Schiff 1

Brian Schiff
31 March 2015
Diversifying Biomedical Sciences: Women and the Leaky Pipeline
The Biomedical Sciences is a profession that is in a state of change. Not only are there
more biomedical graduates than ever before, but now it has been observed in recent years that
the number of female biomedical sciences graduates in training and career development
programs is nearly equal to men (Rockey). Between 1969 and 2009, the percentage of
doctorates awarded to women in the life sciences increased from 15% to 52% (Sheltzer and
Smith, 10107). However, while the biomedical research is constantly progressing, there is an old
problem that continues to plague this community. While graduate numbers are higher than ever,
as Corinne Moss-Racusin observes, there is a disparity between the number of women receiving
PhDs and those hired as junior faculty (16474). In addition, government organizations have
taken notice of this disparity. One organization called the NIH also referred to as the National
Institute of Health has noticed that representation as PIs (principal investigators) on research
grants overall, we see women constitute only about 30% of overall research project grant PIs,
and only 20% of NIH research center and small business research program PIs (Rockey). A
principal investigator is a term for a head researcher. The NIH regularly provide funding for
research but men tended to apply for these grants at far higher rates than women. The NIH
created a Women in Biomedical Careers Working Group that is requesting research on the factors
that encourage women in biomedical careers. (Rockey) This constant issue is referred to as the
leaky pipeline where there is a supply of female biomedical scientists yet women are not
heavily involved with careers in high-faculty research positions as much as their male
counterparts (Sheltzer and Smith, 10107). The reason why this issue has existed for so long is
that it is difficult to pinpoint the specific variables that are most heavily contributing to the

Schiff 2
problem. The biomedical research community at this point is attempting to find the reasons that
women are either not hired as junior faculty or avoid being hired. It is very important that we
take steps to diversify the biomedical field to increase our potential for problem solving. Many
women that could potentially revolutionize biomedical research are being underrepresented. It is
necessary that these variables be identified, but also that steps must be taken to fix this leaky
pipeline. If the leaky pipeline is not fixed, the implications would be that all it takes is one
researcher to make significant change in the biomedical research community. If a large number
of women are excluded, then we as a community are not using our resources to the fullest extent.
There are so many researchers that could make a difference and by excluding them, we are not
helping to create change in a changing world. There are many organizations that are doing
research into the causes of these disparities yet none offer any short term solutions. The factors
that play into the leaky pipeline issue that I will be discussing will be centered on how women
become interested in biomedical research, and how domestic responsibilities and sexism play
into productivity disparities between male and female biomedical scientists. There is also a lack
of encouragement for female graduates to pursue careers in biomedical research. These factors as
Long explains in Measures of Sex Differences in Scientific Productivity were labeled by Cole
and Zuckerman as the productivity puzzle (159).
Productivity Disparities
One trend in biomedical sciences that has been repeatedly observed is that women
biomedical scientists tend to produce less results than males. As Long explains, the lesser
productivity of females has been established in dozens of studies covering diverse fields,
spanning decades, and using a myriad of measures (159). I was attracted to this article because
he attempts to tackle the topic of sex differences in productivity as there is no successful
explanation that accounts for the causes or primary focus in approaching this disparity (160).

