Why are women under-represented at top levels of science?
According to comments by economist Lawrence Summers, president
of Harvard - which have caused uproar - there are three factors:
first, women need to take career-breaks to have children and are
not supported. Second, women are "innately" less able as
scientists, so that, third, the pool of women to recruit into
top-level scientific posts is smaller. After an outcry Summers
issued an apology. But this issue is not going to go away. If,
as one index, only 5% of Royal Society Fellowships have gone to
women, what is going on? And is there any truth to Summers'
three factors? Let's take factor one. There is no question that
science, especially at the top levels, is competitive. Money is
so short in the sciences that only about 25% of grant
applications get funded. Scientists need to have lots of time
(not just to write grant proposals, but also to accumulate the
necessary track record with publications in top journals) to
have a chance at receiving funding.