A richer and more diverse future for cell biology.
A richer and more diverse future for cell biology.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1091/mbc.e10-09-0772
复制
发表时间：
2010-11-15
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
ASCB Women in Cell Biology Committee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Schmid SL;Carnes M;Goodenough U;Hopkins N;Leboy P;Masur S;Valian V;ASCB Women in Cell Biology Committee
我们的愿景：在未来几十年内，细胞生物学系和所有生物科学系的组成将反映出这些系研究生的多样化组成。我们今天离这一现实还很远。性别和种族在代表性方面都存在差异。泰龙海斯的文章在这卷提供了一个令人信服的讨论所面临的挑战的人的颜色在科学。在这里，我们关注性别。整整50%的生物学博士。毕业生是女性。这些妇女中的大多数继续接受博士后研究员培训。然而，在终身教职的学术生涯道路上，女性的比例随着沿着每一次进步而下降，因此，生物科学领域20%的正教授是女性（最大限度地发挥女性在学术科学和工程领域的潜力委员会，2007年）;在顶级机构中，这一数字下降到15%（Handelsman等人，2005年）。在几乎每一个主要的科学会议上，演讲者都是主要的（通常超过70%，有时几乎是唯一的！）男性会议组织者会合理地指出，被邀请作为专题演讲者的杰出科学家是从更成熟的研究人员中挑选出来的。因此，邀请妇女的数量实际上与她们在高级教员中的人数成比例。这一论点往往隐含着这样一种观念，即女毕业生人数的早期差异是女发言人少的主要原因，实现平衡只是时间问题。然而，数字表明，仅仅时间的推移是不够的。2003年美国国家科学院（NAS）的一份报告比较了2003年之前分别毕业于0-6年、7-15年或16年的博士生中，女助理教授、副教授和正教授的比例，结果表明，每个阶段的女性比例都下降了20（c17最大限度发挥妇女在学术科学和工程领域潜力委员会，2007年）。离开学术界并利用其科学培训走上其他职业道路的妇女（和男子）以各种有价值的方式为社会做出了重大贡献。那么，为什么女性的流失如此重要，它又如何影响细胞生物学和生物医学研究呢？创造和保持科学的多样性很重要，原因有几个。首先，多样性为创新提供了更大的机会：从不同的角度看待复杂的问题会产生突破。其次，正如一些企业正在意识到的那样，一些研究已经表明（Page，2007; Polzer等人，2002年），具有多元化劳动力的包容性企业，承认和重视独特的个人贡献，往往比同质性企业更成功。第三，随着科学问题复杂性的增加，建立跨学科和多学科团队并在其中工作的必要性也在增加。妇女领导人在建立解决复杂问题的包容性团队方面取得了成功（Alfrely和Carli，2007年; Caliper，2005年）。第四，投入大量资源培养研究生和博士后。因此，根据NAS的报告（c17委员会最大限度地发挥妇女在学术科学和工程领域的潜力，2007年），“我们的学术机构和我们的国家都不能承受这种对宝贵的
Our vision: within the next few decades the composition of the faculty of cell biology, and of all biological science departments, will reflect the diverse composition of the graduate students in those departments. We are far from that reality today. Disparities in representation exist for both gender and race. Tyrone Hayes’ essay in this volume provides a compelling discussion of the challenges faced by people of color in the sciences. Here we focus on gender. Fully 50% of current biology Ph. D. graduates are women. Most of those women continue training as postdoctoral fellows. Yet the percentage of women declines with each advance along the tenure-track academic career path, so that 20% of full professors in the biological sciences are women (c17 Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, 2007); the number drops to 15% in top-tier institutions (Handelsman et al., 2005). At almost every major scientific conference the featured speakers are predominantly (typically more than 70%, and sometimes almost exclusively!) male. Meeting organizers will reasonably point out that the outstanding scientists invited as featured speakers are drawn from the pool of more established investigators. Thus the number of invitations to women is in fact proportional to their numbers in the senior faculty ranks. Often implicit in this argument is the notion that earlier differences in the numbers of women graduates are largely responsible for the paucity of women speakers and that it is just a matter of time before balance is achieved. However, the numbers show that the mere passage of time is not enough. A 2003 National Academies of Science (NAS) report comparing percentages of women assistant, associate, and full professors relative to pools of Ph. Ds who graduated 0–6, 7–15, or 16 years, respectively, before 2003 has documented a 20% drop in the proportion of women at each stage (c17 Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, 2007). The women (and men) who leave academia and use their scientific training to follow other career paths contribute significantly to society in diverse and valuable ways. So why is the loss of women important, and how does it affect cell biology and biomedical research? Creating and maintaining diversity in science is important for several reasons. First, diversity provides a greater opportunity for innovation: breakthroughs emerge by looking at complex problems from diverse perspectives. Second, as some businesses are realizing and several studies have shown (Page, 2007; Polzer et al., 2002), inclusive enterprises with a diverse work force that recognize and value unique individual contributions tend to be more successful than more homogeneous ones. Third, as the complexity of scientific problems increases, the need to build and to work within inter-and multidisciplinary teams increases. Women leaders have documented success in building inclusive teams that solve complex problems (Eagly and Carli, 2007; Caliper, 2005). Fourth, huge resources are invested in training graduate students and postdocs. Therefore, according to the NAS report (c17 Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, 2007),“neither our academic institutions nor our nation can afford such underuse of precious