Schiff 3
This is a significant problem as results such as these can contribute to subtle sexism and
discrimination in PIs selections and in the workplace. This is a possible heavy contributor to the
leaky pipeline problem. Discrimination resulting from this disparity could result in women being
excluded from the biomedical research community or they may leave the community themselves.
There are many different variables that could potentially play into this issue including
discrimination and domestic responsibilities.
Domestic Responsibilities
As women are entering the workforce, family structures in which there is a male breadwinner are becoming far less common. These structures are becoming more varied as many
women spend less time handling domestic responsibilities (344). However, there is large
population of working women in which they are required to work and still spend a significant
number of hours each week on domestic responsibilities. Mens spouses or domestic partners
were found to be almost four times more likely to either be employed part time or not at all. In
addition, women have also been found to spend less time on research activities than their male
counterparts (Shruti et al, 345). This can be a serious issue as domestic responsibilities tend to
interfere with research work. One study by Jolly Shruti found that women spent an average of
8.5 hours more per week on parenting than male counterparts. It was also found that this time
spent competes with working time which in this case is research. Another study conducted by
Jason Sheltzer and Joan Smith found in their study, Women tend to rank worklife balance and
parenthood-related issues as more important than men do, and the perceived difficulty of raising
a family while working as a tenure-track faculty member causes more women than men to leave
the academic pipeline Due to this, not only do many women tend to not work as many hours as
males but many also tend to avoid careers in research. In this field, there is no current solution
proposed to help women to deal with their domestic responsibilities. One potential solution could

Schiff 4
be the addition of child care services at all research universities. This could enable women to
continue with their work and spend less of their precious time on domestic responsibilities. This
solution may be controversial however, as there are many women who want to raise their
children and would not want to leave them in a daycare facility. In addition, research universities
could potentially offer cleaning services to employees. This would make it so women would be
able to spend less time cleaning their home and decrease their workload.
Subtle Sexism
Despite more women in the workforce, there is still a gap between men and women. In
the biomedical sciences research community, discrimination is still a problem that plagues the
biomedical science community and holds back women. As Long explains, The importance of
even small differences in levels of casual variables and subtle forms of discrimination may be
enhanced by processes of cumulative advantage and disadvantage (160). This discrimination
adds to the leaky pipeline problem that the biomedical community continue to face. Supply is
definitely not a problem. Women Make up over one-half of all doctoral recipients in biologyrelated fields but are vastly underrepresented at the faculty level in the life sciences (Sheltzer
and Smith, 10107). If supply is not the problem and discrimination occurring then there are
many questions to ask. Is it intentional discrimination? Is it only male faculty that are excluding
women? For the first question, it may be both intentional and unintentional. It could be
intentional in that faculty look at hiring women objectively based on past findings. As mentioned
previously by Long, the lesser productivity of females has been shown in many different studies.
This could potentially suggest incompetence of women to certain faculty. In addition, many male
faculty may find employing more female junior faculty to be less profitable. Since women have
more domestic responsibilities, they are more likely to work fewer hours than their male
counterparts as women with children that needed were substantially more likely than men to take

Schiff 5
off time to supervise their children (Shruti et al, 348). This is not necessarily sexism as this
information is backed with evidence and many faculty want the optimal level of production in
their research. If past research suggests that women are not as productive as males in this field, it
makes sense why research faculty would hire fewer women if they believe these results are true.
However, most likely, the discrimination of women in this community is unintentional. Past
studies indicate that peoples behavior is shaped by implicit or unintended biases, stemming from
repeated exposure to pervasive cultural stereotypes (Moss-Racusin 16474). One paper called
Science Facultys Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students, sought to confirm subtle,
unintentional sexism with a randomized double blind study (Moss-Racusin et al., 16474). The
results of this study revealed that the male faculty rated the mans applicant (who had the same
credentials as the female applicant) as more competent and hirable. The participants also offered
a higher starting salary and offered more mentoring to the male. However, what was interesting
about this study is that the female participants were also biased against the female student (MossRacusin et al, 16474). This is an interesting result as I previously assumed that only male faculty
were responsible for sexism in biomedical research, however, female faculty exhibited similar
results regardless of gender. This is a hard problem to address as this is bias in the subconscious.
It would take a change in social constructs to alter the preconceived beliefs of the faculty.
However there are steps that can be taken that could give more access to research for women.
One possibility is that faculty would be required to reach a quota for the number of women that
they would need to hire to apply for and receive funding from government organizations such as
the NIH. This would ensure the hiring of more women as it would make hiring women more cost
effective for faculty. Another potential solution would be an increase in funding for all
biomedical research endeavors. This would allow research faculty to hire more women and be

