"This is not a fairness issue or a politeness issue, this is a business issue" Deborah Dunsire, CEO Forum Pharma Last week I attended a conference on Women in Biotech at the Radcliffe Institute. Since I am leaning towards entering the biotechnology industry when I graduate (and the lines between academia and industry are becoming increasingly shaky in any case), this was a valuable look ino the gender environment of this field.
The biotech field is an interesting one in terms of gender representation. By all accounts, it should be pretty equal. Women have gotten more than 50% of biology undergraduate and graduate degrees for several years now. And indeed, stats about entry positions at biotech companies show that a roughly equal number of candidates are entering the field. As you get higher up in the company hierarchy however, women comprise only 10-20% of top positions. One of the panelists, Alison Wood Brooks from HBS, presented two hypotheses that could help explain this. One is the perception of women (men, especially conventionally attractive ones, are more likely to receive funding from investors, even in a controlled environment where their pitches and ideas are exactly the same), and the other is women's perceptions (women were more likely to focus on the negative sides of a potential big promotion, such as less time for other pursuits). I think this is a very interesting way to look at this problem, which is prevalent in several fields. The conference went a step further, though, and actually featured an entire panel on potential solutions to the gender gap. Victoria Budson made a compelling argument to avoid solutions that merely offer advice for helping women "navigate the system", or "Fixing the Women". As she said, "women negotiate badly... not because they lack confidence, but because [showing less confidence] is an effective way of presenting yourself in a culture with intense social repercussions." As long as there are consequences and obstacles for women who seek advancement, there will be a gender gap. Instead, the women on the panel argued, we should focus on Fixing the System. Robin Ely presented on her efforts at HBS (which were publicized in the New York Times recently) and characterized efforts like these as "deep, ongoing, transformational work". These kinds of structural solutions are not easy, but seem to be very effective. One suggestion that several panelists brought up is to motivate this kind of work by outcomes for the businesses. Several studies have shown that businesses with at least 2-3 women on their board of directors do better in every sense, including getting a better bottom line. Complex problems, like those being addressed by the biotech industry, are better solved by diverse groups - both in terms of gender, race, and country of origin. Motivating the work of gender equity in this way may be the most effective way to get the larger industry on board. As Deborah Dunsire said above, this goes beyond fairness and equality - our businesses and our society will do better if we have more diverse people at the top. I am very happy to have had the opportunity to attend this panel. It included a wide range of extraordinary panelists, from women like Deborah Dunsire who have made it in the biotech and VC industries, to socal scientists who study the gender gap in this and other industries. Changing the culture surrounding gender is, as always, messy and difficult work, but I left optimistic that such a passionate intelligent group of people is putting their minds to the problem. For more data on the gender gap in several contexts: Gender Action Portal
0 Comments
"For me, the connection to cancer patients has been a driving force in my career. They compelled me to work harder and faster and to be their advocate for new and better therapies." -Dr. Brian Druker Yesterday was my first class in a seminar I am taking this semester (despite having finished my class requirements), "Molecular Medicine". The class is co-hosted at Harvard and MIT through the Health Sciences & Technology program. It seems like it will be a great experience, including lectures from big stars in several areas across the biomedical research field.
"Now it is established in the sciences that no knowledge is acquired save through the study of its causes and beginnings, if it has had causes and beginnings; nor completed except by knowledge of its accidents and accompanying essentials" -Avicenna, influential 10th century Persian scientist I am envisioning this blog as a place to keep track of my thoughts and experiences as I enter the final phase of my PhD. I am just entering my 4th year in the Computational and Systems Biology program at MIT, and I am attempting to re-focus my energies on my thesis project. which has a new direction - Combining Omics Technologies in the Study of Huntington's Disease. Huntington's Disease is one of those rare disorders where we know the cause and beginning - a mutation in the Htt gene that causes neurodegeneration. What we don't know are, as Avicenna says, the "accidents and accompanying essentials" which will make our knowledge complete. My goal is to dive into the abundance of data coming out of high-throughput technologies, and look for a complete picture.
Here I will write about my papers as they are published, conferences or symposiums I attend, papers or books that I am reading in the field, and general advice for graduate school. My goal is that this will be a record of my time here for me to look back on (especially come thesis defense time!), but if other people stumble onto this, I also hope they find it helpful! |
AuthorAmanda Kedaigle's work in the Broad Institute focuses on leveraging brand new biological data modalities to study novel models of human brain development. Archives
February 2022
Categories |