 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Truth in Publishing: Blurbs and Acknowledgments, Continued | Comment [1]
Truth in Publishing: Curb Those Blurbs and Syrupy Acknowledgments | Comment [5]
Colleges Are Protected From Failure | Comment [17]
Ripe for the Gripe | Comment [12]
'Rebranding' Engineering | Comment [14]
Featured Articles By the Author
As Usual, Few Women Elected to NAS
You have to understand the place of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in American science and science politics to grasp the sexist effrontery of the venerable institution.
With a Congressional charter signed by Abe Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is both a prestigious hall of fame and a scientific think tank, all rolled into one snooty organization, headquartered in a marble palace near the Washington Mall. In a profession that doles out honors like a nursery-school graduation, membership in the Academy is the greatest honor for an American scientist, second only to the Nobel Prize.
Each year, the current membership votes in a new crop of members. Universities boast of the number of academicians on their faculties. Scientists scheme and plot to get elected and to elect their allies. Conspiracy rumors are plentiful. Many aspirants are hopeful, but few make it. The U.S. pool of Ph.D. scientists — from which virtually all academicians are drawn — numbers about 625,000. Academy membership currently totals 2,041.
But in addition to bestowing recognition and honor, the Academy also serves as an adviser to the federal government — and to any one else who wants to sign up for its costly but influential ruminations. Business is good, bringing in over $100-million a year for studies of all kinds. Some members actively participate in NAS studies and other academy activities, serving gratis, as a service to the country. But since most members are too busy or too far over the hill to cogitate on contract, the real work is done by hired staff, which numbers over 1,000.
For scientists who are ambitious and who crave recognition — they are one and the same — Academy membership is extremely beneficial for getting to the top. In its role as adviser to the government, the Academy is often influential in promoting spending priorities for research. In conjunction with the honor that accompanies membership, it’s a power site for science politics. Which brings us to the share of membership possessed by women. It is minuscule.
Of the current 2,041 members, 220 are women. In the latest election of members, announced this week, 16 women were among the 72 electees. That’s an improvement over 2007, when nine women were elected, and 2006, which brought in 12 women. The peak election year for women was 2005, when 19 were elected.
The standard explanation for the paucity of female members is that women only recently entered the ranks of science in large numbers, and many have not been there long enough to establish the professional reputations that lead to Academy membership.
That was true 35 years ago, when women accounted for 9 percent of all doctoral-level employment on university science and engineering faculties, according to the National Science Foundation. Today, the comparable figure for female Ph.D. academic employment is 33 percent.
The American scientific community is blessed with large numbers of outstanding women scientists—in numbers far beyond the slight recognition accorded them by the National Academy of Sciences.
But even in science, despite its boasts of meritocracy, the old boys look out for their buddies.
Posted at 02:01:09 PM on April 29, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Part Two: Q&A With John H. Marburger
Next: Science and the Tin Cup: Some Further Discussion
There is a factual mistakes in what is otherwise a necessary reminder to the Academy that there are indeed too few women among its venerable ranks. The first is that the NAS studys referred to (actually carried out by the National Research Council, but affiliated to the Academy to be sure) are carried out by committees of scientists drawn from the entire US and at times non-US scientific community. Academy members may take part, but the majority of committee memberships is non-Academy. And while the NRC does indeed have a large staff, it is these committee members who do the work, have no doubt of this.
— Mike Ellis · Apr 30, 10:24 AM · #
It would seem that, for improvement in the outcomes over the long haul, women and minority scientist organizations might take a lesson from the Impressionist painters of Paris in the nineteenth century.
When the grand prizes were all being awarded to the “insider” painters, the Impressionists held a “Salon des Refuses” (an exhibition of the “rejected/refused”).
Perhaps major “women in science” organizations and “minorities in science organizations” might compile their own lists and mini-bios of those scientists whom they think should be members of the NAS, but aren’t. A nice booklet version of the “Salon des Refuses”, announced with fanfare to the media, about say, six months before the NAS announcments are due might just inspire some of the “old boys” to take a look at the “old gals” who just might not happen to be members of their conference-jetsetting bridge/bar club.
— Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Apr 30, 02:14 PM · #