|
Peers debate female participation in science and technology ahead of International Women’s Day
The rise of the tech bros and the fall of equality, diversity and inclusion programmes make tomorrow’s International Women’s Day more loaded than it has been for years. This point was made in the annual International Women’s Day debate in the House of Lords yesterday, which this year looked at women’s participation and leadership in science and technology. Opening the debate was Jacqui Smith, although less as skills minister than in her new role as minister for women, in place of Anneliese Dodds. Dodds resigned from the government last week in protest at the decision to fund increased defence spending through cuts to overseas development aid. The effects of these cuts on women and girls in certain parts of the world was not something Smith chose to highlight (although others in the debate did). Instead, she focused on how achieving equality is important not just because it is the right thing to do but because it contributes to the thing the government cares about most—growth. “When women and girls are equally involved in shaping science and tech, the world gets faster breakthroughs, products that work properly and better returns,” she said. Martha Lane Fox, an early tech entrepreneur, made a similar point but more angrily. She said she cannot understand the disconnect between what seems like good business practice—mixed and diverse teams lead to a 20 per cent increase in profits, she said—and “what we now face, which is a fundamental row-back in the belief and priorities of substantial equality, diversity and inclusion programmes”. It is “extremely disappointing”, she added, to see the influence of the US technology sector being integrated into companies in the UK. Under attack Natalie Bennett, former leader of the Green Party, agreed. “What we are seeing is a dual and interconnected attack on women and on science by the leaders of the world’s most powerful state, the United States of America,” she said, noting that this is particularly concerning since, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US is responsible for 32 per cent of global science and research funding. She warned that restricting women’s potential is part of a broader attack on science, and she noted reports yesterday that the National Institutes of Health has begun mass terminations of research grants related to gender identity, diversity, equality and inclusion, which are funding active scientific projects. She asked whether the government will work with UK institutions to provide a refuge for researchers now based in the US. Celebrating success Others were more inclined to celebrate the progress that has been made, pointing out that it is an improvement that 29 per cent of science, technology, engineering and maths roles are now held by women, while the tech pay gap has also improved. Many gave examples of women past and present who have achieved success in Stem, from Aganice, an Egyptian princess during the Middle Kingdom who worked on astronomy and natural history, to Ottoline Leyser, chief executive of UK Research and Innovation. The way to inspire girls into science is not to dwell on unfairness but to demonstrate what can be achieved, they argued. Suggested solutions There were also suggestions of practical steps to improve things. Susan Greenfield, a former University of Oxford pharmacologist and co-founder of the biotech company Neuro-Bio, suggested that blind recruitment processes and structured promotion criteria should become standard; that “on-ramping” fellowships could be offered for women returning to research after a career break; and that every major research institution should have a formal sponsorship programme in which senior figures actively champion the careers of promising women. She suggested a “national women in Stem talent bank”—a centralised platform offering women in science mentorship, funding opportunities and leadership training—and she stressed the importance of encouraging girls into Stem early. But the financier Helena Morrissey said progress for women is about choice, and girls should be encouraged to study humanities subjects if that is where their interests lie. “As artificial intelligence continues to develop rapidly and take on many of the tasks currently done by human beings, including many of those done by people now working in technology, we will need good judgment, strong ethics and high emotional intelligence to ensure that AI is a positive force,” she said, suggesting it would be ironic if girls were pushed into Stem subjects just as the world needs more soft skills. The idea that a lack of women in science and tech will lead to algorithms and power structures that incorporate bias and put them increasingly at a disadvantage was a particular concern. Long way to go Everyone taking part in the debate agreed that equality in science and tech still has a long way to go. As Smith pointed out at the beginning of the debate, percentage wise, there are more women in the House of Lords, a 1,000-year-old institution, than there are women in tech in the UK—a sector barely more than 100 years old. Unesco reports that women make up only 35 per cent of Stem graduates—a figure that has shown little progress over the past decade. Last month, the European Commission warned that women being “strikingly underrepresented” in Stem threatens the