U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–121PS 2008

FULFILLING THE POTENTIAL OF

WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND

ENGINEERING ACT OF 2008

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND

SCIENCE EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 8, 2008

Serial No. 110–100

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

BART GORDON, Tennessee

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director

DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member

MELE ́ WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member

BESS CAUGHRAN Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

May 8, 2008

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 10

Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 11

Witnesses:

Dr. Lynda T. Carlson, Director, Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS),

National Science Foundation (NSF)

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Biography .......................................................................................................... 16

Dr. Linda G. Blevins, Senior Technical Advisor, Office of the Deputy Director

for Science Programs, U.S. Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Biography .......................................................................................................... 21

Dr. Donna K. Ginther, Associate Professor, Department of Economics; Director, Center for Economic and Business Analysis, University of Kansas

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23

Biography .......................................................................................................... 29

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Lynda T. Carlson, Director, Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS),

National Science Foundation (NSF) ................................................................... 40

Dr. Linda G. Blevins, Senior Technical Advisor, Office of the Deputy Director

for Science Programs, U.S. Department of Energy ........................................... 41

Dr. Donna K. Ginther, Associate Professor, Department of Economics; Director, Center for Economic and Business Analysis, University of Kansas ......... 42

Page

IV

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Discussion Draft of the Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science

and Engineering Act of 2008 ............................................................................... 44

Letter to The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson from Lisa M. Maatz, Director

of Public Policy and Government Relations, the American Association of

University Women, dated May 7, 2008 .............................................................. 53

Letter to The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson from Lisa M. Maatz, Chair,

National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, and Jocelyn Samuels, Vice Chair, NCWGE, dated May 7, 2008 .................................................. 54

(1)

FULFILLING THE POTENTIAL OF WOMEN IN

ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

ACT OF 2008

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Baird

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE

EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fulfilling the Potential of

Women in Academic Science and

Engineering Act of 2008

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On October 17, 2007, the Research and Science Education Subcommittee held a

hearing on Women in Academic Science and Engineering, during which we examined institutional and cultural barriers to recruitment and retention of women faculty in science and engineering fields, best practices for overcoming these barriers,

and the role that federal research agencies can play in disseminating and promoting

best practices.

On Thursday, May 8, the Subcommittee will hold a hearing to obtain comments

on a draft bill that would provide for federal programs to address the needs discussed in the previous hearing.

2. Witnesses

• Dr. Lynda T. Carlson, Director of the Division of Science Resource Statistics, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, National

Science Foundation.

• Dr. Linda G. Blevins, Senior Technical Advisor in the Office of the Deputy

Director for Science Programs, Office of Science, Department of Energy.

• Dr. Donna K. Ginther, Associate Professor of Economics and Director of the

Center for Economic and Business Analysis, Institute for Policy Research,

University of Kansas.

3. Overarching Questions

• What are the elements of an effective program of workshops to educate participants about gender bias in academic science and engineering and to provide them with strategies to overcome such bias? By what metrics should

such workshops be evaluated?

• What demographics data do federal science agencies already collect in their

grant making processes? What demographics data do universities collect on

their faculty search and hiring, tenure review and promotion processes? What

data are needed to better understand and track gender disparities in academic science and engineering?

• Does the proposed legislation adequately address the federal role in programs

and policies to help overcome cultural and institutional barriers to gender equity in academic science and engineering?

4. Overview

• Although women earn half of the Bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering (S&E), they continue to be significantly under-represented at the faculty

level in almost all S&E fields, constituting 30 percent (in 2006) of full-time

doctoral science and engineering faculty at U.S. colleges and universities and

only 19 percent of full professors.

4

1 In the case of assistant professor appointments, the available pool is the sum of Ph.D.s

earned by women in the six-year period preceding appointment.

• In 2006, the National Academies produced a report entitled, Beyond Bias and

Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. The National Academies panel, in addition to dismissing the relative significance of any biological differences (in response to former Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ February 2005 remarks on this topic), made a series

of recommendations to all stakeholders, including universities, professional

societies and the Federal Government, to address cultural and institutional

gender bias in academic S&E.

• On October 17, 2007, the Research and Science Education Subcommittee held

a hearing on Women in Academic Science and Engineering in which we explored broadly the findings and recommendations of the National Academies

panel. Sections 5 and 6 below are taken directly from the 2007 hearing charter, except for updates where more recent data have become available.

• Today the Subcommittee will receive comments on draft legislation that incorporates several of the recommendations from the National Academies panel

that were also discussed during the previous hearing, including workshops to

increase awareness of implicit gender bias in grant review, hiring, tenure,

promotion, and selection for other honors based on merit; extended grant support for caregivers; and improved demographic data collection on federal

grant-making.

5. Current Status of Women in Academic Science and Engineering

According to data compiled by NSF, in 2006, women held 30 percent of all fulltime science and engineering (S&E) faculty positions at U.S. colleges and universities. Specifically, they constituted 19 percent of full professors, 34 percent of associate professors and 42 percent of junior professors, a category that includes both

instructors at two-year colleges and assistant professors at four-year institutions.

As seen in this figure from the Beyond Bias and Barriers report, most of the social

science disciplines and psychology are already dominated by women at both the

graduate level and in faculty positions. The percentage of women earning Ph.D.s in

other S&E fields has grown steadily in the last 30 years, and has already exceeded

50 percent in the life sciences. However, in 2003 women constituted 34 percent of

assistant professor appointments in the life sciences, and slightly less at research

universities. Half of this drop-off can be accounted for by including only the available pool of Ph.D.s1 in the life sciences: 42 percent in 2003. But attrition is still high

in the step from completion of training to faculty appointment. Female under-representation in life sciences faculties continues through the associate and full professor levels. Notably, while the physical sciences continue to have low representation at the graduate level (20 percent), relative to the available pool of Ph.D.s the

physical sciences actually show better representation for women in tenure-track faculty positions than the life sciences and other fields with a greater percentage of

women Ph.D.s.

5

We present the 2003 data in this charter because those data were analyzed and

presented in a way that more recent data have not been. However, since the last

hearing, NSF has published 2006 data as part of Science and Engineering Indicators

2008. From 2003 to 2006, the representation of women in full-time senior faculty

positions (associate and full professors) at all universities has increased by one to

two percent in all of the major natural sciences fields—where chemistry is included

in physical sciences—and by just under one percent in engineering. Not surprisingly, psychology and the social sciences saw slightly larger increases, but in no

S&E field other than psychology do women represent more than 30 percent of senior

faculty positions.

Women who start out on academic pathways in S&E fields leave for other career

paths at higher rates than their male counterparts, even though for the fields in

which attrition is highest, women show increased representation at the post-doctoral

level. Post-doctoral positions are a necessary prerequisite to faculty jobs in most

S&E fields. From among those who leave post-faculty appointment but pre-tenure

review, men are more likely to move into other employment sectors and women are

more likely to move into adjunct positions. However, in most fields, women and men

faculty who are reviewed receive tenure at similar rates. As faculty move up in

6

2 Critics of the NAS report disparage the panel for dismissing the significance of biology before

all of the scientific evidence is in. 3 Currently, 42 percent of women in tenure and tenure-track careers have children, while 50

percent of their male colleagues have children. 4Sweden has been named by the United Nations as a world leader in gender equity.

5 Nature News, Vol. 452, 24 April 2008, Pg. 918.

rank, there are again differences between men and women, this time in promotions,

awards and even salary.

6. Institutional and Cultural Bias and Barriers

In 2006, the National Academies produced a report entitled, Beyond Bias and

Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering.

The report was largely in response to the outcry over then Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ 2005 remarks, in which he attributed what many thought to be a

greatly exaggerated level of significance to a biological explanation for female underrepresentation in academic S&E. The NAS panel reviewed the existing literature on

gender differences in cognition and biology and concluded that, ‘‘if systematic differences between male and female scientific and mathematical aptitude and ability

do exist, it is clear that they cannot account for women’s under-representation in

academic science and engineering.’’ 2 Instead, the panel focused on the need to fix

institutional, social and cultural bias and barriers.

To this end, the National Academies panel made a number of recommendations

to all stakeholders. The panel called on university presidents and provosts to provide clear leadership in changing the culture and structure of their institutions, and

deans and department chairs to take responsibility for implementing changes to recruiting, hiring, promotion, and tenure practices. They recommended that higher

education organizations form an inter-institution monitoring organization and that

scientific and professional societies help set professional and equity standards across

the activities they lead, such as awards and conferences. The recommendations

made to the Federal Government ranged from rigorous enforcement of federal antidiscrimination laws by enforcement agencies, to better data collection, to provision

of workshops to minimize gender bias by NSF and other federal funding agencies.

The full list of recommendations is in the report summary: http://books.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record¥id=11741.

The status of women in academic S&E has improved appreciably in the last three

decades, and institutions across the country are continuing to address institutional

barriers to gender equity. However, the National Academies panel argues that

changes in institutional policies are necessary but not sufficient—even many policies

that appear on the surface to be equitable in fact disadvantage women. For example, many women who want children struggle with the intersection of the tenure

clock and their biological clock. Many more men are also making work/life balance

career decisions.3 In order to attract top faculty candidates who want both career

and family, a number of universities offer the possibility of an extension of the tenure clock—the number of years to tenure review—for assistant professors who have

a child while under the clock. But in most cases young faculty feel pressure not to

request this extension for fear that they will be judged differently in the tenure review process. In this case, cultural norms undermine a well-intentioned policy, and

women, who are more often the primary caregivers for infants (especially if they

breast feed), are disproportionably disadvantaged. Some universities have instituted

an automatic rather than voluntary extension of the tenure clock in an attempt to

overcome those cultural barriers.

The report also discusses at length a phenomenon known as ‘‘implicit bias,’’ in

this case an implicit assumption of what a scientist is supposed to look like, i.e.,

a man, and probably a white man. The panel cites a Swedish4 study of peer-review

scores, in which men received systematically higher competence ratings by their

peers than equally productive women. In fact, women post-doctoral fellowship applicants included in that study had to be twice as productive (as measured by defined,

quantitative measures of productivity) than their male counterparts to be judged

equally competent. A similar claim has just been reported in Nature News by a

woman physicist who was a post-doctoral fellow at DOE’s Fermi Lab in Illinois until

2005.5 This field of research is still relatively young, but the collection of evidence

supporting the notion of implicit gender bias in academic S&E continues to grow.

Minority-group women, as members of two major demographic groups historically

excluded from the scientific enterprise, face their own unique set of challenges.

The list of cultural norms that appear to disadvantage women also includes the

favoring of disciplinary over interdisciplinary research and publications, and the

only token attention given to teaching and other service during the tenure review

7

6While the reasons are unclear, it appears that women are more likely to engage in interdisciplinary and collaborative research, and to put more energy and time into teaching and mentoring activities than their male colleagues. 7http://www.chem.harvard.edu/groups/friend/GenderEquityWorkshop/GenderEquity.pdf

8http://www.aps.org/programs/women/workshops/gender-equity/index.cfm

process.6 Thus it seems that it is not necessarily conscious bias against women but

an ingrained idea of how the academic enterprise ‘‘should be’’ that presents the

greatest challenge to women seeking academic S&E careers. Overcoming these cultural barriers is much more difficult than just enforcing anti-discrimination laws or

making university policies more family friendly. And even among those who passionately advocate for change, there is no consensus about how or if to modify some

of those core practices that have defined the academic enterprise for generations.

7. Workshops on Gender Bias

In January 2006, officials from the Department of Energy (DOE), NSF and National Institutes of Health partnered in support of a workshop on gender bias for

chemistry department chairs from across the country. The goal for this conference

was to ‘‘develop and implement strategies to significantly increase the number of

women chemists in tenured academic positions in our research universities and

eliminate the gender biases that negatively impact their career progress.’’ In addition to department chairs, participants included lab heads from DOE National Labs

and representatives of societies and federations. The workshop did result in a report

of the challenges and issues addressed.7 However, the federal agencies did not sponsor any long-term follow-up of the departments whose chairs participated. The physics community followed with a similar workshop in May 2007.8 Today’s DOE witness participated as an advisor in both the chemistry and physics workshops and

will address the elements of an effective workshop in addition to metrics for evaluation.

8. Questions for Witnesses

Dr. Carlson

• The draft bill requires federal science agencies to collect annual composite information on demographics, field, award type and budget request, review

score, and funding outcome for all applications for research grants to universities supported by those agencies. How much of these data are already collected by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for their own grants? What

level of effort and resources are required by NSF to collect all of the data as

listed in the draft?

• Assuming that the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy established a uniform policy for collecting and reporting such data based on the

NSF model, what level of effort and resources would be required of NSF to

store and publish the data from all of the federal science agencies?

Dr. Blevins

• Based on your own experience in helping to organize workshops to address

gender bias in the chemistry and physics communities in 2006 and 2007,

what are the elements of an effective workshop? In answering this question,

please address workshop content, format, speakers, and participant categories, in addition to any other elements that are important to an effective

workshop.

• What metrics should be used to evaluate the success of such workshops in

changing individual behavior and institutional culture related to gender equity in academic science and engineering?

• Are there challenges in overcoming gender bias that are unique to the National Laboratories? Should the workshops have sessions that are tailored

specifically to National Laboratory participants?

