Imagination:

Science values originality as a mark of great achievement. But originality is a corollary of independence, of dissent against the received wisdom. It requires the challenge of the established order, the right to be heard however outlandish the assertion, subject only to the test of rigorous method.

Independence, originality, and therefore dissent -- these are the hallmarks of the progress of contemporary science and contemporary civilization.

If the scientific community has learned to be wary of the racial biases of the scientists such as Paul Broca’s brain studies, or of anti-Semitism in all its guises, we still have to recognize the inadequacy of the scientific community’s response to gender bias.

Recognizing the presence of gender bias is the hardest one of all.. it touches every single one of us. It is easier to be dispassionate about events far way.. but gender touches us in the privacy of our homes and in the deepest recesses of our minds.. relations between wife/husband, mother/son, daughter/ father, sister/brother.. No one can address gender bias in the abstract and escape holding up a mirror to themselves and looking hard at how they have responded to the gender bias in their own lives.

And so, to the members of the scientific community I say: look at the facts, hold up a mirror to yourselves – you cannot allow the talents of 50% of the population to be impeded and still claim to serve the interests of science…

Let us look back at the history of women in science. It is a history of dogged determination against all odds ..

Women in science go back a long way… To antiquity.. to the most ancient history –

2400 BC Egypt -- The oldest reference I have found dates from the third millennium BC from Egypt. According to the University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 1997) if the first technical (scientist) name was a man : Imhotep – architect of the first pyramid and brain surgeon! –the second technical name was a woman: En Hedu’Anna (c.2354 BC)

Late 4^th C BC Athens -- Physician Agnodice was put on trial for pretending to be a man to practice medicine, which was formally illegal. Her women patients (many of whom were wives of important men) saved her and had the law repealed

4^th C AD Alexandria –- fabled city of learning (Where Aristothenes had calculated the circumference of the earth to within 90 miles precision!) -- Hypathia was killed for her scientific views . She was not even given a trial! A Christian zealot mob hacked her to pieces.

14^th C France –- Almost a replay of the case of Agnodice, 1800 years later. Jacoba Felicie was tried for impersonating a physician to practice medicine.

But even when the law was not prohibiting them from practicing science and medicine, women were still expected to attend to their female societal roles. They are still expected to raise the family as they do their science. Some have done it magnificently. Witness Laura Bassi in 18^th C Italy -- Europe’s first woman Physics professor also raised twelve children!

What are the causes of success?

On a personal level each of the successful women demonstrated

 

• Deep commitment to science

   

   

• Superhuman determination

   

   

• Willingness to fight for what is right

   

   

• Mentoring benefits, and

   

   

• At least some supportive surroundings

   

In addition, some circumstances can also be favorable to help them overcome the myriad obstacles that block their way, and these are important to identify. Nurturing these supportive circumstances can help improve the conditions of women in science today. They include both public and private sources of support.

Public support:

Public support does play a role.

 

• Pagan Alexandria supported Hypathia against Christian Alexandria, until the latter got the upper hand.

   

   

• The Church in the middle ages supported some nuns doing research, which is what enabled Hildegarde of Bingen

   

   

• Italy supported women academics more than other parts of Europe, thus we have a proud tradition from Tortula in 11^th C Salerno, to Maria Agnesi and Laura Bassi in the 18^th Century.

   

Private Support:

Private Support is also very important. In almost every case of a notable woman scientist defeating the odds to be recognized for her talent, private and immediate support was important. Father, husband, brother, family and/or friends helped.

Thus Hypathia’s father encouraged and helped her. More distant, but possibly more enduring, it was the "Ladies of Baltimore" who helped make Johns Hopkins fully co-educational in the 19^th Century.

2.3 Obstacles to women in science:

There are many obstacles, but they can be grouped into five broad themes:

 

• Double standard

   

   

• Barriers to access and advancement

   

   

• General discrimination

   

   

• Social ostracism

   

   

• Psychological barriers

   

2.3.1 double standard:

In all aspects of social behavior today we note a double standard that puts on women an added burden. Science is regretfully not different. Women are assumed to be the assistants to men, not their peers, much les the leaders. This pernicious attitude finds frequent reflection, from Marie curie to the present, that when women and men work as a husband and wife team – the husband is assumed to be the "brains of the outfit"!! The old double standard is alive and well even in the dispassionate scientific community. Women have to prove themselves time and again before being assumed to be the equal of men.

