AWNings

The newsletter of the
Academic Women's Network
at Washington University

Vol. 6 No. 3 July 1997

Susan Deusinger, Director of the Program in Physical Therapy, was featured in Washington, the Washington University Magazine and Alumni News.

Susan Mallory was promoted to Professor in the Department of Medicine.

Deborah Rubin was promoted to Associate Professor in the Dept. of Medicine. She was also named chair of the Committee on Women in Gastroenterology of the American Gastoenterological Association from 1997 through 2000.

The Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) at NIH sponsored a meeting in Santa Fe, which I attended July 21-23. The meeting, one of three regional meetings, addressed continuing and emerging issues in women's health research across the life span. A public hearing was held the first day with representatives of organizations and individuals with an interest in biomedical and behavioral research on women's health providing testimony to draw attention to scientific issues of public health interest. The scientific workshops the next two days focused on women's health research, with particular reference to the differences among populations of women, continuing gaps in knowledge, emerging scientific issues, and career issues of concern to women scientists. Issues regarding special populations included race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, rural, lesbians, disabilities. It is clear--when it comes to health--it can't be a "one size fits all" mentality.

The ORWH has been charged to "increase the number and enhance the career development of women in biomedical science." Penelope Kegel-Flom, past president, Association for Women in Science, presented testimony: "Addressing barriers to women scientists--research and strategies." In her talk, she said that "differences in the academic advancement of women scientists is well-documented. Compared to male colleagues, women scientists are paid less, are promoted less often, are more likely to be unemployed or under-employed, receive fewer prestigious awards, participate less in science policy and funding decisions, and are, overall, sparse at the top. Cited reasons for these disparities are: lack of mentoring from senior scientists, exclusion from the inner circles of departmental politics and influence; isolation, conflicts between professional and personal lives, and frank gender bias." These issues applied regardless of size or character of the institution. She also said that recruitment and retention of women scientists requires establishing specific departmental goals and timetables for recruitment and hiring, designating departmental slots for women, equitable hiring packages, and departmental accountability for improvement in hiring and retention of their women scientists. In addition, the institution needs policies that specifically "warm up" the environment for women.

In 1991, ORWH convened a national meeting to assess the state of the science and to develop a research agenda for womenâs health. With the recent meeting and the previous two others, ORWH is updating and revising the NIH agenda for womenâs health research for the 21st century. The final national meeting November 17-19 will be in Bethesda, Maryland. With several hundred (mostly women) participating, it's clear that the women's health movement is not a passing fad. It is truly a revolution for the 1990's and the 21st century.

The Appropriations Flood Relief bill included $15 million for research on the effects of environmental factors on breast cancer. This money has been approved and is literally waiting to be spent.

The first World Conference on Breast Cancer was held in Kingston, Ontario, in July. The conference attended by women from around the world to develop a global plan to eradicate breast cancer focused heavily on suspected environmental links to the disease.

Speaking of groups joining forces to eradicate breast cancer--"Rock for the Cure" is a non-profit organization created by female musicians to raise awareness in the fight against breast cancer and increase the involvement of young adults in this issue. For information call 703-525-0435. It's time that young women are becoming activists in women's health.

In the May 1997 issue of Nature, Christin Wenneras and Agnes Wold report on their analysis of peer-review scores for postdoctoral fellowship application in Sweden. Their study revealed the system to be riddled with prejudice demonstrating both nepotism and sexism.

Their investigation was prompted by the fact that the success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the Swedish Medical Research Council (MRC) during the 1990's had been less than half that of male applicants. Their study suggests that peer reviewers cannot judge scientific merit independent of gender. The peer reviewers over-estimated male achievements and/or under-estimated female performance, as shown by multiple-regression analyses of the relation between defined parameters of scientific productivity and competence scores.

In the peer-review system of the MRC, each applicant submits a curriculum vitae, a bibliography and a research proposal. The individual applicant is rated by five reviewers, each of whom gives the applicant a score between 0 and 4 for the following three parameters: scientific competence; relevance of the research proposal; and the quality of the proposed methodology. The three scores are then multiplied to yield a product score that can vary between 0 and 64. Scores are then averaged.

