Science and Gender in Research Spaces

In-depth review sourced from

https://www.pictureascientist.com/

Written in 2020

The documentary Picture a Scientist highlights the stories of three female scientists who sit at different points in their scientific careers that collectively share their experiences of gender-based discrimination. A variety of these experiences include verbal and physical harassment, gender and racial bias, and systematic power protection over these perpetrators. Based on the film, 90% of the gendered harm is enacted through explicit forms of bias. These include a lack of accreditation, exclusion from meetings and emails, salary inequity, and even physical distribution of lab spaces. One of the primary figures of the documentary is Nancy Hopkins who was a molecular biologist at MIT. She introduced the idea of unequal treatment by mapping the size of her laboratory space against that of her male colleagues and found that it was significantly smaller. As a result, female MIT faculty (which made up only .07% of the entire tenured faculty) came together to enact change among the treatment of female educators. This meeting served as a safe space to collectively confide and enact change in the academic system at MIT, Nancy Hopkins shared that,

"Women were not listened to, and this was the place where every woman's opinion counted". Throughout the film, these scientists come together to tell their stories of intergenerational change that enabled the first recognition of female discrimination by a data-driven report. Robert A. Brown, the former provost of MIT shared how the process of rectification towards absolving gender discrimination was challenged by his own colleagues. It was a process that required academic institutions to re-evaluate their impact.

The second scientist is Jane Willenbring who is a geologist at the Scripps Institute. Her story emulates the horrific ordeals of fieldwork under David Marchant. Jane, along with another female graduate student, disclosed the mental, emotional, and physical abuse endured. Some of these experiences included fear of coming forward at the expense of their future. 17 years after the ordeal, Jane sought justice by re-living her experience by coming forward.

The third scientist was Raychelle Burks who represented an intersectional experience in the STEM community as a Black chemist. She brought forward the experiences of being a WOC in STEM that introduced light moments of racial discrimination from other women. Dr. Burks moves through these spaces by navigating opportunities for representation in podcasts and TV where Black women in STEM are often not seen.

These stories of gender and racial bias are disheartening to hear but important to reflect on. The documentary elicited a response of familiarity for me as I heard the stories of women such as Dr. Burks. Some important reflections on this documentary have been recognizing how arduous the process is for the scientific community to accept implicit bias and its colonial past. The structural barriers that exist within the STEM community are small but insidious in manner because they perpetuate a system that has profited from the gendered and racial oppression of women. These implicit biases were created and socially upheld as a matter of fact throughout history and psychologist Mahzarin Banaji highlights this in the film. The inability to associate women with progressive scientific work through a small bias test is a testament to how pertinent gendered roles exist within society. An intriguing part of this documentary was Dr. Burks's role as a Black chemist. Her purpose in the film was to address the racial and gendered bias that comes as a part of being a successful scientist, however, there was little reflection on the impact of white feminism. Despite this film being focused on the inherently sexist nature of the STEM community, it's worth mentioning how the contribution of white feminism repressed progress for WOC in the same field. Dr. Hopkins and her colleagues were made up of a largely white-passing group of female scientists who were viewed as revolutionaries in the feminist world. On the other hand, I thought of women like Alice Ball, Marie Daly, Anna Mani, Lin Lanying, and Loyola's very own Willetta Greene-Johnson. In personal experience, I can recall the times I've inhabited research spaces or conferences where I was ignored or mistaken for a viewer and not the researcher. The more pertinent part of being a WOC in Neuroscience at Loyola is how isolating the experience can be when a majority of one's classes are made up of white women. The lack of WOC in the program becomes the largest issue. I can distinctly recall one female WOC professor I had that convinced me to stay in STEM during my second year because she recognized how valuable my identity was to my intended research. It was one of the most liberating experiences to have had a WOC and I owe part of my success and plan to pursue graduate school to Dr. Shauna Price.

If we want to collectively come together and dismantle this system, it requires people like Dr. Price in undergraduate experiences, intentional reflection by staff and faculty, and institutional recognition of implicit bias. Studies like the ones conducted at MIT are essential to recognizing where the problem starts and how it ends, just as the former Provost shared, systemic change is essential to create a long-lasting impact on those affected by the system.