EU’s long-term competitiveness; and writing in Research Professional News last month, Mirit Eldor, secretary of Elsevier’s external inclusion and diversity advisory board, said representation in Stem disciplines is not expected to reach gender parity until 2052. The problem is particularly acute in the most senior roles. As Fiona McIntyre pointed out on RPN this week, women make up 37 per cent of doctoral graduates in science and engineering but only 20 per cent of professors. Of course, men have problems too. They consistently enter higher education at lower rates than women. That gap widened further in the most recent available figures, with just over 43 per cent of males who were 15 in 2012-13 entering higher education by the time they were 25, compared with 54.9 per cent of females. But this difference does not seem to have fed through into science and research—or indeed into wider power structures. For those opposed to the equality, diversity and inclusion programmes that are designed to change this, yesterday’s debate offered something to look forward to. Anita Gale, who once worked for the women’s section of the Labour Party, pointed out that Labour introduced all-women shortlists to address underrepresentation of women in politics. By 2024, it no longer felt the need for them because the policy had been so successful. But it does not appear that the global scientific research community—or those making decisions about its future—have reached that point of success just yet. And finally... Interviewed by the Commons education committee this week ahead of his expected appointment as chair of the Office for Students, Edward Peck, vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent University, said his priorities for the regulator would be celebrating the good work universities are doing and interacting more with their governing bodies. But first the regulator wants a closer look at universities’ finances. It issued a letter to providers yesterday asking for an additional financial return for the 2024-25 financial year to help it gather information on a more “real-time” basis. This information will include total income, total expenditure, current asset investments and cash and cash equivalents. The OfS is also asking whether the provider expects not to be able to comply with any covenant attached to borrowing or other financial commitments. The information will help “refresh our understanding of the finances of individual providers and the wider sector in light of the current challenges to financial sustainability”, says the letter. Celebrating the good work being done by universities may have to wait until the figures add up. On Research Professional News today Emily Twinch reports that an analysis of Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council funding has found evidence of bias against different ethnicities. Frances Jones says the Alan Turing Institute has called for an urgent response to shore up UK artificial intelligence research security. Fiona McIntyre tells us that a senior leader at the University of Surrey has suggested that building a US-style culture of philanthropy in the UK could keep research going. Sophie Hogan writes that research and innovation leaders have strongly backed a suggestion from MEPs that the EU must put its European Research Council and European Innovation Council funders on a more independent footing. Craig Nicholson writes that Democratic leaders on the House of Representatives science committee have asked the chair of the National Science Board to stop the Trump administration’s “ongoing destruction” of the National Science Foundation. He adds that university representatives have written to the heads of the EU’s political institutions to warn them that the European Commission’s plan for research and innovation risks failure. In the news The BBC looks at whether Scottish students are using artificial intelligence ‘to cheat their way to a degree’, Surrey students have objected to the expansion of an anti-social order, work has started on a skills and innovation centre in Suffolk, a Bristol man has sold his university business for millions, and there’s a piece on whether US president Donald Trump can dismantle the Department of Education. In the Financial Times, cutting further education college funding ‘is not how you tackle the skills shortage’. In the Telegraph, a University of St Andrews study has identified the best time to spot the Loch Ness monster. The Herald talks to industry leaders about proposals to lower the school leaving age to 14. The Belfast Telegraph says a former US envoy has been appointed to an honorary role at Queen’s University Belfast. The day ahead The House of Lords is not sitting. At 9am, the Society for Research into Higher Education has a webinar on integrating research and teaching. The National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement has a webinar at 10.30am on panel recruitment for the 2029 Research Excellence Framework. The Playbook would not be possible without Martyn Jones, Chris Parr and Orlen Crawford. Thanks for reading. Have a great day. You are welcome to forward this message to a colleague but setting up an automatic instruction to circulate it outside your institution would violate the terms and conditions of use. If you received the 8am Playbook via a colleague and now wish to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.
|
