The Mold of a Scientist: The Struggles Women Face Pursuing STEM Careers

A Summary and Response to the Film “Picture a Scientist”

By Ingrid Lam, High School Junior at Northwest Academy

For decades, women have been underrepresented in science. The film “Picture a Scientist” explains the harsh treatments women face, and the obstacles set forth creating a hostile environment for women to conduct scientific research or simply earn a degree. The number of women compared to men studying within Science Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) careers demonstrate the lack of diversity in the field. In the 1900s, 0.63% of participants in science careers and research identified as women, compared to 99.37% of men. This percentage has merely increased to 27% even in the year 2017. These statistics still demonstrate the pervasive nature of a predominantly male-dominated culture when pursuing science degrees, with just under one-third of women participating in science careers.In addition to women experiencing mistreatment or harassment, women of color also face a bias in their line of work in STEM. Even at major research universities, only 7% of deans and less than 3% of provosts are women of color. Raychelle Burks, an associate professor of analytical chemistry at St. Edward’s University (2016-2020) shares her experience of being the only African American tenure track professor. Burks discusses how even when trying to fit into the mold of a scientist, you still feel like you don’t fit, from receiving inappropriately rude emails to being questioned of her position at her workplace. Burks explains the countless minutes of time she has spent responding to hate or having to explain herself, when she would have been doing research, or mentoring a student. The statistics of PhDs in STEM fields awarded to US citizens show that 47.9% awarded to white men, 25.7% awarded to white women, and 2.2% awarded to black women. The prominent bias in the absence of listening to the ideas of women, especially women of color, demonstrates society’s lack of recognition of their notable work. The overlapping of a racial bias and gender bias creates a disadvantage for inspiring women like Raychelle Burks.Throughout history, women have been seen as targets for sexual harassment, and it is one of the reasons women may become more inclined to drop out or avoid STEM fields. This affects their achievements, in turn altering life-changing opportunities. In 2018, the National Academies of Science, Medicine, and Engineering released a report on sexual harassment in STEM fields which revealed that a minimum of 50% of women in faculty and staff experienced some form of sexual harassment. The film described this phenomenon using the metaphor of an iceberg. The tip of the iceberg represents the types of harassment, sexual touching and coercion, that gained the most attention and comprise around 10% of instances of sexual harassment in STEM. However, there is also the base of the iceberg, the part hidden underwater, the other 90% of its volume. The base of the iceberg demonstrates actions such as subtle exclusions like being left off of an email, vulgar name-calling, obscene gestures, extreme pressure for dates, remarks on their bodies, passing over for promotions, and endless more. All of these types of discrimination, harassment, and exclusion impact women throughout their careers.A harrowing example of sexual harassment from the film illustrates the personal experience of a female scientist, Jane Willenburg, who now teaches at UC San Diego. Jane Willenburg was an eager geology student, inspired by the earth sciences. Willenburg studied alongside senior male scientists while working on her Master’s degree at a university on the east coast. Eventually, she was recruited by a male scientist, along with a team of two other researchers, to examine glaciers in Antarctica. The research team included Dave Marchant, his brother, Jane Willenburg, and Adam Lewis, a graduate student from Maine. The four set off on their expedition to Antarctica. Immediately, Willenburg noticed a shift between Marchant around other scientists, and in a secluded area, like Antarctica. “It was like his filters went off”.  Willenburg describes her experiences of being called a “slut, whore and then a cunt”. Every time she used the bathroom, Marchant threw rocks at her. Out of fear, she decided to stop drinking water, leading to Willenburg developing a bladder infection; she continues to suffer from chronic bladder problems even today. Similar disheartening incidents continued throughout the entire expedition. Instead of reporting him, Willenburg decided she would let it wash over, and take further action later. She was scared and believed that her future as a geologist was in his hands. Years later, Willenburg brought her daughter to her lab. In exuberance, she exclaimed her thrills of becoming a scientist like her mother. Willenburg broke down into tears, terrified her daughter would be “treated like trash”. The fear of mistreatment is a chronic reality for women going into STEM.Across the globe, women face belittlement and abuse. Nancy Hopkins, a former professor of Biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1973-2014), experienced acts of sexual harassment and unequal treatment throughout her career. As an undergraduate, Hopkins worked with Jim Watson in his lab for research purposes. Upon hearing of the arrival of Frances Crick, a renowned scientist, Hopkins was eager to hear about his prestigious work. When working on research, Hopkins heard the slam of a door open and lo and behold, there stood Frances Crick. Astonished, she timidly continued working; suddenly, she