Dr. Ginther

• What data are needed to better understand gender disparities in university

departments of science and engineering?

• The draft bill provides for a program of workshops on gender bias in academic

science and engineering. What are the elements of an effective workshop? In

answering this question, please address workshop content, format, speakers,

8

and participant categories, in addition to any other elements that are important to an effective workshop. What metrics should be used to evaluate the

success of such workshops in changing individual behavior and institutional

culture related to gender equity in academic science and engineering?

• The draft bill requires a uniform federal policy for extending the period of

grant support for federally funded researchers with caregiving responsibilities. Do you have any recommendations for what such a policy should look

like?

• Does the proposed legislation adequately address the federal role in programs

and policies to help overcome cultural and institutional barriers to gender equity in academic science and engineering?

9

Chairman BAIRD. I want to thank everyone for joining us for this

very important hearing on the role of women in science and ways

we can continue to support advanced practice among women in

science. We have had a number of hearings in this subcommittee

on this. My dear friend and Ranking Member, Dr. Ehlers, is very

interested in it, and of course, Eddie Bernice Johnson, the author

of the legislation before us today is quite interested in this as well.

Under normal circumstances I would have a long statement written for me by staff, but we have votes on the Floor possibly fairly

early this morning, and in the interest of hearing witnesses, I will

enter my own opening remarks into the record and would recognize

now Dr. Ehlers for comments if he wishes to make some.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

Good morning and welcome to this hearing on the discussion draft of Fulfilling

the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Act of 2008. I want

to thank my dear friend Ms. Johnson for bringing this important legislative proposal

before the Subcommittee.

According to NSF, women earned more than half of all science and engineering

Bachelor’s degrees in 2005, although they continue to earn only 20 percent in engineering, computer science, and physics. Similarly, while there remain considerable

differences across fields, women are receiving science and engineering Ph.D.s in

steadily increasing numbers. However, even in the life sciences where women now

earn more than 50 percent of Ph.D.s, they hold only 30 percent of all associate and

full professor faculty positions—and that’s by far the highest number for all natural

science and engineering fields.

In October of last year, we held a hearing on Women in Academic Science and

Engineering to review the findings and recommendations of a National Academies

panel that carefully examined the reasons why the attrition rate for women in academic science and engineering continues to be higher than for men at every step

along the academic pipeline.

The panel found that most of the barriers to women in academia are not created

with intent to discriminate. In fact, even policies that seem gender-neutral in theory

might not be so in practice. They recommended that federal science agencies sponsor

workshops on gender bias in order to raise awareness of and provide strategies to

overcome the collective effect of many small and subtle incidents of subconscious

bias that are often built into academic culture. The draft bill under consideration

creates a program of such workshops.

The National Academies panel also highlighted the need for better data collection,

to understand the extent of gender inequity and to have a basis for evaluating policies to address the gap. The draft bill therefore requires federal science agencies to

collect detailed demographic data on the grant making process, and encourages universities to collect better data for the purposes of evaluating the gender bias workshops.

In today’s hearing we seek feedback on these and other provisions of the Fulfilling

the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Act of 2008. We also

welcome suggestions for other programs or language that we might consider including.

We cannot afford to continue losing our best and brightest women from academic

science and engineering careers. The programs in this bill are a small but critical

part of what is needed to tackle the barriers that women face. But Congress has

a limited role in helping to overcome what are ultimately cultural and institutional

barriers. The universities, disciplinary societies, funding agencies and other stakeholders need to step up to do their part, and I am happy to see such a movement

starting to take hold.

I want to thank Congresswoman Johnson once again for her tireless work to promote the role of women and minorities in science and engineering. I thank all of

the witnesses for being here today and I look forward to your testimony.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would agree on

that. I don’t have a long opening statement. I have a short one.

Nevertheless, I ask consent to enter it into the record and also just

10

want to thank Dr. Ginther for being here. I’ve had the pleasure of

talking to her on the telephone, persuaded her to come, and I very

much look forward to her testimony. I am sure she has much to

offer to this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

Today we are examining legislation introduced by my colleague, Congresswoman

Johnson from Texas, which addresses the biases and barriers women face in science

and engineering faculty departments. I thank Representative Johnson for preparing

this thoughtful legislation and appreciate her willingness to delve into the details

and receive testimony from our witnesses today.

In October this subcommittee held a hearing on the challenges faced by female

faculty in science and engineering. Our witnesses were a dynamic group who spoke

about the institutional changes needed and highlighted some of the programs the

Federal Government currently supports in this area. We learned that effective institutional change must be systemic, and that sometimes bias hides behind even the

simplest language used in recommendation letters.

Today we are going to talk about specific actions the Congress can take to address

these biases. I hope that we are able to take what we learn from our witnesses

today and incorporate some of their ideas into the final legislation. All of us want

to ensure that equitable educational opportunities for women pursuing faculty positions are the norm and not the anomaly at U.S. colleges and universities. Important

to this effort is making certain that we have a good understanding of the current

situation so that we can be sure that federal efforts achieve the intended impact.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The National Academies report, Beyond Bias and Barriers, provided clear guidelines to universities, federal agencies, professional organizations and to Congress on what actions to take to reduce gender bias at the university faculty level.

As the legislation has developed, there has been a faint expression of concern over

being heavy-handed with our scientists and universities.

One thing that I hope to learn from today’s hearing, as well as from feedback submitted to the Science Committee, is how we can encourage university presidents

and provosts to provide clear leadership in changing the culture and structure of

their institutions, and deans and department chairs to take responsibility for implementing changes to recruiting, hiring, promotion, and tenure practices.

Beyond Bias and Barriers also recommended that higher education organizations

form an inter-institution monitoring organization, and that scientific and professional societies help set professional and equity standards for the activities that

they lead, such as awards and conferences.

I have attempted to incentivize the formation of such an inter-institution monitoring organization, through a one-time competitive grant through the Department

of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-secondary Education.

The provision was accepted into the Higher Education Act, but during conference,

it was stripped out.

I am frustrated, Mr. Chairman, by the uphill battle in getting equality for women

when it comes to reaching the higher echelons of scientific achievement.

As stated in Beyond Bias and Barriers, ‘‘if systematic differences between male

and female scientific and mathematical aptitude and ability do exist, it is clear that

they cannot account for women’s under-representation in academic science and engineering.’’

While I do not intend to be heavy-handed toward our universities, I do feel that

not nearly enough is being done to educate persons of influence on the subtle gender

bias that exists and is holding women back from achieving at the same level as

men. Why have our federal agencies not already developed institutional policies that

are sensitive to women scientists?

Why is there no federal guideline for administrative leave for the purpose of

caregiving?

Why is there no funding mechanism to provide for interim technical or administrative support during a leave of absence related to care giving?

11

1 An updated version of the 2006 Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report is available at http://www.norc.org/projects/survey+of+earned+doctorates.htm. The

version of the report Representative Johnson refers to is available at the Science and Technology

Committee main office, located in Room 2321 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

Why is there no centralized, federal policy to extend grant support time-tables for

researchers who take a care giving leave of absence?

What are federal agencies doing to protect whistleblowers who speak out when

anti-discrimination laws are not enforced?

Why is NSF’s Survey of Earned Doctorates suddenly repressing data on women

and minorities in science?

Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am submitting the most recent report, from 2006,

entitled, ‘‘2006 Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report.’’ 1

Beginning with the very first data table, A–1, the NSF suppresses data when the

numbers are small—the reason given is to ‘‘protect confidentiality.’’

Look for yourselves. The data suppression begins on page 113, and it stretches

all the way to page 174.

Mr. Chairman, any scientist worth her salt will tell you that incomplete data is

not worthy of publication.

This is exactly the kind of practice that we must stop. I will fight this for as long

as I am in Congress and long afterwards.

I am also submitting an article from Inside Higher Education that highlights the

NSF’s suppression of this critical data on women and minority Ph.D. attainment.

I am ashamed that the NSF has suppressed this data. I hope that Jaqui C.

Falkenheim, the NSF project manager for the survey, or whoever at that agency decided that this was a good idea, will be told that they are wrong.

I strongly recommend that the NSF immediately return to full disclosure of data

reporting—even if the numbers are embarrassingly small—so that taxpayers, including myself, can understand the complete truth about the sad state of women

and minority achievement in the sciences in our nation.

With that said, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Ehlers,

for your attention to this bill.

I thank the Diversity & Innovation Caucus for pushing this issue as well.

I thank the American Association of University Women, National Coalition for

Women and Girls in Education, the Society of Women Engineers, the National

Science Teachers Association, the American Chemical Society and others for supporting this bill.

The American Association of University Women and the National Coalition for

Women and Girls in Education have both written support letters, and I ask your

permission to also submit these for the record.

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this important hearing on the role of gender

in science and engineering.

While the status of women in science and engineering academia has improved

over the last three decades, there are still barriers to achieving gender equity. NSF

published 2006 data in Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 that demonstrated

some increases in women represented in full-time senior faculty positions at all universities. However, women represent no more than 30 percent of senior faculty positions in science and engineering fields other than psychology. This is an unfortunate

statistic and one that the draft legislation under the Committee’s consideration

today seeks to address.

One of the proposals included are workshops to increase awareness of implicit

gender bias in grant review, hiring, tenure, promotion, and selection for other honors based on merit. I realize that one such workshop occurred recently at the Department of Energy and look forward to hearing Dr. Blevins’ opinions about the

workshop’s successes and/or failures.

I would like to thank today’s witnesses, Dr. Carlson, Dr. Blevins and Dr. Ginther.

I look forward to hearing all of our witness’s testimonies.

Chairman BAIRD. I thank all of the witnesses. Dr. Ginther, you

know it is hard to turn down our good friend, Dr. Ehlers. And I

12

thank all our witnesses. And with that, I will introduce the witnesses so that we can begin the testimony.

Dr. Lynda T. Carlson is the Director of the Division of Science

Resource Statistics in the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and

Economic Sciences at the National Science Foundation. Dr. Linda

G. Blevins is Senior Technical Advisor in the Office of the Deputy

Director for Science Programs at the Department of Energy. And

Dr. Donna K. Ginther, as introduced by Dr. Ehlers, is an Associate

Professor of Economics and the Director for the Center for Economic and Business Analysis in the Institute for Policy Research

at the University of Kansas.

As our witnesses should know, we ask folks to limit their testimony to five minutes and then we follow by questions. This is generally a friendly, bipartisan committee. It is not like the spooky

ones you see on TV. So we look forward to your comments, we will

have good discussion, and I thank you for being here.

Dr. Carlson.

STATEMENT OF DR. LYNDA T. CARLSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION

OF SCIENCE RESOURCES STATISTICS (SRS), NATIONAL

SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)

Dr. CARLSON. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and

Members of the Subcommittee, I am Lynda Carlson, Director of

NSF’s Division of Science Resources Statistics or SRS. I appreciate

the opportunity to appear before you today.

SRS is one of the 14 major statistical agencies, and our major responsibility is for data collection and analysis related to the entire

science enterprise. We produce biennial Science and Engineering

Indicators as well as Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering reports. NSF cannot support the

proposed legislation as the data collection and analysis requirements will be excessive. Let me illustrate with these examples.

First, NSF itself as part of the grants process currently collects

annual composite information on demographics, field, award type,

budget request, review score, and funding outcomes for all of its

proposals and awards. However, principal investigators, or PIs, are

not, nor can they be required to provide demographic information

as a condition of obtaining an award because of the Privacy Act.

Hence, the demographic information collected is incomplete. For example, the number of PIs who submitted proposals and did not declare a race or ethnicity in 2007 was nearly as large as those who

provided a response. And over the last 10 years, the proportion of

new principal investigators reporting their gender has declined.

Second, I will refer to some lessons we learned in conducting two

surveys that characterize R&D conducted in the federal sector, survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development and Survey of

Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges,

and Nonprofit Institutions. For these surveys, SRS must obtain

data from science funding agencies on the type of activity supported and on the funding recipient. It has been increasingly difficult for SRS to obtain high-quality data in a timely manner from

the queried agencies. Agencies do not usually keep detailed information about the science fields that they support. And even when

13

an agency does maintain data by field, it may not conform to SRS’s

data characterization system.

In short, different agencies maintain their records in quite different ways to meet their particular needs, and SRS does not have

the authority to require funding agencies to maintain or transfer

needed data.

As a result of such issues, SRS commissioned the National Research Council’s Committee on National Statistics to form a panel

and hold a series of workshops to assist us in revising these surveys. The panel was recently formed, and the first workshop will

be held in June of 2008. The resulting recommendations are expected to be released in early 2009.

A third and final example speaks to efforts to collect data on gender. The NSF Authorization Act of 2002 required NSF to examine

differences in amounts requested and award by gender in major

federal external grants. SRS contracted with the RAND Corporation to conduct the survey. The results were released in 2005. For

this study we had intended to collect data on grants by gender

from NSF, USDA, all of HHS, and the Departments of Defense and

Energy.

Data collection was only feasible from NSF, NIH, and USDA.

