C OMMENTARY http://immunol.nature.com • november 2001 • volume 2 no 11 • nature immunology 985 Kavathas, Chair of the AAI Committee on the Status of W omen (1998–2001) and Soong, a member of this committee, discuss the reasons for gender discrimination against women and what can be done to address the issue. Gender inequity: challenging business as usual Paula Kavathas 1 and Lynn Soong 2 1 Yale University, N ew H aven, CT 06520, USA. (paula.kavathas@ yale.edu) 2 The University of Texas M edical Branch, Galveston,TX 7 7 5 5 5 , USA. (lysoong@ utmb.edu) Recently, the American Association of Immunologists (AAI) Committee on the Status of Women completed a survey on women fac- ulty and students in 27 departments, programs or sections of immunol- ogy at major research centers and universities in the USA and Canada. The data showed that 178 out of 830 faculty members were women (21%), but there were large differences between programs, the percent- age of female faculty at individual institutions ranging from a low of 5% to a high of 33% (Table 1). In contrast, 357 out of 742 students were women (47%). The number of PhDs in biology awarded to women has risen substantially over the last 20 years: from 29% 20 years ago to 44% in 1996. In 1998, 47% of the PhDs in biological immunology were women 1 . The percentage of female faculty, at 21%, is thus substantially less than expected based on the percentage of women receiving PhDs during the last 20 years. Although overt barriers to women in science have greatly dimin- ished, gender discrimination persists. Gender inequity in salaries, resources and committee assignments was documented in a 1999 study of senior women at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 2 . The percentage of female faculty had not changed much in 10 years. Other academic institutions examining similar questions have also found inequity 3 . The MIT study and its disturbing findings led to a meeting in January 2001 of the presidents and faculty from prominent academic institutions in the USA. A joint statement issued at the meeting said: “We recognize that barriers still exist to the full participation of women in science and engineering. To address this issue, we have agreed to work within our institutions ...”. Meeting attendees identified three goals for universities: (i) a faculty whose diversity reflects that of the students; (ii) equity for, and full participation by, women faculty; and (iii) creation of an environment where individuals with family respon- sibilities are not disadvantaged. A number of books and articles have been published that try to deter- mine why female faculty are under-represented in academia 4 . One of the major reasons for this problem is an unconscious bias on how sci- entists judge women faculty. In her book, The Door in the Dream 4 , Elga Wasserman interviewed women in the National Academy of Science and asked them what policies they would implement to facilitate sci- ence careers for women. Many remarked that men still have difficulty evaluating the credentials of women candidates without bias and that it is vital to have women on every appointment and selection committee, even if this means appointing outside members to such committees to obtain adequate female representation. One study documented gender bias against women in peer-review of fellowship applications for the Swedish Medical Council 6,7 . In 1994, the Damon Runyon–Walter Winchell Cancer Foundation began to increase the number of women on its review panel for postdoctoral fellowships, motivated by a letter from a female faculty member and the fact that female sponsors of such applications were disproportionately under-represented for the success- ful postdoctoral applicants. After the number of female reviewers was increased, the discrepancy in the success rate between male and female sponsors was greatly reduced. Thus, having women well represented on key committees is critical. However, even if an excellent woman candidate is selected by a search committee for a faculty position, the chair of her department has a major impact on the final success of the recruitment. The degree of enthusiasm that this individual has for the candidate can influence the recruitment package, as it is department chairs who set salaries, allo- cate space and provide resources. The situation is further exacerbated by competing offers for men that bid up their apparent value. The bias persists through all levels of experience, from new faculty to senior women, in recruitment and in retention. This recruitment advantage allows men to obtain disproportionately better space, salaries and resources. In order for the presidents or deans of academic institutions to change this, departments with a low representation of women should be monitored with regard to faculty recruiting, salary and leadership positions. The number of female chairs at medical schools in the USA must also be increased from its current low of 7.5%. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is also addressing gender inequity. For R13 grants, which support scientific meetings, one review criterion is the appropriate involvement of women, racial and/or ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities in the planning and implemen- tation of the proposed meeting 8 . The word “appropriate” implies repre- sentation based on the availability of scientists from these groups who are known to be working in a particular field of research. The NIH makes a concerted (and generally successful) effort to have appropriate representation of females, minorities and individuals with disabilities on their review panels. For T32 student training grants, both the student population and the faculty that will be training students are evaluated. Although females, minorities and individuals with disabilities are expected to be appropriately represented in the graduate student popu- lation, there are no guidelines for the training faculty. Given that the “bottleneck” for women is at the faculty level, appropriate representa- tion of these groups in the training faculty should be criteria for evalu- ating the T32 grant. The lack of visibility of female faculty continues to be a problem at immunology meetings. For instance, at the July 2001 International Immunology Congress held in Sweden, only 10% of US speakers and chairs were women (229 total). This number was not proportional to the women in the field and certainly not to the female faculty at US insti- tutions; it reinforces the “invisibility” of women. Often a criterion used by organizers of meetings in selecting speakers and chairs is name recognition. Thus, the same known individuals are invited repeatedly, further enhancing their name recognition. This cycle hurts both men © 2001 Nature Publishing Group http://immunol.nature.com © 2001 Nature Publishing Group http://immunol.nature.com