As newmana mentions, there are issues with that study:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;othersociologist.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;04&#x2F;16&#x2F;myth-about-women-in-science&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;othersociologist.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;04&#x2F;16&#x2F;myth-about-women-in-s...</a><p>And there are other studies I find more persuasive. E.g.:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pnas.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;109&#x2F;41&#x2F;16474.abstract" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pnas.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;109&#x2F;41&#x2F;16474.abstract</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blogs.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;unofficial-prognosis&#x2F;study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blogs.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;unofficial-prognosis&#x2F;stu...</a><p>In particular, I think the &quot;switch the names&quot; sort of study under realistic conditions makes it clear that bias is an issue. And it certainly matches widespread anecdotal opinions of nondominant groups in STEM fields.