Adequate data on grants, applications, and awards were not available for the Department of Defense or Energy or the remainder of

HHS. From this effort we learned that better tracking of gender

differences will require that all agencies maintain a data system

that stores information on all grants and investigators and that all

agencies include key personnel characteristics for each investigator

in the application form, among other requirements.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that these examples illustrate the complexities of the data collection requirements called for in this legislation. The Chief Financial Officer’s Grants Policy Committee,

which is charged with oversight of government-wide grants policy

initiatives, might be able to provide additional insight into such a

data collection.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Carlson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYNDA T. CARLSON

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee, I

am Lynda Carlson, Director of the Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS)

within the National Science Foundation (NSF). I appreciate the opportunity to testify on Representative Johnson’s proposed legislation on gender biases and barriers.

However, NSF cannot support the proposed legislation as its requirements will be

excessive as they exceed current data collection capabilities.

NSF’s Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS)

The Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) is the federal statistical agency

responsible for data collection and analysis related to the entire science and engineering (S&E) enterprise. The Division’s responsibilities include data collections and

analyses related to the S&E workforce, the education of scientists and engineers,

and research and development (R&D), including federal funding of R&D. We annually collect data on R&D in academe and industry, and we periodically collect data

on R&D funding activities by states and nonprofits. SRS staff is responsible for writing and producing the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators report for the

National Science Board, as well as the biennial report Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, which is required under Section

37 of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act.

14

Data Collection on Grants Portfolio

NSF currently collects annual composite information on demographics, field,

award type and budget request, review score and funding outcome for NSF proposals and awards. NSF publishes a summary of these data in the annual Merit

Review Report, including principal investigator (PI) demographics on proposals and

awards. However, PIs are not, nor can they be, required to provide demographic information because of the Privacy Act; therefore, the demographic information collected is incomplete. For example, the number of PIs who submitted proposals and

did not declare a race/ethnicity in 2007 is nearly as large as the number who declared minority status. In the last ten years, the proportion of new PIs who choose

to report their gender has been declining.

Furthermore, the process for collecting and correlating review scores across programs and directorates within NSF is complex. For example, differences in average

review scores across programs and field of research are as likely to reflect different

reviewer community norms as to reflect differences in the actual quality of proposals

received. Given the variety of review processes and scoring systems used throughout

Federal Government, coupled with the complexity of correlating scores even within

agencies, it would be virtually impossible for SRS to provide a report to Congress

with review scores that are in any way comparable across the federal science agencies.

Lessons Learned from Other SRS Surveys

Over the last several years, SRS has been in the process of redesigning two surveys that characterize R&D conducted in the federal sector: (1) ‘‘Survey of Federal

Funds for Research and Development,’’ or Federal Funds Survey; and (2) ‘‘Survey

of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit

Institutions,’’ or Federal Support Survey. The surveys are being redesigned to better

reflect how R&D is actually conducted in today’s economy. The redesign was guided

in part by a 2005 study that SRS commissioned from the National Research Council’s Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT), entitled ‘‘Measuring Research and

Development Expenditures in the U.S. Economy.’’

For the two aforementioned surveys, SRS must obtain data from S&E funding

agencies on the type of activity supported and on the recipient of the funding,

among other indicators. It has been increasingly difficult for SRS to obtain high

quality data in a timely manner from the queried agencies. Moreover, agencies do

not usually keep detailed information about the fields of S&E that they support.

Further, even when the agency does maintain data by field, those data may not conform to SRS’s data categorization system. Different agencies maintain their records

in quite different ways to meet their particular needs and operating procedures.

SRS may have to work with individual agencies for significant periods of time to

obtain more comparable data. Because of poor data quality and incomplete agency

reporting, data on field of S&E research has not been collected as part of the Federal Support Survey since 1999.

In response to the issues we have encountered in conducting these two surveys,

SRS has commissioned CNSTAT to form a panel and hold a series of workshops to

assist us in their revision. The panel, ‘‘Modernizing the Infrastructure of the NSF

Federal Funds Survey,’’ was recently formed, and the first workshop will be held

in June 2008. The panel’s report and recommendations, which may help streamline

data collection for SRS, are expected to be released in early 2009.

As part of the redesign effort for another SRS survey entitled, ‘‘Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges,’’ issues with

field of study data have been elucidated. Recent site visits to sixteen academic institutions have indicated that many academic institutions do not capture research field

of study at the proposal stage. Once a proposal has been funded, the ability to capture the field of study for individual proposals varies considerably across institutions from easy to quite difficult. Institutions have indicated that it would require

some effort to educate faculty on how to code their research by field, as the methods

are not straightforward, especially as more and more research is interdisciplinary.

Lastly, SRS is also revising the existing taxonomy(s) of Fields of Science in order

to capture new and emerging fields. SRS is developing a schema to revise the taxonomy in a manner that would allow it to be updated on a continuous basis. We

expect this project to be finalized in two to three years. We will engage in significant

consultation with the other science funding agencies as part of this activity.

Lessons Learned from a Study of Grants by Gender

The NSF Authorization Act of 2002 required NSF to ‘‘examine differences in

amounts requested and awarded, by gender, in major federal external grants.’’ SRS

15

contracted with the RAND Corporation to conduct the survey, and the results were

published in a 2005 report entitled, ‘‘Gender Differences in Major Federal External

Grant Programs.’’

The report covered several federal science agencies, or federal agencies responsible for at least two percent of federal R&D obligations to universities. We had intended that the study collect data on grants by gender from NSF, the Department

of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Agriculture

(USDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data collection was only feasible from NSF, NIH and USDA; adequate data on grant applications and awards

were not available from DOD or DOE. According to the report:

‘‘[There are] numerous limitations in the information collected in federal agencies’ grant application and award data systems. Such limitations hinder the

ability to track gender differences in federal grant funding. Better tracking of

gender differences in such funding would require that all agencies awarding significant grant funding do the following:

• Maintain a data system that stores information on all grant applications and

investigators, including co-investigators. Ideally, each agency would have a

single data system rather than separate systems for each sub-agency or grant

program and the agencies would agree on a common list of key data elements.

• Include in the application form key personal characteristics for each investigator, including gender, race and ethnicity, institution (in a way that can be

easily categorized), type of academic appointment for investigators in postsecondary education, discipline, degree, and year of degree.

• Fill in missing personal information, including gender, where possible from

other applications by the same investigator.

• Record the amount requested and awarded for each proposal and any score

assigned to it by the peer reviewers.

• Clearly identify initial proposals and awards, supplements that involve new

funding, and amendments that involve no new funding.’’

Cost of Survey Implementation

Current, simple federal surveys conducted by SRS cost approximately $800,000

annually to implement. The costs are incurred by a survey firm contracted to collect

and process the data. This expense does not include the cost of SRS staff, who provide oversight and administration of the survey efforts, or the costs of collection and

reporting incurred by each of the individual federal agencies.

If NSF were tasked to expand its data collection efforts to include the more complex project-specific and demographic data envisioned in the proposed legislation,

SRS would require additional funding, or we would have to reduce other ongoing

survey efforts. These costs do not include the additional SRS staff time and resources that would be required to facilitate the data surveys, nor the additional

costs that would be incurred by other federal agencies in setting up the requisite

data systems and annually reporting the data to SRS.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, I hope that I have been able to articulate NSF’s unique role in

gathering and analyzing data about the Nation’s S&E enterprise. I hope my comments help feed the discussion about how to collect indicators adequately to help

our nation measure our progress in ensuring that there is no gender bias in science

and technology.

In summary, however, SRS does not have the ability to require funding agencies

to maintain such records. If Congress seeks to require such a collection, the Grants

Policy Committee, which is charged with overseeing government-wide grants policy

initiatives and making policy recommendations to the Office of Management and

Budget, might be able to provide additional insight.

SRS does welcome the opportunity, however, to continue to be involved in discussions on this important draft legislation, as we are constantly striving to improve

our contribution to the policy process. NSF looks forward to collaborating with our

sister agencies and the broader S&E community to more effectively collect and report on important data related to innovation and competitiveness. Thank you for the

opportunity to appear before you, and I am happy to answer any questions.

16

BIOGRAPHY FOR LYNDA T. CARLSON

Since 2000, Dr. Lynda Carlson has been the Director of the National Science

Foundation’s Division of Science Resources Statistics. In that role, she is responsible

for all activities of the Division, a federal statistical agency within NSF. Prior to

coming to NSF, Dr. Carlson was at the Energy Information Administration (EIA)

of the Department of Energy where she held a variety of positions over 23 years.

She is internationally known for the design and development of the Nation’s energy

consumption surveys, including the development of a unique statistical sampling

frame of commercial buildings. Dr. Carlson’s last position at EIA was that of Director of the Statistical Methods Group with responsibility for all statistical activities

throughout EIA.

Dr. Carlson received her M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign in Political Science and her B.A. from Brooklyn College, CUNY.

She is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association and member of various

groups such as AAPOR and AAAS. She has served on a series of OMB committees,

is a member of the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, and has served

on several NAS committees. In 2000, she received the highest departmental award

from the Department of Energy for her service to that agency.

Dr. Carlson has written on energy consumption, survey methodology, and the

science and engineering enterprise.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Carlson. Dr. Blevins?

STATEMENT OF DR. LINDA G. BLEVINS, SENIOR TECHNICAL

ADVISOR, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE

PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Dr. BLEVINS. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to

testify today. I would like to provide you with some information

about two gender equity workshops.

In January of 2006, the academic chemistry community pioneered a format for a gender equity workshop. The workshop got

its start because the chemistry community observed that 50 percent of their bachelor’s degrees went to women, and 35 percent of

their Ph.D.s went to women, but only 13 percent of the faculty

members in the top 50 university chemistry departments were

women. Top 50 refers to departments that receive the most federal

research dollars. The workshop thus targeted the participation of

the chairs from these departments.

Around the time of the chemistry workshop, two National Academies reports were released, Rising Above the Gathering Storm and

Beyond Bias and Barriers. These two reports reinforced the DOE

Office of Science’s motivation to be involved in gender equity workshops.

In May of 2007, the physics community hosted a workshop of its

own based on the chemistry model but adding some different features. Each of these workshops, while organized by the relevant research community, has involved the major funding agencies for the

given scientific field. For example, the chemistry workshop was cofunded and advised by DOE, NSF, and NIH. The physics workshop

involved DOE and NSF.

I would like to highlight a few important points about the workshops. First, the workshops are community-driven. The steering

committees are made of distinguished research scientists within

the discipline, and the workshops are designed to create a sense of

ownership of the outcomes within each scientific community. Involvement of high-level federal officials from the relevant funding

program seems significant in reinforcing the importance of the topVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Oct 11, 2008 Jkt 042121 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\050808\42121 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
17

ical matter. The workshop concept uses demographic data and social science to examine the underlying causes of gender gaps in

science. Data-driven science is emphasized over anecdotes, and social science is presented objectively. Planning such a workshop involves an enormous amount of work.

Each community has a unique demographic and a unique culture, which means each workshop may have different features. For

example, because women are under-represented at all levels in

physics, that workshop had a session on education issues that did

not appear in the chemistry workshop.

Each workshop brings an experienced and influential group together to tackle tough issues. Attendance is limited to about 100

people, and participants include department chairs, speakers that

include social scientists, federal officials, and opinion leaders.

For physics, managers from 13 DOE national laboratories were

invited along with the top 50 chairs. Workshops include lectures,

panel discussions, and break-out sessions. Interactive theater and

implicit bias demonstrations can shift perspectives and encourage

community action. Action items are developed in the break-out sessions, and participants are asked to select and commit to carrying

them out. Tools such as interactive websites allow the organizers

from the communities to track progress over time.

The metrics for success proposed and used so far by the communities have been attitude changes as measured using approved preand post-workshop surveys and tracking of the documented commitment by the participants to implement action items and their

regular follow-up progress reports. For the chemistry workshop,

these metrics are already demonstrating early success.

The workshops have not revealed differences between federally

funded research and development centers and universities and

their potential for implicit bias. There are some other differences,

though. First, FFRDCs do not always have discreet disciplinary

units like academic departments. Second, while universities have

tenure, FFRDCs have various promotion systems, and these differences create challenges for designing common workshops.

So development of this workshop series is being driven by the

scientific communities and has demonstrated some initial success.

The model for these workshops continues to evolve. The agencies

funding and advising these workshops have forged good working

relationship with each other and with the communities working to

achieve gender equity. And the innovative nature of each workshop

and of the workshop concept has drawn, and continues to maintain,

DOE’s interest in participating.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak before you today, and I would be happy to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Blevins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA G. BLEVINS

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would like to provide you with the

history of the DOE Office of Science’s involvement in several gender equity workshops.

