If you ask any of us by the names of several illustrious scientists, we probably won’t have too much trouble providing a more or less decent list; Another question would be that they ask us for names of illustrious scientists. In that case, the name Marie Curie would come up … and little else . And not because there have not been many brilliant female minds in the field of science and research, but because, unfortunately, they have been remembered by few and forgotten by many.
In any case, it is not necessary to look back to find brilliant female minds; It is not even necessary to leave our borders. In Spain we have internationally renowned scientists, such as the biochemist Margarita Salas, the physicist-optician Josefa Yzuel or the molecular biologist María Blasco.
That society knows their names and their work, that it values what they do, is important: because the low visibility of female scientists in our society, as well as the existence of stereotypes – we have a primarily male image of scientists – cause little interest in science by girls and young women . And we are probably losing a lot of talent along the way.
An international day more than justified
With the aim of trying to make the work of female scientists visible and promote the research vocation in girls through the creation of female roles, every February 11 the International Day of Women and Girls in Science is celebrated, and, In Spain, a group of researchers and scientific communicators commemorate it by coordinating the February 11 Initiative, in which numerous groups and institutions will participate, organizing various activities from 6 to 19 this month.
On the agenda for these next two weeks, there will be workshops, talks, performances, competitions, exhibitions, appointments with scientists, Wikipedia edits and round tables . These will take place in museums, cultural centers, universities and research centers, educational centers, bookstores, emblematic sites and even bars.
The celebration of that day is more than justified: only 7% of the girls believe that they will have a profession related to science , according to data provided by the February 11 Initiative. And despite the fact that the presence of women in university studies today is 54.5% (a figure that exceeds the average of 52.4% in the EU), for example, in the case of careers such as Physics or Engineering, they do not reach the 30%. And the data are even less promising as the woman progresses in the research career, since “the number of university professors and research professors at the CSIC does not reach 25%,” they highlight in a statement.
Likewise, they denounce that “the female presence is disproportionately low in scientific nominations or awards. Different studies show that women and girls face involuntary biases from evaluators.” In this sense, they explain that, throughout their careers, women with the same merits and the same degree of productivity as men are considered less competent .
The importance of being called John (and not Jennifer)
Thus, they give as an example the content of a study carried out in 2012 by Yale University and published by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It explained that the researchers sent 127 biologists, chemists and physicists from six universities across the United States the resume of a recent graduate so that they could evaluate his candidacy for a position of head of laboratory in a specific university.
They had to express their opinion on the candidate’s competencies, as well as determine the salary that they would offer him if they had to hire him and if he deserved to have a mentor as support or not. All teachers were sent the same curriculum – with the same average grades, experience, letters of recommendation, etc -, only that in half the cases the name that appeared was that of a candidate named Jennifer and in the other half it was a candidate, John.
What do you think was the result? Regarding the competence that was assumed, the man obtained an average evaluation of 4 compared to 3.3 that they gave Jennifer (on a scale of 1 to 7) and they also believed him more profitable and deserving of professional tutoring than to her. Likewise, the recommended salary for John was $ 30,328 a year compared to the proposed 26,508 for the woman. The bias, according to the study, appeared to be unconscious, and did not depend on whether the rater was female or male: both genders were equally likely to show their preference for John.
