like." When women don't meet those expectations among men, they are less likely to be honored, she says.

Not everyone agrees. While discrimination was once common in the academy, "I really don't believe that you have any women who are being overlooked anymore," says Stanford's Mr. Djerassi, who developed the birth-control pill.

In a series of novels set in academe, Mr. Djerassi has focused in part on the difficulty female scientists face in winning respect from their male peers. The science academy, he says, "is a much more reasonable place, in spite of the age [of its members], than many of the universities" when it comes to rewarding women.

He and other academy members say they are perfectly willing to vote for a female or minority scientist if given a choice between two equally qualified nominees. "There are more people who are going out of their way to elect women than are prejudiced against women," says Francisco J. Ayala, a professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of California at Irvine, and a member of the academy.

Even as more women are elected, Mr. Djerassi questions the value of belonging. "In the last 10 years, it's become not just a phallocentric, homogenous self-admiration society, but a more heterogenous self-admiration society."

The membership figures are far smaller for minority scientists, especially African-Americans. The academy does not formally track the race or ethnicity of its members, its officials say. But members and outside scientists could think of only two members who are black -- the mathematician David H. Blackwell of Berkeley, and the sociologist William Julius Wilson of Harvard University.

Only one other African-American has been elected in the academy's history: Percy L. Julian, a chemist who synthesized a drug used to treat glaucoma. He was elected in 1973 and died in 1975.

The proportion of African-Americans in science and engineering is much lower than that of women. In the Education Department's faculty survey, African-Americans made up 1 percent of senior faculty members in natural science in 1987, and about the same amount in 1998. The National Science Foundation has not reported data on black scientists in senior faculty positions. But its data show that in 1973, about 1 percent of all full-time faculty members in science were black. The number rose to 2 percent by 1981.

"The science community has not distinguished itself over time in terms of helping to create opportunities for minorities to achieve those positions," says John B. Slaughter, president and chief executive officer of the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, and a former president of Occidental College. The New York-based council encourages African-American, American Indian, and Latino men to pursue careers in engineering and science.

Mr. Slaughter, who was a professor of electrical engineering before entering administration, praises the academy's leadership for supporting the council's mission. But at election time, he says, academy members seem to overlook scientific talent at smaller, less-prestigious institutions, especially historically black colleges and universities. "There are many outstanding, worthwhile scientists who have spent their careers" there, he says.

Precise numbers of Asian-American and Hispanic academy members are also hard to come by.

The Chronicle reviewed the surnames of the academy's members, a method that can give a rough approximation of the Asian presence in a group, says Ling-chi Wang, director of Berkeley's program in Asian-American studies. Mr. Wang himself has used that approach in studies of Asian-American voting patterns in San Francisco elections. He reviewed The Chronicle's list, which included 40 Asian-American and 5 Asian scientists who work at American universities -- or 2 percent of the academy's membership.

Officials at three organizations that represent Asian scientists said they could think of only one name missing from The Chronicle's list. In comparison, Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders made up 4 percent of senior faculty members in the natural sciences in 1987 and 9 percent in 1998, according to the Education Department. The National Science Foundation data show that Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders made up 3 percent of full-time science faculty members in 1973 and 7 percent by 1981.

The academy number "seems a little low," says Joseph K.-K. Li, a professor of biology at Utah State University and executive director of the Society of Chinese Bioscientists in America. "Of course, to be nominated, besides being very good, you need a little P.R.," he says -- a point confirmed by several academy members. "We're trying to encourage our members to accept more invitations to give talks around the country, so they will be recognized."

The science academy has wrestled for several years with how best to encourage its members to seek out and nominate qualified female and minority scientists, says its president, Bruce Alberts. The academy had a committee for recruiting underrepresented groups in 1995 and 1996, but the panel was disbanded.

The committee did not come up with long-term solutions, says Mr. Berry, the home secretary. Mr. Alberts adds: "Perhaps it was a mistake not to keep it going." For now, some of the academy's 31 sections -- the disciplinary groupings -- have set up subcommittees to identify more female candidates. And the academy's 17-member ruling council, which includes three women, is considering asking the sections to report annually on what they have done to seek out nominations of female and minority scientists, he says.