The 2005 demographics of academic chemistry departments as reported by Chemical and Engineering News told a striking story that motivated the design of a new

workshop series. First, an impressive 50 percent of chemistry Bachelor’s degrees

18

1 C&E News Vol. 83 No. 44, pp. 38–39, 31 October 2005; also Vol. 84 No. 30, pp. 43–52, July

2006. 2 ‘‘Top 50’’ is defined by federal research expenditures. C&E News Vol. 83 pp. 38–39, 31 October 2005. 3http://www.chem.harvard.edu/groups/friend/GenderEquityWorkshop/index.html

4 Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. 5http://coach.uoregon.edu/

6 ‘‘Promoting Gender Equity in Academic Departments: A Study of Department Heads in TopRanked Chemistry Departments,’’ J. Greene, P. Lewis, G.L. Richmond, and J. Stockard, Journal

of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, In Press (2008).

were awarded to women and 35 percent of chemistry Ph.D. degrees went to women.1

Despite these strong training numbers, only 13 percent of the faculty from the ‘‘top

50’’ university chemistry departments in the U.S. were women.2 This disparity between the fraction of women obtaining Ph.D. degrees and the fraction of women

serving as university faculty led the chemistry community to develop a workshop

concept that targeted the participation of the chairs of the top 50 university chemistry departments. Workshop organizers engaged the major federal funders of chemistry research—the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Science Foundation

(NSF), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—for financial support and workshop involvement. A steering committee, whose members were well-recognized academic chemists respected for their research contributions, was established. The

workshop used demographic data and social science to examine the underlying

causes of the gender gap in university chemistry departments.

Around the time of the chemistry workshop, the National Academies report, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter

Economic Future,’’ focused broad public attention on issues relating to the future of

the physical sciences workforce in the United States. Soon after, another Academies

report, ‘‘Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic

Science and Engineering,’’ helped raise awareness that unintentional biases can

limit women’s participation in science. These two reports reinforced the DOE Office

of Science’s motivation to support gender equity workshops.

The chemistry workshop, ‘‘Building Strong Academic Chemistry Departments

through Gender Equity,’’ 3 was held January 29–31, 2006, and included lectures,

panel discussions, and breakout sessions. Academic leaders, social scientists, and

funding agency senior managers discussed demographic data and social science findings and used the breakout sessions to apply their broad, collective experience to

identify action items for further work. A thought-provoking interactive theater skit

on the first night demonstrated potential for implicit bias in academic mentoring,

with actors staying in character to address audience questions. The social science

presentations argued that most men and women exhibit unintended or implicit bias

and that gender schemas4—hidden assumptions about a person’s behavior based on

gender—can slow women’s advancement in academia and other career paths. At the

conclusion of the workshop, the chairs committed to carry out at least two action

items apiece from lists developed in the workshop breakout sessions.

A report describing the chemistry workshop and resultant action items for university and college departments, institutions, and funding agencies was released in

2006. Action items dealt with issues such as educating others about implicit bias

and developing policies that facilitate hiring of women, including spousal hiring.

Forty-five of the 56 chairs who attended the workshop visited an interactive website

and selected action items to implement. Results of pre- and post-workshop attitudinal surveys administered by the Committee on the Advancement of Women Chemists (COACh) 5 showed measurable changes in the chairs’ views. The interactive

website was developed by COACh to track progress in the chairs’ implementation

of action items. At the end of the first and second years after the workshop, COACh

received progress updates from chairs. Twenty-five chairs have followed up with

COACh to report progress this year. The high participation rate in selecting action

items and following up with progress reports has been encouraging.

The chemistry workshop resulted in shifts in attitude among the university chemistry department chairs who participated. These shifts were measured using an approved survey instrument developed by COACh and the steering committee. Before

the workshop, the chairs generally felt that the principal factors limiting their ability to hire women were beyond their administrative control-factors such as too few

applicants, candidate loss to other departments, and lack of spousal employment opportunities. After the workshop, however, chairs were more likely to report the limiting factors were those they could affect, such as low faculty commitment to hiring

women and lack of financing. Additionally, chairs’ perceptions of the factors slowing

the progress of women chemistry faculty changed. A paper reporting these results

will appear in the archival literature.6

19

7http://www.aps.org/programs/women/

8http://www.aps.org/programs/women/workshops/gender-equity/index.cfm

9http://www.aip.org/statistics/

10 ‘‘A National Analysis of Diversity in Science and Engineering Faculties at Research Universities,’’ Dr. Donna J. Nelson, Norman, OK. January, 2005. http://cheminfo.chem.ou.edu/?djn/

diversity/briefings/Diversity%20Report%20Final.pdf

Inspired by the first workshop and follow-up within the chemistry community, the

physics community approached the major funders of physics research—the DOE Office of Science and the NSF Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate—about

hosting a similar workshop in their field. Workshop proposals were submitted and

successfully reviewed at both agencies. A respected physics workshop steering committee was formed, and the time-intensive planning process began. The American

Physical Society’s Committee on the Status of Women in Physics7 (APS CSWP)

spearheaded the planning effort with advice from the funding agencies. The workshop, ‘‘Strengthening the Physics Enterprise in Universities and National Laboratories,’’ 8 was held May 6–8, 2007.

It was clear from the beginning that physics demographics were very different

from those of chemistry: In 2005, only 21 percent of Bachelor’s degrees and 14 percent of Ph.D. degrees in physics were awarded to women,9 while 2002 data showed

that only about seven percent of faculty members in the Nation’s top 50 university

physics departments were women.10 Thus, in contrast to chemistry, women were

under-represented in the science of physics at every level. Most of the physics workshop design was similar to that of the chemistry workshop, but a session on undergraduate and graduate education was added to address the demographic imbalance.

Managers from DOE national laboratories were involved because of the importance

of physicists to the missions of the national laboratories. Results from the pre- and

post-workshop surveys are currently being analyzed, and implementation of action

items is being tracked by the APS CSWP. A report from the physics gender equity

workshop is in the final stages of preparation.

Inspired by the gender equity workshops, the chemistry community organized a

department chair workshop addressing racial and ethnic equity, held September 24–

26, 2007 with sponsorship from DOE, NSF, and NIH. The materials sciences and

engineering community is currently planning a gender equity workshop of its own,

with anticipated co-funding from DOE and NSF, to be held May 18–20, 2008.

The remainder of my testimony will focus on the questions proposed in the invitation letter for this hearing.

1. Based on your own experience in helping to organize workshops to address gender bias in the chemistry and physics communities in 2006 and

2007, what are the elements of an effective workshop? In answering this

question, please address workshop content, format, speakers, and participant categories, in addition to any other elements that are important

to an effective workshop.

To provide a little background, I personally attended the 2006 chemistry gender

equity workshop and was a federal advisor to the steering committees for the 2007

physics gender equity workshop and the 2007 chemistry racial and ethnic equity

workshop. A few observations can be made about the workshop series as a whole.

Each workshop requires months of hard preparation work by the relevant scientific

communities before the meeting occurs. A distinguished steering committee, comprised of five to ten highly respected researchers, encourages university department

chairs to attend a given workshop and participate fully. At least one steering committee member should be expert in the social sciences addressing women in science

to provide insight and planning advice from that perspective. The workshops have

been structured by the communities and, as a result, the communities accept a

strong sense of ownership of the outcomes. Follow-up activities that include reports

of progress on action items are as important as the workshop itself, as they maintain attention on the action items.

Workshop attendance is by invitation and is typically limited to about 100 people

to facilitate information exchange. Participant travel expenses are supported by federal agencies so that cost is not an impediment to participation. The chairs are selected from departments that produce the most Ph.D.s and/or receive the most federal research dollars. Such chairs are typically role models and have the ability to

influence their own faculty as well as other department chairs. Bringing such a peer

group together encourages mutual cooperation toward common goals. Steering committee members sometimes engage funding agency officials in encouraging chairs to

attend. When a chair is unavailable, special effort is made to have him/her nominate an influential colleague with demonstrated departmental leadership. Each

20

workshop audience includes a few opinion leaders, defined as either distinguished

disciplinary scientists with sway over their colleagues or other scientists with

unique expertise relevant to equity for under-represented groups in science. These

opinion leaders are carefully chosen by the steering committee for their potential to

stimulate discourse throughout the workshop. The presence of high level federal officials from the relevant disciplinary funding programs seems important, as they reinforce the importance of gender equity among the science community participants.

For workshop content, data-driven science is emphasized over anecdotal evidence.

Social science is presented objectively and dispassionately. Breakout sessions have

ranged from unstructured discussions of generic questions to structured scenario

analyses. Inviting a science writer to help produce a workshop is also a good idea.

Creative touches such as interactive theater and implicit bias demonstrations can

shift perspectives and create group experiences that encourage community action.

2. What metrics should be used to evaluate the success of such workshops

in changing individual behavior and institutional culture related to gender equity in academic science and engineering?

The success metrics proposed and used by the communities have been (1) attitudinal change as measured using pre- and post-workshop surveys and (2) tracking

of the documented commitment by participants to implement action items and to

provide follow-up via interactive websites. Efforts have been made to keep the preand post-workshop surveys similar so results for different community cultures and

workshop features can be compared. Involvement of COACh with survey instruments has helped maintain continuity. Survey results are still being analyzed from

workshops held after the chemistry gender workshop. The chemistry department

chairs who reported back to COACh two years after that workshop have described

implementation of a number of new policies to encourage gender equity, including

reduced teaching load after childbirth, stopping the tenure clock, mandatory mentoring plans for junior faculty, more inclusive appointment procedures for influential

committees, changes in interview methods to better assure fairness, and scheduling

of faculty meetings during business hours. Communities planning future workshops

may consider developing other metrics that could be evaluated by the funding agencies as part of proposal merit review.

A recurring theme from these workshops and other stakeholder input is the need

to collect and track demographic data. Increased percentages of women could indicate that positive changes are taking place. Some science communities, like chemistry and physics, have ready access to data from professional societies. Others, like

the materials sciences and engineering community, need to develop sources for such

data.

3. Are there challenges in overcoming gender bias that are unique to the

National Laboratories? Should the workshops have sessions that are tailored specifically to National Laboratory participants?

The workshops have not revealed differences in the potential for implicit bias between Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and universities. Social science research and understanding suggest that implicit bias would

exist in many technical environments, which might include universities, national

laboratories, and other FFRDCs. Thus, approaches to identify and raise awareness

of implicit bias could be similar in any of them.

The physics gender equity workshop did, however, highlight some organizational

differences between FFRDCs and universities that create workshop planning challenges. First, FFRDCs do not necessarily have discrete disciplinary units as do academic departments. FFRDC managers lead groups, divisions, directorates, branches,

centers, etc., with various disciplines represented among tens to hundreds of scientists. The development of surveys that would apply to both university and FFRDC

structures as well as the selection of chair rank- and scope-equivalent FFRDC managers have proven to be challenging in organizing workshops and devising data collection tools. A single FFRDC manager with full responsibility and authority to

identify problems and implement changes for a scientific discipline may not exist.

Second, universities typically have tenure systems, while FFRDCs can have various

promotion systems. Some FFRDCs have versions of tenure; some operate more like

corporations. No one model applies to all.

To date, workshop information has emphasized academic practice; it must be

adapted to be relevant to FFRDCs. Structuring some workshop sessions specifically

for FFRDCs is a good suggestion that may provide more information more useful

for them.

Despite their organizational differences, laboratories have been influenced by findings from the gender equity workshops. For example, Brookhaven National LaboraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Oct 11, 2008 Jkt 042121 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\050808\42121 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
21

tory undertook an activity inspired by the two gender equity workshops.

Brookhaven had sent a representative to the 2006 chemistry workshop and another

to the 2007 physics workshop. These individuals returned to the laboratory with

specific ideas about steps that could be taken toward improving gender equity and,

after discussion, laboratory management decided to form a new team. The Family

Friendly Committee, a group of 15 laboratory employees from various job levels, was

commissioned by the laboratory director and met nine times during its first year.

The Family Friendly Committee, in turn, formed subcommittees to consider such

topics as alternate work schedules, leave policies, and family services. The subcommittees examined current practices at Brookhaven and developed some 15 suggestions for improvement. These recommendations are currently being assembled

into an internal report to laboratory management. The Family Friendly Committee

also hosted two distinguished gender equity experts for day-long visits to the laboratory. Each of their seminars attracted about 100 people.

The workshop series continues to be driven by the scientific communities, which

have been encouraged by the demonstrated success of their initial efforts. Each

science discipline has a unique culture and demographic. These differences necessitate somewhat different features for each workshop. The model for these workshops continues to evolve, and communities wanting to organize such workshops for

themselves continue to propose innovative ideas for consideration by appropriate

funding agencies. The agencies funding and advising these workshops have forged

good working relationships with each other and with the communities working to

achieve gender equity. The innovative nature of the workshop concept has drawn

and maintains DOE’s interest in participating.

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions the

Committee may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR LINDA G. BLEVINS

Dr. Linda G. Blevins is a Senior Technical Advisor in the Office of the Deputy

Director for Science Programs in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of

Science. She joined the staff of the Deputy Director for Science Programs in November 2007 to provide technical advice on many aspects of science program management. From April 2006 through November 2007 she served as Technical and International Advisor in the DOE Office of Basic Energy Sciences. From July 2004

through March 2006, she was the National Science Foundation (NSF) Program Director for Combustion and Plasma Systems while on a leave of absence from the

DOE Combustion Research Facility at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), where

she began working in 2000. From 1996–2000, Dr. Blevins was on the research staff

of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the Building and

Fire Research Laboratory. She received a Ph.D. from Purdue University in 1996, a

M.S. from Virginia Tech in 1992, and a B.S. summa cum laude from the University

of Alabama in 1989. All of her degrees are in mechanical engineering.