2.3.2 Barriers to access:

Women suffer from many barriers to access throughout their careers in science. First and foremost, there is a universal discrimination against the girl child in many part so the developing world, with enrolment and graduation rates lagging boys. Then the subtle and not so subtle societal pressures operate to reduce their attendance at science and mathematics courses in higher education facilities.

Consider the enormous difficulties faced by the women who wanted to make a career in science in the 19^th century and well into the 20^th century. It is interesting to remember that Elizabeth Blackwell, (UK/US, 1821-1910) was the first woman to earn an MD degree (on Jan. 23, 1849). She had 29 rejections from colleges until -- as a joke -- the Dean of Geneva NY college accepted her.

Today, throughout the developing world, and in some parts of the industrialized countries too, early marriage and abandonment of study and career choices are frequently the lot of talented women who in other societies could have flourished in science.

2.3.3 General discrimination:

Barriers to entry are exacerbated by discriminatory practices on the job. We should not be deluded by the many successful careers of women in advanced institutions in the industrialized countries today. Many more suffer and continue to suffer, at entry, then by absence of opportunities, and lack of promotion opportunities or of adequate recognition.

For many reasons, a "glass ceiling" has existed in the world of employment and it is no different in many – though certainly not all- scientific enterprises. Sometimes this discrimination takes the form of not giving women the opportunity to lead the team, and thus perpetually keep them from the visibility and experience that would help them get recognition and promotions. Sometimes it is motivated by a view that women are the secondary wage earner in the family and thus it is "all right" to pass them by in favor of their male colleagues, and sometimes it is because of a fear that they may marry and leave the enterprise after the enterprise has "invested in them" and so on. All the usual efforts at justifying discrimination in one form or another. Yet, most regretfully, it is so pervasive as to be almost unnoticed.

Recognition was denied to many women of distinction.

Ada Lovelace (1815-1852), Daughter of Byron, explained the Babbage computer in a series of remarkable notes that for 30 years had to be signed only AAL because it was inappropriate for a "decent" woman of her rank in society to publish scientific material.. While the men could gain fame and honor for so publishing. That attitude carried into the twentieth century, and Arthur Wallace Calhoun could still state in 1918 that "A woman’s name should appear in print but twice – when she marries and when she dies."

More recently:

Barbara McLintock (jumping genes, 1983 Nobel) ignored for decades – as "that crazy woman" - until after her formal retirement and only when many other researchers confirmed her work.

2.3.4 Social ostracism:

Much of the networking that helps people advance in their chosen careers occurs at social gatherings where women have frequently been denied entry. This has taken the form of formal rules, or unstated practices, at clubs and professional societies. The Cosmos club in Washington did not allow women as full members until the 1980s, and the Royal Society had no female members till 1945.

We have come a long way since then… Recall that Margaret Peachy Burbidge became first woman to head the Royal Greenwich Observatory

2.3.5 Psychological obstacles...

prejudice often carries onto the mind of the victim. Thus Mary Somerville in 19^th C Britain, wrote that "..genius, that divine spark from heaven, is not granted to the female sex.." despite herself being a scientist of ability, and a great popularizer of science.

But today ..

Mathematician Julia Bowman Robinson (1919-1985), who served as the first woman president of the American Mathematical Association in 1983/84, did not want to be known as the first woman to have done this or that, but to be remembered for the quality of her work.

Indeed we must be grateful to the women pioneers who would not be deterred by these myriad obstacles and who by their determination paved the way for the many young girls entering science all over the world, and who will redress these grievous imbalances by their achievements in the decades to come.