Schiff 6
able to afford lower productivity. However, this solution is more complicated as different
research labs receive different amounts of funding. Increasing funding for every single research
lab and university is more of an idealistic approach.
Another potential solution that some studies suggest is Outreach programs to primary and
secondary schools. These programs are designed to change the preconceptions of what many
would call the stereotypical scientist a white male in a lab coat (176). Outreach programs do
this by giving students access to resources that are not usually available to them. It is difficult for
a student to want a job when they cant imagine themselves doing it. If women imagine a totally
male dominated field, they may feel as if that field is out of reach and they are less likely to
pursue it. However, another factor that has been previously found to significantly influence
women to pursue scientific careers is the presence of role models (177).
When students see individuals like themselves succeeding in a scientific
career, it is more likely to have an impact on their own goals and aspirationsMentors
and role models are thus immensely important, if not crucial, to the recruitment of
women and minorities in the biomedical sciences (177).
Many female students in college however do not have access to scientists. If they are given the
access through outreach programs and are allowed the opportunity to ask questions a career in
biomedical science will seem more appealing to women (181).
There are many ways to approach the problem of diversity in biomedical research.
Daycare services, maid services, outreach and mentoring programs with role models, and hiring
quotas are only some of the ways the problems with womens preconceptions of biomedical
scientists, domestic responsibilities, and sexism within the community of biomedical faculty can
be approached with in the short term. Right now, women still possess a gender role in which they
are encouraged to have families and raise their children. Up until recently, many women barely
had a presence within the workforce. What ultimately will make these problems disappear is
social reconstruction; a progressive change in gender roles and preconceptions about different

Schiff 7
careers. Of course, there will always be gender roles and there will always be an underrepresented minority in every field. As long as certain roles are dominated by one gender,
another will tend to avoid it. It is important for the future of the biomedical research community
that women be given the opportunity to not only gain access but also to progress within the
community. It is our responsibility to diversify our community and increase our problem solving
capabilities to improve modern medicine for the future. With a diverse set of people, there is a
diverse set of opinions and perspectives that can all be used in problem solving. Discrimination
and traditional gender roles will only hold women back and will hold back the biomedical
research community as a whole.

Annotated Bibliography
Jolly, Shruti, MD, Kent A. Griffith, MS, Rochelle DeCastro, MS, Abigail Stewart, PhD, Peter
Ubel, MD, and Reshma Jagsi, MD. "Gender Differences in Time Spent on Parenting and
Domestic Responsibilities by High-Achieving Young Physician-Researchers." ANNALS
OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 160.5 (2014): n. pag. University of Central Florida
Libraries. American College of Physicians, 4 Mar. 2014. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
This article is from an academic journal called Annals of Internal Medicine. The purpose of
this article is to investigate the career success of physician-researchers based on gender. In
addition, this article serves to explain why there may be a gap in success between male and
female researchers. The authors got their information through a self-reported survey of recipients
of National Institutes of Health K08 or K23 awards between 2006 and 2009. The information
was focused on time spent on parenting and domestic tasks. It was found that women were more
likely than men to have spouses who were employed full-time. Women spent 8.5 more hours per
week on domestic responsibilities.