Wenneras and Wold found that the MRC reviewers gave female applicants lower average scores than male applicants on all three evaluation parameters: 0.25 fewer points for scientific competence (2.21 vs. 2.45); 0.17 fewer points for quality of the proposed methodology (2.37 vs. 2.54); and 0.13 fewer points for relevance of the research proposal (2.49 vs. 2.62). Because these scores are multiplied with each other, female applicants received substantially lower final scores compared with male applicants (13.8 vs. 17.0 on average). The year of the study (1995), four women (of 52) and 16 men (of 62) were awarded postdoctoral fellowships.

As shown by these figures, the peer reviewers deemed women applicants to be particularly deficient in scientific competence. As it is generally regarded that this is related to the number and quality of scientific publications, the authors explored the scientific productivity of all 114 applicants.

Scientific productivity was measured in six different way. First, the applicant's total number or publications was determined. Second, the number of publications on which the applicant was first authors was evaluated. To take into account the fact that the prestige of biomedical journals varies, they constructed measures based on journal's impact factors. The third measure, then was to add together the impact factors of each of the journals in which the applicantâs papers were published, generating the "total impact measure" of the applicantâs total number of publication. Fourth, they generated the "first-author impact measure" by adding together the impact factors of the journals in which the applicantâs first-author papers appeared. The unit of measure for both total impact and first-author impact is "impact points". Fifth, using the science citation database, they identified the number of times the applicantâs scientific papers were cited during 1994, which yielded the measure "total citations." And sixth, they repeated this procedure for papers on which the applicant was first author, giving the measure "first-author citations."

Did men and women with equal scientific productivity receive the same competence rating by the MRC reviewers? No! The peer reviewers gave female applicants lower scores than male applicants who displayed the same level of scientific productivity. In fact, the most productive group of female applicants, containing those with 100 total impact points or more, was the only group of women judged to be as competent as men, although only as competent as the least productive group of male applicants (the one whose members had fewer than 20 total impact points).

To determine the cause of women's lower scores, the authors performed a multiple-regression analysis assuming that the competence scores given to applicants are linearly related to their scientific productivity. They constructed six different multiple-regression models, one for each of the productivity variables outlined above. In each of these models, they determined the influence of the following factors on the competence scores: the applicantâs gender; nationality (Swedish/non-Swedish); basic education (medical, science or nursing school); scientific field; university affiliation; the evaluation committee to which the applicant was assigned; whether the applicant had had post doctoral experience abroad; whether a letter of recommendation accompanied the application; and whether the applicant was affiliated with any of the members of the evaluation committee. The last piece of information is noted on the MRC evaluation protocols, in which case the reviewer in question is not allowed to participate in the scoring of that applicant. It was as frequent for female (12 per cent) as for male (13 per cent) applicants to be associated with a committee member.

Three out of the six productivity variables generated statistically significant models capable of predicting the competence score the applicants were awarded: total impact, first-author impact and first-author citations. In all three models, they found two factors as well as scientific productivity that had a significant influence on the competence scores: the gender of the applicant and the affiliation of the applicant with a committee member.

According to the multiple-regression model based on total impact, female applicants started from a basic competence level of 2.09 competence points and were given an extra 0.0033 competence points for every impact point they had accumulated. Independent of scientific productivity, however, male applicants received an extra 0.21 points for competence. So, for a female scientist to be awarded the same competence score as a male colleague, she needed to exceed his scientific productivity by 64 impact points. This represents approximately three extra papers in Nature or Science (impact factors 25 and 22, respectively) or 20 extra papers in a journal with an impact factor of around 3, which would be specialist journals such as Atherosclerosis, Gut, Infection and Immunity, Neuroscience or Radiology. Considering that the mean total impact of this cohort of applicants was 40 points, a female applicant had to be 2.5 times more productive than the average male applicant to receive the same competence score.

According to the same multiple-regression model, applicants who were affiliated with a committee member received competence scores 0.22 points higher than applicants of the same gender and scientific productivity who lacked such ties. This Îaffiliation bonusâ was worth 67 impact points. Hence, an applicant lacking personal ties with the reviewers needed to have 67 more impact points than an applicant of the same sex who was associated with one of the reviewers, to be perceived as equally competent.

Because the affiliation bonus was of the same magnitude as the Îmale genderâ bonus, a woman applicant could make up for her gender by being affiliated with one of the reviewers. on the other hand, a female lacking personal connections in the committee had to present an additional 131 impact points to the MRC reviewers (six Nature papers!) to receive the same competence score as a male applicant affiliated with one of the reviewers.