felt his hands on her breasts. He asked about her research, and still in shock, she straightened her posture and explained her work as if nothing had happened. Years later, as a senior faculty member at MIT, Hopkins noticed her research space was significantly smaller than those of her male counterparts, some of whom were junior faculty members. Upon reporting this, she was ignored. Nancy Hopkins began coming in at night, among the lack of bustling halls. She undertook the goal to measure each member’s research lab and prove the labs of female faculty members were considerably smaller than those of male faculty members. She set off to show her measurements and data, proving this sexist environment. Again, she faced denial. The mistreatment she experienced, in a space where she found inspiration, felt unjust.The larger question of gender in STEM is, why would women leave the field? Women face extreme gender discrimination and end up leaving because they do not want to deal with the kind of treatment that has been described above. The prevalence of sexual harassment and unfair disadvantages uninspired women and leave them feeling worthless. An anonymous student of Dave Marchant, prior to Jane Willenburg, stated her passion for becoming an astronaut. In order to do so, she needed a Ph.D. She was accepted into Boston University and took up a study in geology with Marchant. However, amidst her inspiration, Marchant plainly stated “I don’t want a woman as a graduate student”, complaining about how he was forced to work with her. On their trek to Antarctica, he pulled her aside and told her “women are altering science in the ice for the worst”, stating he was not going to work with her anymore, crushing her dreams of becoming an astronaut. With examples like these, we have to wonder what we lose by excluding women from science. Gender bias and discrimination is not a perception of the STEM field, but a reality. By degrading women working in science, society loses half of those interested, half of the possible groundbreaking ideas, half of the incredible potential that they have to offer. The iceberg metaphor demonstrates many of the struggles that push women out of science,  so much that they leave a field of interest. The three women mentioned in this paper have done amazing work for the future of female scientists. Nancy Hopkins’ activism brought the leaders of nine universities and 25 women faculty to meet at MIT to discuss the inequality they faced in their workplace. Surprisingly to the women, they all faced similar mistreatments from colleagues and administrative staff. The MIT staff and administration realized gender discrimination is a real problem. MIT later led 9 other research universities and formed an ongoing collaboration to address the issues of gender inequality. The number of tenured women in faculty doubled, and construction began to expand their labs. Jane Willenburg reported her incident under a Title IX complaint, meaning that no person, on the basis of sex, should be excluded, be denied, or subjected to discrimination. Dave Marchant was fired from Boston University. Raychelle Burks continues to work on issues including racial and gender bias. She speaks at conferences on her experiences, as well as what society expects of their ideal scientist, mentioning how people made remarks of her wearing her natural hair. In her speech in the film, Burks states science is supposed to support the idea of “the best rise to the top”, but humans conduct the study of science filling it with brilliance, but also bias. Bias, whether it is conscious or not, is a part of humankind. The ultimate goal is to erase the bias. Burks is authentically herself and advocates for those suffering due to discrimination in the field of STEM. These women, along with many more around the world, have impacted the world and its gender bias.As a student interested in science research and medical careers, it worries me to consider that I may face some of the same challenges these women have endured. This film delves into the harsh reality of the burdens women face in a historically male-dominated career path. Although society is progressing towards a less biased and discriminatory field of STEM, the bias is far from being erased. Women face abuse from their superiors, either surrendering their careers or accepting ongoing mistreatment. It is baffling, that for decades, women have suffered and been put down due to their sex. Our unconscious bias towards the image of a scientist slows the growth of a progressive community. When someone asks us to picture a scientist, we need to see diversity and variety, instead of a select individual. This progression begins with schools celebrating diversity in all fields, including STEM; as well as women feeling safe to speak up when facing discrimination.The proposition of women being inferior has become ingrained in our minds. Whether we do this consciously or subconsciously, the public sees women as lacking, or insignificant. Their established place in society has always been on the outskirts of education, as the providers of children, or as housewives. Yet today, women are researchers, scientists, psychologists, doctors, engineers, artists, teachers, and astronauts. As stated at the end of the film we need to move away from a culture of compliance, and towards a culture of change. This moving statement teaches society to fight when they see or experience injustice. Activism for equitable science programs in all aspects of culture and society will allow students to see themselves as more than simply their gender or race. Women's identity in science will play a huge role in steering this change.