Schiff 8
Long, J. Scott. "Measures of Sex Differences in Scientific Productivity." Social Forces 71
(1992): 159-78. University of Central Florida Libraries. Indiana University, Sept. 1992.
Web. 10 Feb. 2015
This is an academic journal article that focuses on the productivity of both male and female
biochemists as there is a lack of satisfactory explanations in scientific productivity. The pool of
male biochemists was those who received their Ph.D.s in biochemistry during 1956-1958 and
1961-1963 and all females who received their Ph.D.s from 1950 to 1967. This is a longitudinal
study in which the number of publications published are observed. This study found that the
lower productivity of female Ph.D.s resulted from their underrepresentation among the
extremely productive. Females were more likely to collaborate with a spouse. The smaller
number of citations results in fewer publications but does not affect quality. Also, papers by
females receive more citations than those by males.
Gibbs, Kenneth D., Jr., John McGready, Jessica C. Bennett, and Kimberly Griffin. "Biomedical
Science Ph.D. Career Interest Patterns by Race/Ethnicity and Gender." PLOS ONE
(2014): 1-18. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.
This is a research article in which the authors explore the idea that biomedical sciences graduate
students become less interested in faculty careers as training progresses. It is especially unclear
for how the career preferences of women and minority scientists change. The results of the study
were gathered from a survey of 1500 American BMS Ph.D. graduates that examined career
preferences. All groups were found to be less likely than men from well-represented racial/ethnic
backgrounds to report high interest in faculty careers at research-intensive universities. Also,
under represented women were more likely than all other groups to report high interest in nonresearch careers.

Schiff 9
Porta, Angela R., Ph.D. "Using Diversity Among Biomedical Scientists As A Teaching Tool: A
Positive Effect of Role Modeling on Minority Students." The American Biology
Teacher
64.3 (2002): 176-82. University of Central Florida Libraries. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.
This is an article from an academic journal. It addresses the factors that contribute to the high
attrition rate among females and minorities in science. Its main focus is the importance of
implementing mentoring programs for women and minorities to break preconceived notions of
the stereotypical scientists at a young age. The importance of role models is also stressed as they
can provide motivation needed to persist in the sciences. The evidence gathered through a series
of steps where college students created questionnaires for scientists to learn more about scientists
and what research they do. The students then wrote their opinions about biomedical scientists.
By the end of the study, students had become more knowledgeable of what biomedical scientists
are and what they do.
Rockey, Sally. "Rock Talk: Women in Biomedical Research." Extramural Nexus. The National
Institute of Health, 8 Aug. 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.
This source is a blog that was written by Dr. Sally Rockey. She is the Deputy Director for
Extramural Research with the National Institutes of Health. The purpose of this source is to point
out certain trends within the biomedical community. She observes that women PIs have only
30% of overall research grants, and only 20% of NIH research center and small business research
program PIs. In addition, she points out that the NIH is attempting to find out what hinders
women in the biomedical research. She concludes by saying that there needs to be a focus on
advancing the careers of women in biomedical research and it most be recognized by all of the
research community.
Sheltzer, Jason M., and Joan C. Smith. "Elite Male Faculty in the Life Sciences Employ Fewer
Women." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111.28 (2014):10107-10112.
Www.pnas.org. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.

Schiff 10
This article is from an academic journal in which it explores the causes of womens
underrepresentation in biology-related fields. In order to gather their information, the authors
made a survey of employment by gender at top-ranked programs in the life sciences. In total,
information on 2,062 faculty members were gathered. It was found that male faculty employ
fewer female graduates and postdocs and laboratories that produce assistant professors employ
more male postdocs. However, these results do not show conscious bias on the part of males.
This study also speculates other reasons why less women are employed such as women citing
marriage and childbirth to opt out of scientific careers and 16% of women in the study report that
they have experienced work related sexual harassment. This study concludes that recognition of
gender disparities can aid in the fair evaluation of women and will help to ensure that gender will
not hinder their ability to engage in scientific research.
Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo
Handelsman. "Science Facultys Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students."
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.41 (2012): 16747-16479.
Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

National Academy of Sciences. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.

This article from an academic journal explores the gender discrimination that exists within
academic science. In order to gather their information, a randomized double blind study was
performed in which science faculty rated application materials of a student who was randomly
assigned either a male or female name. The paritcipants rated the male applicant as more
competent and hireable. The male applicant was also offered a high starting salary and was
offered more career mentoring. Interestingly, both male and female participants were biased
against the female student. This study concludes that gender bias impredes womens full
participation in science and will affect the expansion of scientific workforce which is necessary

Schiff 11
in a negative way. This study is unable to conclude the preferences and lifestyle choices that
cause many women to leave academic science.