Today is March 8, International Women’s Day . Day to commemorate the struggle of women and claim their social position and effective equality of rights with respect to men. To do this, today we have interviewed María Lucena Pérez. Doctor in biology from the Pablo de Olavide University, she has carried out most of her academic activity at the Doñana Biological Station studying the evolutionary history of the Iberian and boreal lynx using genomic tools.
Why the Iberian lynx?
I spoke with María to ask her, first of all, what had sparked her interest in the subject. Why did you choose the Iberian lynx? Did you have it clear from the beginning or did you consider other options?
A – The choice of the species was circumstantial. I was interested in a series of questions related to the study of evolution in wild populations using genetic tools. At that time I heard about José Antonio Godoy ‘s group and his work with different species, and I got in touch with him. In the group they had just received a grant to work with the lynx and that allowed them to start a long-term project in which I finally joined. It has been fortunate that these have been the circumstances and I have been able to work with such an emblematic species.
Noteworthy among your research are works that apply genomics to the conservation of this endangered animal . How are these two fields related? How can we improve lynx protection using genetics?
A – Genetics can contribute to conservation in three stages . On the one hand, it helps to make a diagnosis of the situation. On the other hand, this knowledge allows the design of appropriate action plans . Finally, it is used to evaluate the evolution of these conservation plans throughout the entire process. Genomics , that is, the study of massive genetic data, allows us to go a step further both quantitatively, improving traditional estimates, and qualitatively, making it possible to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the species , which ultimately contributes to a better understanding of the threats which he faces. Fortunately, the Iberian lynx has all this information in its conservation plans and I believe that this explains, at least in part, their success.
Recently, the status of the Iberian lynx has changed from “critically endangered” to only “endangered”. What prognosis do you consider, as a professional, that awaits you?
A – In the medium term I can say that, although the situation is radically better than twenty years ago thanks to the implementation of conservation plans that have been very successful, today it is still essential that the species continues to be committed to ensure that populations have a number of individuals and a connectivity between them that allows them to be resilient in the face of possible eventualities.
In biology, professionals are usually divided between “smock” and “boot” biologists . Your work combines the image of the white coat associated with genetics with another that evokes a Félix Rodríguez de la Fuente wearing a good pair of boots. Do you consider yourself a gown or a boot?
A – We could say that I have never been completely comfortable in either of the two descriptions. I’ve always felt too “in a boot” to be “in a robe” and too “in a robe” to be “in a boot”. Anyone who works in the laboratory and their study subjects are wild populations will feel identified.
A woman who works doing science
When someone thinks of scientific eminences, men usually come to mind. The number of widely known women studying wildlife can be counted on the fingers. Who were the main referents of María Lucena? Did you have any female role model with whom you felt identified?
A – I have always looked for my references in people very close to me, researchers from whom I have learned and who have been a mirror in which to look at myself. From Dr. Josefa Cabrero who gave me my first opportunity , through Dr. Elena Casacuberta who taught me new ways of working or Dr. Aida Andrés with whom I have recently worked, they have been very relevant figures for me.
An issue that worries me, and to which I usually allude, is the famous scissor graph of Spanish research. It shows how from the university career to the postdoctoral degree, the proportion of women and men is quite equal, but in positions of greater responsibility it falls to worrying levels; some reports indicate 27% female principal investigators. What do you think is the reason for this exaggerated imbalance? Do you perceive a glass ceiling in science?
A – I think there are several factors that may be interacting. Socially, it is not entirely well seen that a woman puts her work before her family and this vision has an impact on our education and, therefore, on the scale of priorities that we end up developing. The current conditions of high competitiveness and scarce funding make work in science a rather precarious job, which requires great dedication, is unstable and requires a high degree of mobility, including international mobility. These characteristics are very difficult to reconcile with home care, which continues to fall mostly on women, and a family life, especially in the case of those women who decide to become mothers. The fact that stabilization is taking longer and longer forces women who finish their doctorate to have to decide where to put their energies, precisely in the years that coincide with the fertile period . For all this, many end up leaving science, despite having a vocation, with the famous phrase: “it doesn’t pay me”.
How does that phrase “it doesn’t compensate me” sound to me? It is sadly common that desire to leave the scientific system, actually quite precarious , and look for better options where there are less such competitive attitudes, and that gives them more family stability. Although it is something that happens to both men and women , the data indicates that it is much more common in them.
Do you think that this form of toxic masculinity of excessive ambition and ego struggle is established in the academic field? Could part of the problem lie there?
A – It is an issue that especially affects women because of our socialization, but also men with less ambition or who put their family first. In the long run it is a problem in the scientific system, which is impoverished by selecting homogeneous profiles. Anyway, yes, I think that science continues to be a very masculinized environment , sometimes, consciously or unconsciously, uncomfortable for women and that it does not always offer them equal opportunities. An example of this are the collaborations that arise after work having a few beers or playing soccer, which are activities that they do not usually do.
Think of the girls and women who are reading this and want to work in the study and conservation of a protected species. What message does María Lucena dedicate to all of them?
A – I would tell them that working with natural populations, especially if they are in danger of conservation, is a very rewarding and very beautiful task. The biodiversity crisis in which we find ourselves needs us all to join forces, so welcome!