Dr. Blevins has served on the Executive Board of the California Biomass Collaborative, the Executive Committee of the Western States Section of the Combustion

Institute, the University of Alabama (UA) College of Engineering Leadership Board,

and the UA Mechanical Engineering Advisory Board. She is a University of Alabama Department of Mechanical Engineering Distinguished Fellow. Dr. Blevins is

also a member of the American Society for Engineering Education, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Combustion Institute, the American Institute of

Astronautics and Aeronautics, Pi Tau Sigma, Tau Beta Pi, and the Women’s Council

on Energy and Environment. She was a contributor to the book, Giving Much/Gaining More: Mentoring for Success, written by Emily M. Wadsworth and published by

Purdue University Press in 2002. At Purdue, she was a NSF Fellow, a Clare Boothe

Luce Fellow, and a Link Foundation Energy Fellow.

Her areas of research expertise are soot formation, instrumentation for probing

high temperature gas/particle mixtures, gaseous pollutant and particulate formation, and combustion of natural gas, coal, and biomass. Her research at NIST and

SNL was funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, the DOE, the Air Force

Research Laboratory, and the NIST Advanced Technology Program intramural program. She is author or co-author of 22 archival journal articles and more than 75

reports and conference papers.

Dr. Blevins currently serves on the Research Business Models Subcommittee of

the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Science. As part of her

role in the Office of Science, she serves as the program manager for cross-cutting

efforts such as the National Academies’ America’s Energy Future project. Dr.

22

Blevins also advises the Deputy Director for Science Programs on Office of Science

policies related to the management of science programs and research portfolio integration across the program offices within the Office of Science and DOE and with

other federal agencies.

Chairman BAIRD. You folks are amazing. We had four seconds

left on your time clock. This is unprecedented. Let us see if Dr.

Ginther can hit the mark as well. Dr. Ginther, thank you very

much.

STATEMENT OF DR. DONNA K. GINTHER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS; DIRECTOR, CENTER

FOR ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS ANALYSIS, UNIVERSITY OF

KANSAS

Dr. GINTHER. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the pending legislation. I am an economist specializing in research on academic labor markets. My NSFfunded research examines the question, does science discriminate

against women?

My research shows that women who have children are less likely

to enter academic science careers. Thus, the single most important

step that Congress can take to help women is to allow universities

to count childcare facilities toward indirect costs in order to expand

the availability of childcare for academic caregivers.

I have been asked to comment on data availability related to gender disparities and specific proposals of the Act. I comment on

these now.

In terms of data, I used the NSF’s survey of doctorate recipients

in my research. This is an excellent data source. However, with all

data, there are some limitations. I find that there are no gender

gaps in the promotion of scientists who tenure or full professor. I

find, however, gender gaps in the promotion of social scientists,

specially in my own discipline of economics, and I find gender gaps

in salary at the full professor level.

However, I cannot attribute all of these gender gaps to bias because there are key factors missing in the data that might explain

the gender gap. The first is productivity. There is no availability

of annual publications, citations, and annual patents. Second will

be dual career concerns. We don’t have information on spouses’

education, employment, and earnings. Finally, it would be useful to

have information on caregiving, time women spend in childcare and

house time work.

Now, I turn to specific aspects of the proposal. In terms of the

workshops on gender bias, the goal is that information about implicit bias will lead to changes in behavior. First, when implementing these workshops, a valid research design is essential.

Treatment and control groups should evaluate the same proposal,

and then any difference in evaluation can be judged as a result of

these workshops on bias. We need to evaluate the workshops based

on outcomes.

Second, it is important to provide training for the principal investigators who supervise post-docs because this is where the system

seems to break down for women.

23

1These publications and working papers are listed in the references.

Third, I recommend that we expand these workshops to include

mentoring activities for both post-docs and junior faculty. Mentoring for junior faculty complements mentoring for evaluators and

treats both sides of the problem.

Second, the Act calls for extending grant support for caregiving.

Both the NSF and NIH provide for no-cost extensions of grant

monies, and these practices should be implemented across federal

funding agencies.

Finally, I have been asked to comment on the federal role in gender equity. First and foremost, the Federal Government should provide grant support to caregivers through direct and indirect costs.

We should count daycare facilities toward indirect costs, therefore

subsidizing access to daycare on campus, and federal guidelines

should be modified to allow charging grants for childcare during

conferences and for travel for small children to conferences.

Second, we need to provide financial support for improved data

collection and research analysis in order to understand the gender

disparities and point to solutions to these problems.

Third, we need to evaluate gender intervention programs based

on outcomes and disseminate best practices. ADVANCE can provide a model for other federal agencies.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The under-representation of women in academic science

results from more than implicit or explicit bias. Although bias may

play a role, my research suggests that the difficulties women face

in balancing work and family in the post-doctoral years cause too

many women to leave science. Immediate childcare support on campus for graduate students, post-doctoral students and faculty, better data, and greater access to that data and rigorous evaluations

of interventions will allow for a more complete picture of the problem and point to necessary solutions. I will be happy to answer any

questions about my testimony.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ginther follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONNA K. GINTHER

Introduction

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. It is an honor for me to

comment on specific provisions in the legislation pending before the Subcommittee.

My research, professional, and university service has centered on understanding

the issues related to the advancement of women in science and social science careers

and engaging in institutional transformation efforts to affect change for women academics. I have published eight articles and written six additional working papers

on the topic of gender differences in employment outcomes in academia.1 In 2003

I received a National Science Foundation grant to investigate ‘‘Gender Differences

in Employment Outcomes for Academics in Science and Social Science’’ SES–

0353703, which has provided financial support for this research agenda. In addition,

I have served as a co-Principle Investigator for two NSF ADVANCE Institutional

Transformation grant proposals submitted by the University of Kansas. I serve on

the Board of Directors of the Committee of the Status of Women in the Economics

Profession of the American Economics Association where my main duty is to run

national mentoring workshops for junior faculty. Finally, I am currently the Chair

of the Faculty Compensation Committee at the University of Kansas where I have

worked to create and implement tenure stop-clock and modified instructional duties

policies for faculty engaged in family caregiving responsibilities. In these many caVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Oct 11, 2008 Jkt 042121 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\050808\42121 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
24

pacities, I feel qualified to comment on Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Act of 2008.

My research shows that women who have children are less likely to enter academic science careers. The single most important step Congress can take to fulfill

the potential of women in academic science is to allow universities the opportunity

to count child care facilities toward indirect costs in order to expand availability of

childcare for academic caregivers.

Summary of Research Results

Many studies, most recently the National Academies Report, Beyond Bias and

Barriers, have documented gender differences in hiring, salary, and promotion.

However, interpreting the causes of gender disparities in employment outcomes requires an in-depth examination of the data.

Economic theory provides the underpinnings of my research on these issues.

Economists start by assuming that employment outcomes are determined by market

forces. Wages and hiring are determined by the supply of and demand for Ph.D. scientists. Equally productive workers, regardless of gender, will be paid the same and

hired in similar numbers given market forces. Given these assumptions, one should

not observe hiring, promotion, and salary differences by gender. However, persistent

gender wage and employment differentials persist on average in the market as a

whole (Altonji and Blank, 1999) and for scientists in particular (Ginther, 2001

2006).

Beginning with Becker’s seminal work on discrimination (Becker, 1971), economists have developed models to understand gender and racial disparities in employment outcomes. Becker argues that taste-based discrimination (prejudice) will be

eliminated by competitive forces. As a result, bias and prejudice are ruled out as

explanations of the gender gap unless all other possible explanations posited by economic theory have been disproved. One alternative to discrimination, individual

‘‘preferences’’ or choices, are most-often used to examine the gender gap. Preferencebased explanations argue that gender differences in employment outcomes result

from choices, in particular differences in productivity. Since theory holds that equally productive workers are paid or promoted the same, it follows that gender differences in employment outcomes are the result of differences in productivity. A second preference-based explanation is that women choose to marry and have children,

which in turn affects their attachment to their careers and overall productivity.

If the researcher cannot explain the gender differences in employment outcomes

using one of the above explanations, then the residual gender difference in hiring,

promotion, or salary may be attributed to discrimination. However, economists continue to search for rational explanations—ones that will not be eliminated by competitive forces. Statistical discrimination suggests that imperfect information on the

part of employers generates wage differentials. In this model, an employer attributes the average characteristics of a group to an individual member of this

group—essentially, the employer uses a stereotype in making hiring decisions or setting wages. As a result, we observe gender differences in employment outcomes.

However, direct measures of statistical discrimination are difficult to come by. Thus,

discrimination may be inferred when other plausible explanations have been ruled

out.

Given these principles, my research poses the question: Does Science Discriminate

Against Women? I have evaluated gender differences in hiring, promotion, and salary. I find that gender differences in hiring are largely explained by the presence

of children—mothers are less likely to obtain tenure-track jobs in science and social

science (Ginther and Kahn forthcoming, 2006). Once women are on the tenure track,

we find no significant gender differences in promotion to tenure or full professor in

the sciences (Ginther and Kahn forthcoming). However, women are much less likely

to get tenure or be promoted to full professor in the social sciences, especially in

economics (Ginther and Kahn 2004, 2006). Finally, I find that female full professors

in the sciences earn significantly less than men and the gap is not fully explained

by observable characteristics (Ginther 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006c).

Although I document substantial gender gaps in promotion and salaries, I cannot

rule out the fact that productivity differences explain the salary gap in science and

the promotion gap in social science. Also, the results in Ginther and Kahn (forthcoming) suggest that factors related to marriage and children during the

postdoctoral period reduce the number of women in tenure track academic science.

25

2 Better data does make an important difference. In Ginther and Kahn (2004) we collect publication data and find that the gender gap in promotion in economics cannot be explained by productivity differences. These results indicate that bias likely explains the gender promotion gap

in economics. 3 Information from this conference is available at http://www.albany.edu/?marschke/

Workshop/

Until we have better data, as an economist, I am not in a position to conclude that

bias is the sole determinant of the gender gap in science.2

Data Needed to Understand Gender Disparities

My research on gender differences in employment outcomes has used the Survey

of Doctorate Recipients collected by the NSF. The SDR is the best data available

for studying career outcomes of science doctorates. Like all data, the SDR is not

without limitations. Namely, the SDR lacks information on academic productivity,

publications and citations that would allow researchers to determine whether productivity instead of bias is the underlying cause of the gender gap in salary and

promotion.

Although the SDR has collected information on publications and patents, the data

are not available in every year of the survey and therefore cannot help us understand the point in a person’s career where things turn around. Further, the SDR

does not contain information on the quality of publications measured by citations.

First and foremost, we need information on academic productivity measured by publications, citations, and journal impact in order to discern whether productivity differences explain the gender gap. Second, information on the size and duration of

federal grants would provide another indication of scientific productivity. One could

then examine the correlation between grant funding, publications, and citations to

create a measure of the return on the federal investment in science. Finally, patent

applications and patents granted from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office could

be included in the data set.

In 2003, I submitted ‘‘Gender Differences in Employment Outcomes for Academics

in Science and Social Science’’ SES–0353703 to the NSF. This grant proposed to

merge publication data from Thomson–ISI’s Web of Science onto the SDR. I submitted this grant because reviews of the previous proposal indicated that SDR data

without productivity measures was insufficient to answer the research question that

I had posed. My grant was funded in 2004, and the creation of the SDR Productivity

Database has been a work in progress ever since.

Essentially, a proposal to merge SDR data with other data sources puts legitimate

research of importance to Congress at odds with the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002. It took until 2006 for NSF to establish

a policy permit matching SDR data with other sources. Since 2006, I have drafted

several revisions of the data matching proposal as NSF gathered the necessary data

to make the match a reality. In the interim, the NSF funded a research conference,

‘‘Collaborative Research: Workshop on linking NSF SED/SDR Data to Scientific Productivity’’ SRS–0725475 which brought together researchers interested in using the

SDR Productivity data, statistical experts on linking data sets, and staff from the

NSF Division of Science Resource Statistics to discuss the issues involved in creating the data with the least amount of matching error, ensuring its confidentiality,

and providing access to the research community.3

The creation of the SDR Productivity Database is still a work in progress. Since

my original proposal, I have expanded the scope to including matching the SDR

with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office patent data as well. I am exploring the possibility of merging information from the NIH trainee database as well as their

grants database onto the SDR in order to examine the effect of early NIH fellowship

awards on later career outcomes. Once the data are created, I plan to use it to

evaluate the gender gap in salary and promotion in academic science in order to

draw more definitive conclusions about the explanations for the gap.

Additional data beyond productivity would provide greater insight into the underrepresentation of women in science. To understand the effect of marriage and children during the post-doctoral period on the gender gap in obtaining a tenure track

job, new questions would need to be added to the SDR survey instrument. These

would include:

• Number, length, and institutional affiliation of post-doctoral appointments

• Spouse information including education, employment and earnings

• Childcare and housework time This series of questions would allow researchers to determine whether the post-doctoral process, work-family tradeoffs, or

a combination of both lead to fewer women in academic science.

26

4For example, the American Economic Association publishes Job Openings for Economists

which contains a monthly list of all jobs for economics doctorates. This information could be

compiled annually to get a count of jobs available as a measure of demand for economists.