Such a level of productivity was attained by only three of the 114 applicants, one male and two female. Hence, being of the female gender and lacking personal connections was a double handicap of such severity that it could hardly be compensated for by scientific productivity alone.

The peer review system, characterized as "the centerpiece of the modern scientific review process" has been criticized on many grounds, including poor inter-reviewer reliability and because reviewers may favor projects confirming their own views. This is the first study that provides direct evidence that the peer-review system is subject to nepotism and gender bias.

Several studies have shown that both women and men rate the quality of men's work higher than that of women when they are aware of the sex of the person to be evaluated, but not when the same person's gender is unknown.

If gender discrimination of the magnitude observed is operative in the peer-review systems of other research councils and grant-awarding organization and in countries other than Sweden, this could entirely account for the lower success rate of female as compared with male researchers in attaining high academic rank. The United Nations has recently named Sweden as the leading country in the world with respect to equal opportunities for men and women, so it is not too far-fetched to assume that gender-based discrimination may occur elsewhere.

An in-depth analysis of other peer-review systems can be achieved only if the policy of secrecy is abandoned. It is often claimed that secrecy in scoring will protect reviewers from improper influences. But the results cast doubt on these claims. It has also been suggested that the recruitment of peer reviewers of high quality would be impeded in reviewers were not granted anonymity. Such fears seem to be exaggerated because, although reviewer evaluation scores have been accessible in Sweden, there have been no large-scale;e defections of peer reviewers from the evaluation committees.

Most important, the credibility of the academic system will be undermined in the eyes of the public if it does not allow a scientific evaluation of its own scientific evaluation system. One must recognize that scientists are no less immune than other human beings to the effects of prejudice and comradeship. The development of peer-review systems with some built-in resistance to the weaknesses of human nature is therefore of high priority. It this is not done, a large pool of promising talent will be wasted.

(Excerpted from Nature 387: 341-343)

In 1989 Motorola decided that by 2000 its management should mirror the share of women and minorities in the population, so it revamped its succession planning--focusing first on its most senior staff. Top managers now must supply names of the three people most likely to replace them. The first is the manager who would fill the job in an emergency. The second slot is for someone who could be groomed for the job in three to five years. The new third spot is dedicated to the woman or minority closest to being qualified for the position. Managers are expected to give that third person opportunities to get the experience needed to merit the promotion. As a result, women have moved into the first or second slots for approximately 75 of the companyâs 300 most prized jobs. (from Breaking Through by Linda Minelstein, Business Week, 2/17/97)

Less adequate institutional support for research, a poorer quality of mentorship, and gender-based stereotypes continue to hinder womenâs movement into the top ranks of academic medicine, concludes a commentary by Janet Bickel, AAMC associate Vice President for Institutional Planning and Development, in the May 12, 1997, edition of "The Scientist." Ms Bickel argues that academic medicine cannot afford to waste the leadership talent of any of its members, but that outdated stereotypes, such as expecting women to smile and defer, are still a problem. She recommends that women seek "Mentor Replacement Therapy" such as the professional development seminars offered by AAMC, and that institutions and societies offer leadership skill development opportunities to both men and women faculty.

"Maximizing Professional Development of Women in Academic Medicine" can be found on the Web at http://165.123.33.33/yr1997/may/comm_970512.html. To request reprints, contact "The Scientist" at 71764.2561@compuserve.com.

The March issue of Harvard Business Review includes a case study titled "Will She Fit In?" designed to facilitate discussion of the subtler aspects of sexism still encountered. The Comfort Syndrome interferes with the hiring and promotion of women into senior positions when women are passed over because "we're just not comfortable with her" or "we're not sure its a good fit." The case revolves around Susan, a very competent partner in a consulting firm, whose client has made a pass at her and who must decide whether to report the incident, which could mean her having to sacrifice this account. Three of the five commentators on the case advise Susan to report it, that "its about integrity," and "for once [she must] make the men she works for uncomfortable." But an anonymous human resources VP advises that Susan would get burned--"ultimately, the kind of change Susan is looking for will happen only when women make up a substantial proportion of the senior ranks." And Freada Klein (a principal of Klein Associates) also concludes that "Susan will pay the price for the client's behavior no matter what course of action she takes." Ms. Klein recommends that organizations need to consider the costs of such destructive situations (instead of saying of Susan, when she fails, she "didn't fit in" or "wasn't of sufficient caliber to succeed") and to create customized policies for handling these problems.

