Reactions

Women in chemistry: A complicated question

I feel compelled to applaud Valerie J. Kuck for her guest editorial "Women in Science" (C&EN, Feb. 28, page 3). It was succinct, insightful, and to the point. The status of women in science, and specifically in chemistry, has been an area of interest and concern to me ever since I received my Ph.D. in physical (nuclear) chemistry from Iowa State University more than 50 years ago. The advances women have made in pursuing careers in chemistry since that time are almost unbelievable.

I described some of these amazing gains in the second half of my Priestley Medal address (C&EN, March 27, 2000, page 36). I pointed out that in spite of remarkable gains, many problems still remained, one of them being the paucity of women with the rank of tenured professor on the chemistry faculties of our major research universities. In the 1970s and 1980s, I (and many others) believed that if we could just interest more young women in science at an early age, keep them from dropping out during adolescence and high school, and encourage them to obtain bachelor's degrees and then Ph.D.s in chemistry, we would see a corresponding increase in the number of women faculty in chemistry departments. We put much time and effort into interactions with young women, assuming that once young women were in the "pipeline," they would progress to full professorships in proportion to their numbers in the pool of qualified candidates.

It appeared that our efforts were successful, as the numbers of women receiving bachelor's degrees and Ph.D.s rose to 33% and 17%, respectively, in 1983 and to about 40% and 30% by 1993. But in 1998, when I looked at the number of women holding tenured professorships in the top 10 departments of chemistry, the numbers were shockingly low.

Currently, about half of bachelor's and a third of Ph.D. graduates are women (C&EN, Feb. 7, page 40). Unfortunately, there has not been the corresponding increase in women faculty (C&EN, Aug. 16, 2004, page 29). In fact, women hold only 8% of the full professorships at the top universities, while 19-20% of associate and assistant professors are women. The figures showing that there are no women associate professors at the top five universities do not bode well for increases in senior faculty in the near future.

As Kuck stated, the excuse often given by chemistry faculties is that "women don't apply." But why? In 2002, when junior positions were advertised and a woman chaired our chemistry department at the University of California, Berkeley, fewer than 12% of applicants were women. Questionnaires were sent to our recent female Ph.D. graduates to find out why. One of the dominant themes was that the respondents perceived the environment to be harsh, male-dominated, competitive, and child and family unfriendly. The other frequent theme was related to problems associated with two-career marriages. (More women than men chemists are married to other Ph.D. scientists, so women are affected disproportionately.)

I agree with Kuck's conclusion that the reasons for the small percentage of women among the tenured faculty of our chemistry departments need to be further investigated. Blaming this on an innate difference in the ability of women and men to pursue the study and practice of chemistry is absurd. Such erroneous and simplistic explanations only lead to acrimonious and fruitless exchanges that divert our attention from ascertaining and addressing the real problems.

Darleane C. Hoffman
Berkeley, Calif.

It is fine for an opinion piece writer to argue that, given the past history of discrimination and the advances that have occurred in the past few decades, there is no compelling evidence of gender differences in aptitude for science and math (C&EN, March 14, page 32). It is fine to express the belief that these advances actually support the idea of equality more than they support a gender difference. I would even agree when he says "the still primarily male intellectual community needs to get used to the gains women are making, try to understand them better, rejoice in them." It is good to point out the decline in male attendance at universities and in chemistry graduates. It is okay to compare the passage of Title IX legislation to the end of slavery, although it is clearly an exaggeration.

I and virtually everyone I know believe that talent is uncommon enough, and that it is foolish to discriminate on the basis of sex, except possibly for jobs requiring great muscular strength or an in-depth discussion of sexual issues. Most people with any important responsibilities would be offended at the suggestion that they had discriminated systematically against any group.

The purpose of the press ought to be to encourage full discussion of issues, with no position off the table. When the writer tries to foreclose a discussion of gender differences in aptitude before the matter is fully settled, I have to wonder whether he belongs in journalism. Such discussions should disappear when the gaps disappear, and not before. I do not accept the point of view that if there is not complete equality in every respect, then it can only be because someone has been treated unfairly. All of us are treated unfairly sometimes. If it happens, then it ought to be pointed out and an effort made to do better. However, sometimes our failures lie within ourselves.

Charles E. Hudson
Galveston, Texas