In addition to the SDR, I recommend that federal agencies such as the NSF and

NIH work with professional societies to collect information on the demand for scientists. In particular, researchers could make use of data on the number of academic and non-academic jobs available in scientific fields.4 Information on the demand for scientists measured by the number of job openings could then be compared

with the number of doctorates granted in the Survey of Earned Doctorates. This

comparison would allow researchers and policy-makers to identify the effect of supply and demand on the market for scientists.

Workshops on Gender Bias

The proposed legislation mandates holding national workshops to educate grant

review panels and department chairs about methods that minimize the impact of

gender bias in evaluation. These workshops are likely modeled after an initiative

in academic chemistry departments (http://www.chem.harvard.edu/groups/friend/

GenderEquityWorkshop/). The goal of these workshops is to inform individuals

about gender bias and its impact with the hope being that rational scientists who

are presented with research that contradicts their prior beliefs will change both

their attitudes and behavior. These changes will then translate into better outcomes

for women in academic science. I strongly support the goal of this initiative.

However, I have a few comments and concerns about this proposal. First, the effectiveness of the proposed workshops needs to be judged by its impact on evaluation outcomes. All too often, people assess attitudes before and after a workshop and

if the attitudes have changed, the workshop is judged a success. Attitude change

is often fleeting, and success should be measured not simply by reference to internal

states but by reference to external outcome variables.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the gender bias workshops, a valid research design is critical. First, I suggest having a treatment and control group evaluate the

same request for funds in a funding panel setting. The funding agency could use

previously evaluated proposals from prior years as the control group and then have

a ‘‘treatment’’ review panel that participated in a gender workshop evaluate the proposals a second time. Any differences in evaluation between the treatment and control group scores can then be attributed to the gender bias workshop—the ‘treatment.’ Second, the review panel should focus on funding for individuals such as

postdoctoral fellowships. This would reduce any bias related to the quality of the

research proposal and would mimic evaluations of individuals that occur throughout

scientific careers (e.g., for promotion and tenure). Researchers should then compare

the evaluation scores of the same proposal by the treatment and control groups. If

there are statistically significant differences in evaluations, this would be evidence

that bias has a causal effect on funding outcomes. Once this fact has been established, it would make sense to implement these workshops as broadly as possible.

A second concern has to do with the problem of motivation among workshop participants. Changing beliefs is difficult, and workshops like this will be successful if

the people who attend are motivated by the purpose and methods. I posit that this

will not be a problem for grant review panelists, who are working on behalf of the

funding agencies. However, I remain skeptical about the workshops’ effectiveness

among department chairs. While this may vary depending on the discipline, in Economics (where faculty typically believe in efficient labor markets), department

chairs are likely to be a hostile audience. I think these workshops have to be structured and participants motivated very carefully to impact these decision-makers.

Third, my research shows that women leave academic science during the

postdoctoral period. Gender workshops focused on grant review panelists and department chairs would seem to miss the most critical group that could affect change

for women in academic science—the post-doctoral supervisors. Thus, it makes sense

that principle-investigators who are supervising post-doctoral students would be an

important target audience for these workshops.

Finally, I recommend that the Subcommittee consider expanding the scope of the

workshops to include mentoring activities for post-doctoral students and junior faculty in the science disciplines. COACh in chemistry and CeMENT in economics provide excellent examples of existing initiatives. I am currently serving as the Coordinator of the CeMENT National mentoring workshops for the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession. These workshops are funded by the NSF

and the American Economic Association and are designed to help junior economists

overcome the tenure hurdle, with a special focus on addressing the unique chalVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Oct 11, 2008 Jkt 042121 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\050808\42121 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
27

5 According the NIH website http://grants.nih.gov/training/faq¥childcare.htm, no NIH

grantee covers childcare as an indirect cost. 6http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a021/a021.html

lenges that women face at the beginning of their careers. The workshops are aimed

at junior faculty in institutions where tenure is primarily based on research output.

At the workshops, participants are arranged into small groups based on their research areas and matched with senior mentors. The format and curriculum are designed to create and cement relationships among the participants, as well as between the participants and the mentors. Large group sessions address the publication process, grant writing, teaching, professional activities, the tenure process, and

work-life balance. Small group sessions consisting of researchers in the same field

provided feedback on junior scholar research papers and grant proposals.

As with most mentoring workshops, the participants are pleased with the information provided to them. However, the evaluation of the program does not end with

participant surveys.

CeMENT is now in its third wave of six randomized trials designed to evaluate

the effect of mentoring on career outcomes. Each workshop has had over 80 applicants of which approximately half are randomly invited to the workshop. The CeMENT research team follows the CeMENT treatment and control groups for several

years to evaluate whether or not mentoring has an impact on publications, grants,

and ultimately, the tenure decision. CeMENT is the only experimental evaluation

of mentoring that we are aware of. We hope to have preliminary results to report

in the coming year.

The mentoring workshops can complement the proposed workshops for review

panels, postdoctoral supervisors, and department chairs. By providing information

and education to both sides of the process, we can have a larger impact and expect

to see more change than addressing either side independently.

Extending Grant Support for Caregiving

Both the NSF and NIH provide for no-cost extensions of grant monies. The NIH

website indicates that grants can be extended because of caregiving responsibilities

(http://grants.nih.gov/training/faq¥childcare.htm). These practices can and should

be implemented across federal funding agencies.

Federal Role in Gender Equity

Throughout this testimony I have argued for the need for better data to evaluate

gender disparities, more effective evaluation of gender bias workshops, and the addition of mentoring workshops. I will now make specific recommendations that will

allow the Federal Government to directly address barriers to gender equity in academic science.

1. Provide grant support to caregivers through direct and indirect costs. Availability of daycare on campus is in short-supply. No faculty member can be productive if they are preoccupied with the care of their children while they are at work.

The Federal Government should allow universities to count facilities for daycare

provided on campus towards indirect costs, in particular, the number of spaces

available for infant care.5 This would provide a subsidy for the expansion of daycare

centers on campus which would free up the time of caregivers. In addition, I want

to echo Myron Campbell’s testimony before the Committee in recommending that

Federal OMB guidelines6 be modified to allow faculty members to charge grants for

the cost of childcare during a conference, or the cost of having small children travel

to conferences be charged against direct or indirect grant costs (http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/research/17oct/

Camp bell¥testimony.pdf).

2. Provide financial support for improved data collection and research analysis to

better understand gender disparities in academic science. The SDR Productivity

Database described previously is very much a work in progress. Additional funding

could expand the scope of the database and improve its quality. In particular, information on publications, citations, and patents should be updated with each new

wave of the SDR. Both the NSF and President Bush’s science advisor, John

Marburger, cite the need to devise new measures of the status of science and technology (S&T) in the economy, as it is widely believed that current formulations insufficiently represent current S&T practices. Linking existing data sets together

provides several advantages in producing new information on S&T because of the

time it takes to implement changes to existing national surveys. I justify matching

existing data along a number of dimensions. First, innovation in the U.S. changes

28

more rapidly than the data are collected. Researchers and the NSF can save time

by matching existing data sets to measure and understand changes in innovation.

Second, matched data are complementary to and enhance existing national surveys.

The findings from research using the matched data can help in reformulating national surveys and suggest modules that could explore more fully phenomena discovered in the matched data. Third, matched data provide increased flexibility for research. Researchers will not need to wait up to ten years to gain access to revised

national surveys. Finally, matched data will allow researchers and policy-makers to

examine questions that have not been adequately addressed because of data limitations.

In addition to matched data, questions should be added to the SDR that directly

address the post-doctoral experience, education and employment of the spouse, and

time allocated to caregiving duties.

Once these data are created, steps must be taken to maintain the confidentiality

of the data while providing broad access to the research community. I recommend

two approaches to confidentiality. First, synthetic data could be site-licensed to individuals in research community to allow preliminary estimates to be performed. Second, the NSF should explore technological solutions for maintaining the confidentiality of the SDR Productivity Database such as a virtual private network with

encrypted access. Final estimates could be performed on the secured data.

3. Evaluate gender intervention programs and disseminate best practices. Since its

inception in 2001, the NSF ADVANCE program has funded 32 institutional transformation grants as well as several leadership grants such as the CeMENT workshops. Each institution has devised interventions to improve the climate, hiring, retention, and compensation of women in science. This year, the NSF has begun an

evaluation to document the effectiveness of institutional transformation programs.

It is my hope that the evaluation results in a series of best-practices that can be

used as a model for other federal agencies.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, once again I thank you for this opportunity to testify today. The

under-representation of women in academic science results from more than implicit

or explicit bias. Although bias may play a role, my research suggests that the difficulties women face in balancing work and family and in the post-doctoral years

cause too many women to leave science. Immediate childcare support on campus for

graduate students, post-doctoral students, and faculty, better data and greater access to the data, and rigorous evaluation of interventions will allow for a more-complete picture of the problem and point to the necessary solutions.

References:

JG Altonji and RM Blank (1999). ‘‘Race and Gender in the Labor Market.’’ Handbook of Labor Economics, Volume 3, Eds. O. Ashenfelter and D. Card. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

GS Becker (1971). The Economics of Discrimination, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

DK Ginther (2001). ‘‘Does Science Discriminate against Women? Evidence from Academia, 1973–97.’’ Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Working Papers 2001, no.

02 (2001): 66. http://www.frbatlanta.org/publica/work¥papers/wp01/

wp0102.htm

DK Ginther (2002). ‘‘Gender Differences in Employment Outcomes for Academics in

the Social Sciences.’’ Mimeo, University of Kansas.

DK Ginther (2003). ‘‘Is MIT the Exception? Gender Pay Differentials in Academic

Science.’’ Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society 23(1): 21–26.

DK Ginther (2004). ‘‘Why Women Earn Less: Economic Explanations for the Gender

Salary Gap in Science’’ AWIS Magazine (Winter 2004) 33(1): 6–10.

DK Ginther (2004). ‘‘Gender Differences in Salary and Promotion in Political

Science.’’ Mimeo, University of Kansas.

DK Ginther (2006a). ‘‘Economics of Gendered Distribution of Resources in Academe,’’ in Biological, Social, and Organizational Components of Success for

Women in Science and Engineering: Workshop Report. Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. pp. 56–60.

DK Ginther (2006b). ‘‘The Economics of Gender Differences in Employment Outcomes in Academia,’’ in Biological, Social, and Organizational Components of

Success for Women in Science and Engineering: Workshop Report. Committee on

29

Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. The

National Academies Press, Washington, DC. pp. 99–112.

DK Ginther (2006c). ‘‘The Gender Gap in Science: Does Productivity Explain the

Difference?’’ Mimeo, University of Kansas.

DK Ginther and KJ Hayes (1999). ‘‘Gender Differences in Salary and Promotion in

the Humanities.’’ American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 89(2):

397–402.

DK Ginther and KJ Hayes (2003). ‘‘Gender Differences in Salary and Promotion for

Faculty in the Humanities, 1977–1995.’’ The Journal of Human Resources 38(1):

34–73.

DK Ginther and S Kahn (2004). ‘‘Women in Economics: Moving Up or Falling Off

the Academic Career Ladder?’’ Journal of Economic Perspectives (Summer 2004)

18(3): 193–214.

DK Ginther and S Kahn (2006). ‘‘Women’s Careers in Academic Social Science:

Progress, Pitfalls, and Plateaus.’’ Mimeo, University of Kansas.

DK Ginther and S Kahn (forthcoming 2009). ‘‘Does Science Promote Women? Evidence From Academia, 1973–2001’’ in Science and Engineering Careers in the

United States. Richard B. Freeman and Daniel F. Goroff (eds.), Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press for NBER Science Engineering Workforce Project.

S Kahn and DK Ginther (2007). ‘‘Good Moves: Gender Differences in Academic Mobility in the Sciences and Social Sciences.’’ Mimeo, Boston University.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DONNA K. GINTHER

Donna Ginther is an Associate Professor of Economics and the Director of the

Center for Economic and Business Analysis at the Institute for Policy Research at

the University of Kansas. Prior to joining the University of Kansas faculty, she was

a research economist and associate policy adviser in the regional group of the Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta from 2000 to 2002, and

taught at Washington University from 1997 to 2000 and Southern Methodist University from 1995 to 1997. Her major fields of study are scientific labor markets,

gender differences in employment outcomes, wage inequality, scientific entrepreneurship, and children’s educational attainments.

Dr. Ginther has been published in several journals, including the Journal of the

American Statistical Association, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Demography,

and the Papers and Proceedings of the American Economic Association. She has also

received research funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. She is currently a

member of the Board of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics

Profession of the American Economic Association in charge of organizing the CeMENT national mentoring workshops.

A native of Wisconsin, Dr. Ginther received her doctorate in economics in 1995,

Master’s degree in economics in 1991, and Bachelor of arts in economics in 1987,

all from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

DISCUSSION

Chairman BAIRD. I thank the witnesses for a very informative

and concise and relevant testimony. I will recognize myself for five

minutes and follow that with Dr. Ehlers. We have been joined by

the way by Dr. Bartlett. Thank you Dr. Bartlett.

Dr. Carlson, one of the questions I have, as you describe the situation, it sounds like you are gathering a fair bit of data, but it is

incomplete and variable across the agencies that are submitting

the data. You also describe that you have got a—you are in some

consultative process to try to perhaps improve that set. If that consultative process is successful, could you gather the sort of data

that is requested in this legislation, and would it be of use to you

to do so?

Dr. CARLSON. Data on gender and ethnicity and race is—an individual cannot be forced to provide that as part of the Privacy Act.

So there is no way that one can compel that. It is actually an issue

30

of working with the individual agencies to have them request the

data needed, and there is no way that we can actually push the

agencies to do that. I think that really the best way is to work

through the Chief Financial Officer’s counsel, and that might be a

way to handle that.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Blevins, these workshops you described, I

was very pleased to hear that you focus on data, research-based information about what are the obstacles for women continuing the

science career path. We had a prior hearing where, among others,

Dr. Shalala spoke, and one of the things that came up was the

point you have all made, essentially that really just the number of

baccalaureate level folks is pretty good for women. There is this

drop down the road a ways. What specifically about your workshops addresses that would be one point, and the second would be

if, as this legislation recommends, we would require there be these

training workshops, how would we make sure that the caliber of

the workshop is good? I have had the opportunity in my own academic career to participate in both gender and ethnic sensitivity

type workshops, and the caliber quite frankly varied a great deal.

What are your thoughts on that?

Dr. BLEVINS. Okay. So the first question, what specific about the

workshop addresses this fall off——

Chairman BAIRD. Yeah, the data——

Dr. BLEVINS.—in the statistics?

Chairman BAIRD. Specifically the research data that tells us

what causes the fall off. Dr. Ginther pointed a few points out.

Dr. BLEVINS. Right. I think the workshops focus on all sorts of

things. One is the idea of implicit bias and gender schemas, and

the other is just sort of policies and practices of the universities

and the institutions that might not make them very good places to

work. For example, a graduate student might not find a faculty career very attractive. That has come up several times because of the

types of policies and practices. One example of that is just a simple

one which was surprising to me, is when do you hold your faculty

meetings? I mean, some folks hold them on Saturdays or, you

know, at 5:00 in the evening. And so that is kind of a simple one

that can sort of make the environment better for men and women

actually. All of these things are really geared toward that.

Chairman BAIRD. As a father of two twins, I appreciate that,

three-year-old boys.

Dr. BLEVINS. And so it is really a rich format with a very experienced group of department chairs, federal officials, and scientists of

all types. They come together and bring a lot of expertise into these

break-out sessions. And for example, at the physics workshop, one

of the universities talked about how it was implementing a parttime tenure track. So there are a lot of interesting and different

ideas that come out of them.

How do we keep the caliber of the workshops high or how do

communities keep the caliber? I think the key concept here is to

make them data-driven and to really focus on data so that people

don’t walk out of the room kind of thinking, well that is somebody

else’s problem and not mine. I think if you really focus on the data

from the social science and whatnot, these people who attend really

take ownership I think in this issue. And so, we talk a lot about

31

how to make them different from what has been held in the past,

and I think it is more than just everyone getting around, telling

their stories about how bad it is for them. We try to avoid that,

and we really try to keep it data-focused.

Chairman BAIRD. Sounds like you achieved that, and I am sure

Dr. Ginther, her data set would be—Doctor, your data set seems

quite relevant to that. One quick question, and then I will recognize Dr. Ehlers. Has anyone estimated the cost—I support the idea

of considering providing indirect costs for childcare. Have we got an

estimate of the cost of that?

Dr. GINTHER. I checked with the NIH and they say it is permissible to use childcare facilities toward indirect costs, though no

grantees do so. So I don’t know how it would—you know, I don’t

know the specifics of how it would be implemented. It is possible,

and I don’t know why other institutions aren’t doing it.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Ehlers is recognized.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Ginther, you recommend the establishment of a valid research design to measure

the effectiveness of the workshops proposed by this legislation. Can

you suggest how that might be incorporated into the legislation and

would you recommend that these workshops start out on a pilot

basis with a good evaluation mechanism?

Dr. GINTHER. I think that whenever you are evaluating an intervention, you need to have a treatment and control group. So if you

are targeting, say, grant reviewers, you would have a treatment

group that goes through the gender bias workshop. And then you

would have a control group that doesn’t, and then they would look

at the same proposal and then you look at the evaluations coming

out of the treatment and control group, compare the two, and see

whether or not bias played a role in the evaluations, whether or

not there were average differences. Women are evaluated better by

the people who have the gender bias training. That would prove

scientifically that these workshops have a significant effect.

We are doing a similar approach with our mentoring workshops

in the American Economic Association. We have held three so far,

and we have about 80 participants who are randomly assigned to

a treatment and control group, and then we look at these young

scholars as their careers evolve and we see whether or not the

mentoring workshops actually have a significant effect. And then

once we have shown that or failed to show that, then we can sort

of say, these policies are important and should be disseminated

widely across the disciplines. But I agree with Dr. Blevins’ point,

that each discipline has a specific set of issues and these need to

be discipline-specific in order to be effective.

Mr. EHLERS. Another question. If work/family trade-offs are at

least a significant factor, maybe an extremely significant factor, but

the question is, does your research indicate that these trade-off decisions are more acute in science and engineering than in other disciplines?

Dr. GINTHER. I have not evaluated the humanities, but I have

evaluated science and social science and I find that women tend to

leave the doctorate and getting on the tenure track in both disciplines. What I have also found is that each discipline is different.

So in engineering, for example, you see women entering tenureVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:18 Oct 11, 2008 Jkt 042121 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\050808\42121 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
32

track jobs at higher rates than men, but they are more likely to

drop out of the tenure track if they have a child. So these work/

family trade-offs really seem to affect every woman in academia.

But I think they are more likely to affect women in that period of

purgatory known as the post-doc. You know, you don’t have faculty

status, you don’t have student status, and it is not clear whether

or not there is a job going to come out at the other end; and therefore, you know, judging by what is happening in the data, I can’t

prove this definitively but judging by what happens, they decide to

opt out.

Mr. EHLERS. Does this happen in the post-doc level?

Dr. GINTHER. Yeah.

Mr. EHLERS.—it is more or less permanent, right?

Dr. GINTHER. Yeah, I mean it is an irrevocable decision.

Mr. EHLERS. But if they are on tenure track, they may drop out

for a few years.

Dr. GINTHER. Now, on the tenure track, I find no significant differences in the science of women making it through. So women and

men are promoted to tenure and to full professor at equal rates

once they get to the tenure track in science. Not true in social

science.

Mr. EHLERS. I see. That is interesting. So in other words, we scientists are more fair-minded——

Dr. GINTHER. I would state it a little differently. You scientists

pre-screen your tenure track applicants. There is a screening mechanism called post-doc, and social scientists don’t have post-docs on

average. And so then you see the screening happening on the tenure track.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. Sorry. I thought I had discovered something

new. Dr. Blevins——

Chairman BAIRD. I think you were engaging in confirmation bias.

Mr. EHLERS. But I hide my biases very well. I do have lots of

them. Dr. Blevins, do you have any indication that the attitude

perception shifts resulting from the workshops resulted or led to institutional change? Do you follow-up on this?

Dr. BLEVINS. In fact, follow-up is being done for the chemistry

workshop. I have a Committee on the Advancement of Women

Chemists, and they have an interactive website and they have collected input. And in fact, there have been some anecdotal pieces

entered into the website about some of the changes, and I have

written about some of those in my testimony. Let me see if I can—

I remember that there were things about changing the way they

interviewed candidates and creating more concrete criteria by

which everyone would evaluate the candidates in writing, working

on this childcare issue, changing their faculty meeting times and

things like that. In fact, I think nearly half of the chairs that attended have gone in and entered updates to the website two years

later, which is I think a very high success rate.

Mr. EHLERS. All right. I think my time has expired. I am afraid

we have to go vote.

Chairman BAIRD. Yeah, we are down to five minutes voting, and

without boring you with the details of what lies ahead for us, what

lies ahead for you is about a 45-minute wait. And we regret that,

but we will likely—I don’t foresee us likely coming back before

33

11:15. So let us just give everybody that as a predictable time. It

is possible we run over a few minutes, but Dr. Bartlett, a couple

minutes. The challenge is I don’t know how tight they are holding

the votes right now.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I have a markup in a subcommittee so I cannot come back after the vote. We only have a

couple of minutes before we need to run for votes. Anything that

we can do to encourage more of our young people, particularly

women, who have largely been under represented in these areas to

go into science, math, and engineering is enormously important. I

just read a statistic yesterday that really alarmed me. Sixty percent of all of the patents that come to our patent office come from

inventors outside the United States. This year China will graduate

six times as many engineers as we graduate and more than 50 percent of all of the students in our sciences for post-college education

are foreign students. So we face enormous challenges, and we just

pretty much ignored a full 50 percent of our potential by not encouraging women to go into these disciplines.

I am very much concerned about any discrimination, but I am

even more concerned about a culture which does not appreciate

people in these areas. I just think we need to change the culture

so that these careers are valued. Culture gets what it appreciates,

and we just don’t appreciate these careers. We appreciate singers

and dancers and football players, and so if it was just who gets invited to the White House where they slobber all over them rather

than academic figures, they are sports and entertainers and so

forth. Don’t you think we really need a culture change in this country? And you are very effective representatives, three very attractive women, bright, and you know, you just need to be out and

about more so that people can see, gee, there really is an opportunity for women in these disciplines, isn’t there? Thank you very

much for your testimony. I am sorry we don’t have more time for

conversation. Thank you very much.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. Thank you. Please indulge with your patience. I apologize for the interruption. It is beyond our control. But we will rush off and vote and come back as

quickly as we can. But I think it is very improbable we would be

back before 11:15. So let us make it 11:10 if you would. Let us try

to come back at 11:10 just in case we get lucky early, and then we

will reconvene. Thank you very much.

[Recess.]

Chairman BAIRD. The meeting will now come to order again. We

apologize profoundly to our witnesses. It has not been our finest

hour over on the Floor. A series of procedural votes make it very

unpredictable. Dr. Ehlers and I have agreed mutually that we have

respect for the witnesses who have traveled so far and made such

effort to give us good testimony. We are going to miss a couple of

votes in order that we can be here and hear from you.

So with that, Dr. Ehlers, I will recognize you because I know you

have some further questions, and then I will resume. We don’t

have any other with us. It is possible that Eddie Bernice Johnson

from Texas will join us as well, but Dr. Ehlers, I will recognize you

for five minutes.

34

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first of all I want

to follow up with several questions for Dr. Ginther since she traveled a great distance to be here. NSF is working to establish a productivity database. Once this information is available, can you

speak to how it will expand the existing knowledge base and understanding of the advancement of female faculty members?

Dr. GINTHER. If I may sort of make one small correction, I proposed to create the productivity database with the survey of doctorate recipients as part of a grant that I submitted in 2004, and

the goal of creating this data was to merge publications, citations,

and patents onto the survey of doctorate recipients, and this is a

work in progress. But the goal is to see what other factors may explain why women have not advanced or don’t participate in science

at the same numbers as men. And so does productivity, for example, explain why women in economics are less likely to get tenure?

How do these other variables—you know, as economists, we assume that people are paid and promoted based on how productive

they are, and in academia, you can measure productivity much better than you can in say the private sector.

So my goal with the creation of this data is to see if there are

gender differences in productivity and how they affect the careers

of men and women in science. And there are also positive

externalities to creating these data because you can examine a

number of other questions, like why has science in the United

States slowed down in terms of the number of publications relative

to the rest of the world? So the goal is to create the data, and there

is a great interest in the research community for using it. And

hopefully it will sort of help us narrow down why women are not

as prevalent in science and social science.

Mr. EHLERS. In a nutshell, it seems to me what I have heard

said this morning is that women are not as productive or don’t

seem to advance so much primarily because of the childcare issue.

Dr. GINTHER. That is what my research indicates, yes.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. And just a quick question of Dr. Carlson and

Dr. Blevins. Do you find that also in your experience and in the

research you have reviewed?

Dr. CARLSON. We have not really looked at that, so I can’t comment on that.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. But that indicates that is not a matter of sexual bias so much as the practical aspect of how is the childcare

within the family handled. I am drawing a conclusion. I wanted to

ask you to support or disagree with it.

Dr. Ginther, one other question I had, including all principal investigators in the workshops seems like it would be difficult. Can

you recommend another method to reach the PIs who directly oversee post-docs regarding improving the post doctoral experience for

women?

Dr. GINTHER. I would say that, you know, before you reach all

PIs, just do a test, you know, to see if sort of providing them information about bias and other barriers that women face in science

and in the post-doc period matters. Have a treatment and control

group. And then if it does, then you can sort of selectively identify

PIs, especially those who have a number of post-docs that they supervise and try to disseminate it that way.

35

So, you know, I agree it would be really prohibitively expensive

to train each PI, but it would be really useful to know whether or

not training the PIs would matter, and if it does, you can disseminate this information to the professional societies and help them to

get the message out.

Mr. EHLERS. It is not clear to me. I really appreciate what you

are saying. It seems to me you have got a good handle on things,

but how would you proceed to design pilot programs to institute

this?

Dr. GINTHER. Okay. So you take an agency like NIH which funds

a significant number of post-docs, and you say a condition of funding is that you take a random sample of 100. You take 50 and you

train them and then you take 50 and you don’t, and then you sort

of do a survey and follow up on the progress of their post-doc mix.

And NIH gives millions of dollars for post-doc training. They have

traineeships and fellowships, and then you can evaluate how these

women and men differentially progress out of the post-doc and into

careers.

Mr. EHLERS. That is interesting being a physical scientist, I

hadn’t thought of NIH as being the first test bed, but you are obviously right. They have more money for post-docs.

Dr. GINTHER. Yeah, 70 percent of all life scientists have to have

a post-doc before advancing to an academic career. And now I think

the median is more than one.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. My time has expired. I yield back.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Blevins, did you want to comment further

on the question line that Dr. Ehlers was pursuing there? You

looked like you might have——

Dr. BLEVINS. Well, I want to qualify that I am also a physical

scientist, not a social scientist, but I think some of the social scientists who have spoken at our workshops might differ some with

what you said. So I would just urge you to talk to some of the folks

who have come to the workshops and spoken as well.

Chairman BAIRD. What would they tell us?

Dr. BLEVINS. Well, I think the issue of implicit bias is something

that men and women experience and hold and are not always

aware that they do. And these are the things that I learned at the

workshop from the social scientists. While any one thing might

seem like a small thing to which somebody might be overreacting,

if you add up the sum total of all these things over a course of a

person’s career, there is a concept of accumulation of disadvantage

that comes into play. So I have to say I am a little uncomfortable

going outside of my comfort zone on this. That is because I am not

a social scientist, but I would just say that the prevailing sentiment at the workshops has been that it is more than just a

childcare issue.

Chairman BAIRD. Hence we might make some dent into—I am

not even sure retention is the right word but advancement may

even be a better word—differentials if we provided childcare. But

that might not be sufficient, maybe necessary but not sufficient.

Would that be a fair statement?

Dr. GINTHER. I think the issue is complex, you know. I am not

saying that there is no such thing as bias in science. But for bias

to explain everything, it would have to show up in a lot more

36

places than it does. You know, women in science, once they get on

the tenure track, are equally likely to get tenure and to become full

professor. But at the full professor level, for some reason, there is

a 13 percent pay gap that I can’t explain by observable characteristics. Now I don’t have every observable characteristic. I don’t have

their productivity. And you know, as an economist, we believe people are paid according to their productivity. And it is only until I

can disprove that I will even be able to publish this research in the

economics profession.

Chairman BAIRD. Well, you can just prove that by visiting Congress. Hang around here for a while. You will see that productivity

is not necessarily directly correlated to pay.

Dr. GINTHER. Hey, but your pay is set, right?

Chairman BAIRD. Yes, QED. The question remains. So we have

had people tell us in this committee that childcare is a factor but

there are also cultural factors, that there are implicit biases, et

cetera. What happens to the women who leave—there is an implicit

assumption here it is a bad thing to leave academia. Dr. Ehlers

and I might not always agree with that. We’ve left. What happens

to the women who don’t go on into the academic field or the professional field? It would be one thing if we said, well, X percent higher

numbers of women drop out from that profession, and we assume

that is a bad thing. But if they go onto things that they personally

deem to be more rewarding, either financially or monetarily, it may

be a bad thing in terms of lost productivity, but is it a bad thing

for the women themselves? I am playing devil’s advocate here, you

recognize that. Any thoughts on that?

Dr. GINTHER. This is sort of my area of expertise. What happens

is if you leave science or if you leave any professional career, your

human capital quickly depreciates. And if you want to re-enter the

labor force, you are not going to be able to do so. And I think that

is especially true—and receive the same pay as when you left. And

I think that is especially true in science because science moves so

quickly. If women leave science, they are not going to be able to

come back and be scientists once they leave. And so you know

there is a loss in human capital.

Chairman BAIRD. But the assumption there is that they go somewhere that is somewhat of a dead end instead of going somewhere—for example, as competitive as the field is in the professions, maybe people—I am speculating, it may not be true. Maybe

they are leaving an academic career to go to a private enterprise

career, make more money and have more success. I don’t assume.

Dr. GINTHER. I think it is true in certain disciplines, like, you

know, engineering. The track out of a Ph.D. in engineering is into

the private sector because the jobs there pay better than academia.

But some jobs, I mean, you can’t really do particle physics in the

private sector. And so as a result, I mean, you kind of have an option of the labs at the university or not doing particle physics. So

I can’t really comment on what they end up doing, but we see in

all levels, highly educated women are leaving the labor force now

outside of academia, and it seems to correlate with having children.

Chairman BAIRD. Yeah. So we have got to address that. There

is no question. But Dr. Blevins seems to be asserting there is much

more to it than that, that there are these biases, et cetera. So

37

hence, that is the workshop component that is—back to this legislation per se, that is the workshop component and that is the rationale. What is not in this legislation, and Dr. Ehlers, I am running over here, but what is not in this legislation that you believe

should be if we are to try to redress some—and obviously the issue

Dr. Ginther has raised already about indirect costs for childcare.

What else is there?

Dr. GINTHER. Well, there is how to spend direct costs from your

grants toward covering issues like childcare for travel. I think Mr.

Campbell testified previously that the R&D rules are too restrictive

about that.

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. Other thoughts? Dr. Ehlers, I recognize

you for other questions.

Mr. EHLERS. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BAIRD. Neither do I, and with that, I thank the witnesses for their patience, and we apologize for the interruptions

and the distractions. It is a difficult environment. They have not

yet asked Dr. Ehlers or I how we would run the schedule here, but

I can assure you it would be much different.

So thank you for your time and thanks for the guests who joined

us today as well in the audience, and with that, this hearing stands

adjourned. And if people have follow-up comments they wish to

offer, please feel free to do so. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(39)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

40

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Lynda T. Carlson, Director, Division of Science Resources Statistics

(SRS), National Science Foundation (NSF)

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. I realize that your testimony specifically discusses the NSF Division of Science

Resources Statistics, also called the SRS. Is there cross-talk between SRS and

the Survey of Earned Doctorates, which is currently repressing statistics on minority Ph.D. grantees? What is being done to rectify this data repression?

A1. The Division of Science Resources (SRS) is the federal statistical agency with

responsibility for data and analysis on the science and engineering enterprise, writ

large. As part of that responsibility SRS conducts the Survey of Earned Doctorates

(SED), which is a survey of all Ph.D. recipients from U.S. academic institutions.

Last full during a review of its data protection procedures conducted in light of

newly issued guidelines for the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical

Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA), SRS implemented more stringent rules to protect

the confidentiality of data provided by respondents to the SED. This additional protection resulted in a decrease in the number of cells in which data were published

in the SED 2006 Summary Report as compared to SED Summary Reports published

in previous years. Tables that individuals special ordered from the survey contractor

also had fewer cells with published data. The cells affected related primarily to race/

ethnicity, citizenship and gender.

After publishing the 2006 SED tabulations, NSF/SRS received many complaints

from the user community about the availability of less information for under-represented minorities than previously released. A great deal of the concern related to

the fact that SRS implemented the changes without input from the user community.

Users strongly suggested that SRS solicit user input as to how best to design the

tables to meet a broad spectrum of user needs. NSF has listened to this concern.

The following statement was released by NSF in May:

‘‘SRS will be releasing the race/ethnicity, citizenship and gender data collected

for the 2006 Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) as in previous years. There are

privacy and confidentiality issues that must be addressed, particularly in the

context of small data sets. The question of how to aggregate the data in future

years will be addressed with the data user community over the next few months

and new tables will be developed to release data from the 2007 SED.’’

Tables containing 2006 SED data with the same level of detail as in previous

years for race/ethnicity, citizenship and gender can be requested through a link on

the NSF/SRS website at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/2006/

sed06data.htm.

The same web page has a comment box requesting suggestions for ways to redesign the SED data tables so that they will address both issues of privacy/confidentiality and the needs of data users. SRS is also asking interested parties to take

part in a web survey on the redesign of the SED data tables. We hope that interested parties will avail themselves of both the comment box and the web survey to

help SRS redesign the tables. SRS is also engaging in an extensive outreach effort

to solicit information about the ways in which SED data are used and to garner suggestions for alternative ways to present the data.

NSF/SRS understands the importance of reporting on the progress of under-represented minorities in science and engineering (S&E). This consideration will guide

the development of alternative data displays that will document the role of underrepresented minorities in S&E and the redesign of tables to display this information

to the maximum extent possible.

To meet the needs of users for 2007 data from the SED on a similar schedule as

in previous years, SRS will release in late 2008 high-level summary statistics of

2007 SED data in an InfoBrief (see htt;://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08301/

for the 2006 InfoBrief). Concurrently SRS will be redesigning the tables for the full

2007 SED Summary report, which is planned for release in spring 2009.

41

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Linda G. Blevins, Senior Technical Advisor, Office of the Deputy Director for Science Programs, U.S. Department of Energy

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. Dr. Ginther expressed concern about motivation among workshop participants.

She cites her own discipline, economics, as being particularly hostile to this kind

of workshop. Did you find this to be a problem at all in the workshops that you

participated in? Are there best practices specifically to overcome any reluctance

on the part of invited participants?

A1. For the chemistry and physics workshops, some department chairs were motivated to attend and some were not. Each chair was first contacted by a steering

committee member. The steering committee members were able to use their considerable influence in the scientific community to convince most department chairs to

attend; however, a few were reluctant. The reluctant participants were then contacted by the federal program managers in the sponsoring agencies; some were

called several times. Convincing the last few chairs to attend required a great deal

of work by both the steering committees and the federal advisors.

Q2. How often do you think that gender bias workshops should be held for each discipline in order for attitudinal changes to spread throughout the community,

and not just among the department chairs who participate directly in the workshops?

A2. We do not currently have enough data to make this prediction. To date, no community has held more than one gender equity workshop. The workshops have been

driven and owned by the communities, and the communities are currently examining their outcomes. The assessment results from the first round of workshops

should inform decisions of whether or not to hold follow-on workshops.

42

1 In the University of Kansas F&A agreement, on-site childcare is not counted as a fringe benefit. 2http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a021/a021.html

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Donna K. Ginther, Associate Professor, Department of Economics; Director, Center for Economic and Business Analysis, University of Kansas

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. Can you propose more specifically how universities can count childcare facilities

toward indirect costs?

A1. Availability of daycare on campus is in short-supply. No faculty member can be

productive if they are preoccupied with the care of their children while they are at

work. Some institutions include on-site childcare as a fringe benefit, which for

grants purposes is considered a direct cost.1 However, in practice, the number of

childcare spaces on campus is so limited that enrolling a child in daycare is akin

to winning the lottery. Furthermore, if on-site childcare is available, often it is for

children who are one year or older. Infant daycare slots are extremely difficult to

come by.

The Federal Government can create incentives for on-site childcare by allowing

universities to count childcare facilities, building depreciation, and operation and

maintenance as part of indirect costs associated with grants. According to the NIH

website (http://grants.nih.gov/training/faq¥childcare.htm): ‘‘The HHS Division of

Cost Accounting found that many grantees offer subsidized child care centers and

have negotiated costs associated with such centers into their employee benefit rates.

No grantee was identified that covers such costs through indirect costs.’’ This statement indicates that it might be possible for universities to include childcare space

available on campus in their calculation of indirect costs.

My sense is that funding agencies such as NSF and NIH would need to be instructed by OMB to allow childcare space to count toward indirect costs in much

the same way that these costs are calculated for laboratory space. Since infant care

is a crucial issue for most faculty (and in the shortest supply), the availability of

infant spaces should be counted at a higher indirect cost rate than spaces for older

children.

If universities were allowed and encouraged to count childcare spaces towards indirect costs, this would provide a subsidy to the provision of childcare on campus.

It would benefit all faculty, but would likely benefit female faculty more since on

average they shoulder the burden of caregiving responsibilities.

Q2. Would childcare be listed as an individual investigator cost? I can tell you that

some Science Committee Members as well as the public would be displeased that

research monies are being spent on childcare. Can you suggest a tenable alternative?

A2. I would not recommend listing childcare as an individual investigator cost. All

U.S. taxpayers receive tax breaks for childcare expenses. Allowing individual investigators to charge grants directly for all childcare expenses would be a huge subsidy

to individual investigators relative to the average worker. The primary beneficiaries

would likely be male investigators with children.

However, I support Myron Campbell’s testimony before the Committee which recommended that Federal OMB guidelines2 be modified to allow faculty members to

charge grants for the cost of childcare during a conference, or the cost of having

small children travel to conferences be charged against direct or indirect grant costs

(http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/research/17oct/Campbell¥testimony.pdf). It is very difficult to attend conferences

when an investigator has small children. Speaking from personal experience, when

I have attended conferences my husband and I have paid for our parents to come

to our house to help with the children. Fortunately, we have the funds to cover

these expenses. However, most individual investigators are not so lucky. Thus, the

only direct childcare costs charged to grants would be for out-of-town travel either

to pay for childcare when an investigator is attending a conference or to pay for children to travel to conferences with their investigator-parent. Currently, investigators

can charge travel expenses towards research grants. Allowing these additional

charges would just increase the travel portion of the researcher’s budget.

(43)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Æ