SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Invited speakers at neuroimmunology conferences in 2016 were disproportionately male, and not because male scientists were producing higher quality work, according to a new study. Instead, qualified female scientists were overlooked by organizing committees. Robyn Klein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine, of neuroscience, and of pathology and immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, discussed the findings, published online April 18 in Nature Immunology.
[...] There's a growing body of research showing that female scientists' contributions to their fields are often not reflected in the number of speaker invitations they receive, and that this under-recognition hurts their careers and slows the pace of scientific progress. While this bias may be unconscious, data from sources such as BiasWatchNeuro -- founded in 2015 to track the proportion of female conference speakers relative to the proportion of female faculty in the relevant field -- show that it is widespread. Encouragingly, the data also show that bringing such biases to light helps to reduce their impact.
Robyn S Klein, et al. Speaking out about gender imbalance in invited speakers improves diversity. Nature Immunology, 2017; 18 (5): 475 DOI: 10.1038/ni.3707
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday April 23 2017, @01:43PM (4 children)
There's a growing body of research showing that female scientists' contributions to their fields are often not reflected in the number of speaker invitations they receive,
Okay, I see what you're saying...
and that this under-recognition hurts their careers
Yes, I imagine that it would. Quite an injustice...
and slows the pace of scientific progress.
Wait, what?!
The distribution of specifically which qualified scientists get speaking invitations and which don't "slows the pace of scientific progress?"
I was with you up to this point. Now it just sounds like you're just full of yourself and spouting nonsense.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday April 23 2017, @02:52PM (2 children)
If the smartest scientists available have their careers stifled in favor of less-smart scientists, then logically it follows that you'll get less-smart science in total. This isn't an idle problem of who gets the plum social benefits: conference appearances are part of an academic's resume, and funding tends to follow prestige.
Thus, if the goal is to maximize scientific understanding, giving credit where credit is due is a worthwhile goal.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday April 24 2017, @05:04AM (1 child)
Considering that the author is talking about promoting female researchers who publish in b-grade journals over male researchers who are accomplished in their fields, the point you make actually shows why we DON'T need more diversity hires and less gender equality among speakers.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @01:12PM
no gender difference among the investigators with the very highest impact publications, there were many more women with papers in the next tier of journals compared with men
The groups had equivalent numbers of A-grade papers, but the women had more B-grade papers.
You can argue about the metrics used (e.g. not including C or D-grade papers, scientific field diversity, prioritizing current versus older research), but if you accept them then the conclusion that there are equally/better qualified women being overlooked is logical.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23 2017, @02:54PM
Wait, what?!
The point is probably: hurting the careers of better qualified scientists would slow the progress of science.
If you accept the premises that the qualification metrics used in TFA are sound (for predicting "better" science) and that the lack of speaking invitations would hurt their careers, then it can follow that scientific progress would be slower.