We need to empower women in every domain, and science is no exception. We must do so because empowerment of women is the key to all development; because discrimination is wrong in any domain; and because science cannot discriminate against women and remain true to the values of science, to its own moral code of objectivity

But the task will be difficult, because the remaining issues are not legal boundaries to overcome, they are behavioral issues.. Bringing about behavioral change is infinitely more difficult than changing a law. Although the law is important to help change the behavior. As Martin Luther King Jr. said about civil rights legislation:

"Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart but they can restrain the heartless."

So we are now up against subtle and not so subtle behavior that needs changing.

That, my friends, is the true revolution, creating a new order of things. There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies, all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.

But let us not falter – women’s issues are no luxury that we can take or leave..

This is not just a matter of equity and fairness, although it is certainly that.. it is a matter of life and death —

Look at the world around us today. Look at the terrible statistics of maternal mortality and infant mortality. Look at the rampant feminization of poverty and hunger… Look at the world and recognize the facts…

It is strange that facts of rampant discrimination can stare us in the face but not be seen for what they are. Just taking the census figures for age-sex-specific mortality rates in the Indian sub-continent, Amartya Sen calculated that had the more general global figures prevailed, there would have been 100 million more women in the population. He wrote a stunning essay entitled: "100 million women are missing" and raised a furor. The evidence was there staring us in the face…

Most intriguing was the reaction of many distinguished scientists (men) who started quibbling with the numbers. Redoing the calculations, they would argue that the number is really "only 63 million" or no, "it is really 106 million", or more precisely 93 million… whatever it was, it was and is a very large number. It bespeaks of systematic discrimination against the girl child and calls for urgent action to redress these conditions…

So let us take action. Let us resolve to strengthen the factors of success, those factors that can help determined and deserving women overcome the obstacles.

Let us study and learn from the past. Indeed, just rectifying past injustices in the historical record, is not only just, it is an important part of empowering the future generations of women. Even when such "revisionist history" proves traumatic to a few, it can be empowering and inspiring to many.

Redressing the wrongs of the past, through historical scholarship, creates strength for the present and the future:

Gerda Lerner in 1982 addressing the Organization of American Historians as their new president said:

From the past to the present and the future is a straight trajectory that must be bent to our dreams of better tomorrows.

Remember: enhance support, provide mentoring and ensure encouragement in order that the talented women scientists of tomorrow can truly blossom to full potential.

Today we are sustained more by networks than by individuals. So let us establish these networks, let us strengthen those that exist. Let us reach out to the women who are not yet reached by such supportive and nurturing networks.

Be inspired by the example of Lydia Makhubu, founder of the Third World Organization of Women Scientists. Try to build links to TWOWS as you establish and expand your own new network here, the "Women in Science International League".

For many scientists, there are problems of not being in the first world. A third world address inhibits their ability to be recognized for the high quality research that they do. Women in the developing world suffer doubly: from gender bias and the general bias against the third world.

So let me say a few words about the gap between the industrial and the developing world…. which is vast and still growing ….

To the members of the scientific community in the industrialized world I say: you cannot let the talents of 80% of humanity flourish only if they leave their native lands or de-link themselves from their societies. You must extend additional efforts to reach them and assist in the strengthening of the scientific enterprise in the south. we are all gain if all of humanity can contribute.

To the members of the scientific community in the developing world I say : we are at a crossroads: either we are going to reassert the importance of science and the scientific outlook, or we are going to witness our societies increasingly marginalized in the world of the information age.

The scientific communities of the developing world will either become more and more detached from their own societies, or they will reassert the links of the scientific outlook and its values in the mainstream of the modernization efforts and discourse of their changing societies. They must by their engagement help create the "space of freedom" necessary for civilized constructive social discourse and essential for the practice of science, even more than the availability of money. This commitment is the only way to create centers of excellence in the developing world and to ensure that the benefits of progress accrue to all the poor and the marginalized. It is these "values of science" that can unleash the full measure of their talent and their genius. All of that however, requires liberating the mind from the tyranny of intolerance, bigotry and fear, and opening the doors to free inquiry, tolerance and imagination.

These tasks are enormous. But the longest journey starts with a single step. So let us start. If not us, who? if not now, when?

Thank you.