"I sense absolutely no resistance [among members] to addressing the issue of underrepresented groups," Mr. Berry says. However, "scientific stature and contribution will always be the dominant issue" for considering candidates, he adds. The effort to seek out overlooked scientists "is not anything faintly resembling a formal quota."

Another area in which the academy's membership is skewed is age: The average for all members is 69. "The joke was that you were tripping over catheters at the annual meeting," says a former staff member at the academy.

That pattern works against the election of younger scientists, more of whom are women or members of minority groups. "A lot of people voting are no longer active in science, and it's harder for them to recognize younger" candidates, Mr. Alberts notes. Electing more young members is another goal of academy leaders.

Election for anyone under the age of 45 is rare today, but it was more common in the past. "In my field, biology, there are many outstanding women age 30 to 45 who could no doubt be elected to the academy," Mr. Alberts says. "Do they have to wait until they're 56 years old?"

The academy is certainly an elite club when it comes to the distribution of members among universities, with a majority coming from just 30 research institutions. Seven states -- Alaska, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, and South Dakota -- have no members in the academy.

Academy membership doesn't match the actual distribution of scientific talent nationwide, maintains Mr. Berry, because many members made their reputations at smaller institutions before being lured to top universities.

Still, "I worry we don't beat the bushes for people who have made extraordinary contributions but don't come from the top schools," says John E. Dowling, a professor of natural sciences at Harvard and an academy member. "There's no question that people tend to nominate from their own institutions -- it's who you know, and who you see. People at smaller institutions are definitely at a disadvantage."

Members and nonmembers offer a variety of ideas for modifying the election process to build diversity.

To increase membership from smaller universities, one idea is to allow members to nominate candidates from their own institutions only if they propose a second name from a different institution.

Other ideas would broaden the eligibility criteria to include factors besides research excellence, such as public service, teaching ability, and success at being a mentor for young scientists.

But many researchers, including some female and minority scientists, oppose any changes that would be viewed as relaxing the single criterion of scientific excellence. To do that would diminish both the honor of membership and the academy's credibility as an independent, authoritative voice on scientific issues, they argue.

Some form of affirmative action is appropriate at universities to help female scientists, says Marlene Belfort, a professor of molecular genetics at the State University of New York at Albany, and an academy member. "But doing it at the level of the academy is the wrong place. I think there's lots of things the academy could be doing without sacrificing the quality of members."

For example, Ms. Belfort says, the academy could advise universities on how to help women balance the competing demands of career and family. If universities gave female scientists more assistance and encouragement while they raised children, fewer might quit science before achieving senior status, she says.

Several scientists who support greater diversity in the academy argue for increasing its size. They note that the number of senior scientific faculty members at American universities more than doubled, to 131,900, from 1973 to 1997.

For most of that span, the academy elected the same number of members each year, 60.

In 1999, the academy agreed to increase the number of freshmen elected each year to 72 -- the first expansion since the 1970's. The change took effect this year, but some members and other scientists believe the academy should grow even more rapidly. Mr. Berry says that suggestion poses problems, including additional work for members to screen nominees and the costs of expanding the academy's staff.

But the strongest excuse may be that academy members don't want to make their insular club less exclusive. The proposal to expand the freshman class by just 12 failed at least once before 1999.

"When [people] belong to an exclusive club, they try to keep it exclusive," says Harvard's Mr. Dowling. As a result, he says, "The academy is not as representative as it could be, should be, and has to be."

56% of members come from those 30 institutions ...

... But those 30 institutions get only 40% of federal funds for science and engineering.*

36% of members come from those 10 institutions ...

... But those 10 institutions get only 13% of federal funds for science and engineering.

21% of members come from those 4 institutions ...

... But those 4 institutions get only 6% of federal funds for science and engineering.

Easy-to-print version

E-mail this article