When I first took over The Washington Post in 1963, what most got in the way of my doing the kind of job I wanted to do was my insecurity. I adopted the assumption of many of my generation that women were intellectually inferior to men. Once married, we were confined to running houses, providing a smooth atmosphere, dealing with children, supporting husbands. Pretty soon . . . most of us became somehow inferior. In a group we remained largely unable to participate in discussions. This incapacity often produced in women--as it did in me--a diffuse way of talking, an inability to be concise, a tendency to ramble, to over explain, to apologize. Moreover, I was unable to make a decision that might displease those around me. For years, whatever directive I may have issued ended with the phrase, "if it's all right with you." (Katharine Graham in Personal History, NY, Random House, 1997)

Workers caring for elderly relatives cost their employers as much as $29 billion a year in lost productivity, an expense likely to grow as the population ages, researcher have warned.

The 14.4 million people who juggle jobs to care for the elderly often are late to work, leave early, or take long lunches to carry out their responsibilities. Ten percent ultimately quit their jobs, said a study based on the first national survey of caregivers in a decade.

The study by Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. was based on a national survey of caregivers carried out by the National Alliance for Caregiving and the American Association of Retired Persons.

"We found that two out of three caregivers are employed and half said caregiving has an impact on their work," said Joyce Ruddock, a gerontologist and vice president of the Met-Life Market Group.

She noted that the costs associated with caregiving will rise dramatically as the population continues to age. The nationâs 76 million baby boomers will begin turning 65 in 2011, the Census Bureau said.

"Businesses who turn their backs on family caregivers will pay a tremendous price," said Ruddock, who helped present the research to the U.S. Senateâs Special Committee on Aging.

Some companies are beginning to wake up to the need. Thirty percent of major employers now offer elder-care programs, up from 13 percent in 1991, according to a survey of 1,050 companies by Hewitt Associates.

The National Alliance for Caregiving survey found that more than 23 percent of households have caregivers, and 14.4 million caregivers work full or part time.

The average caregiver is a 46-year-old woman who spends 18 hours a week caring for her 77-year-old mother, according to the survey of 1509 people.

Surprisingly, more than 20 percent of caregivers are 18 to 35. "Elder care is something that everyone will very likely experience in their lifetime," said Dorothy Howe of the AARP.

MetLife focused on caregivers who work full time and spend nine hours or more a week caring for an elderly relative. It found:

60 percent of such caregivers are regularly late, leave early, and take long lunches due to their caregiving responsibilities.

17 percent leave their jobs entirely.

10 percent lose six days a year due to caregiving.

MetLife computed the annual cost to U.S. business of lost productivity by using the median wages of workers, the numbers of employed caregivers and estimates of lost hours.( from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

Washington University has energetically recruited minority students, faculty and staff for 30 years. During this period, the University has provided education to these students and has benefited greatly from their presence.

In recent times, various programs targeted for minorities have been challenged in legislative bodies and in the courts. The strongest argument used against such programs holds that each individual should be judged solely on his or her own merits regardless of family, economic status, race, ethnic group, religion, or gender. The argument has force because most Americans subscribe to this sentiment.

One can, however, share this conviction and still come to the conclusion that affirmative action programs are right and necessary. The reason is that, historically, our nation has not given equal opportunities to all. Some, by virtue of race or ethnic group, have been excluded from many opportunities, including the best educational experiences. American has been for some years engaged in a sustained effort to right these past wrongs, not with the goal of benefiting any one specific individual but with the goal of building a successful multi-ethnic, multi-racial society that provides opportunities for all. Our country has come a long way, perhaps further than any other nation on earth, but one has only to look around to see that we are not yet where we must be.

The fact that Washington University is a private institution gives us freedom to set and pursue our own goals. With this freedom comes a responsibility to choose courses that we believe to be right and in the best interests of the larger society. Washington University will, therefore, continue its affirmative action policies giving especially high priority to its efforts to attract and educate minorities. We will retain aggressive goals in our student and personnel recruitment programs. We should, and we will, pursue these goals with our accustomed vigor in the hope that Washington University will continue to play its part in building a just, multi-ehnic, multi-racial society that provides opportunities for all of its citizens and serving as an exemplary intellectual community.

AWNings wants to know.

Name ______________________________

Department___________________________

Promotion or Award

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

Send to: