Etan-main text

Science policies in the European Union
The possibility of using money from the ESF Social Fund to support
women in science is well illustrated by a model project initiated by Marion
Bimmler at the Buch Research Campus in Berlin.  This project, for which
65% of the money comes from the European Social Fund and 35% from
German sources, has provided funds for the retraining of 97 scientists (58
women) between 1997 and 1999.  Some 80% of these scientists have already
obtained new contracts paid for by other sources at the end of the
retraining period.  The scheme has been so successful that similar programs
for retraining scientists have been started in other ex-DDR states, in which
currently some 280 scientists are participating.  The EU Commission is also
thinking of extending this scheme to other less developed regions after the
year 2000 (see Nature 395, 104. 1998).
New regulations for the years 2000-2006 will ensure that the Social Fund is
used to promote four core themes: employability, entrepreneurship,
adaptability and equality of opportunity between men and women. To do
so, the Social Fund will have a total budget of around 70 billion euros. The
new draft European Social Fund regulation defines the general policy fields
in which the Fund can intervene. These include five areas to do with
employment, social inclusion, education and training systems. In particular
the Social Fund can be used to increase the participation of women in the
labour market, including their career development and access to new job
opportunities and entrepreneurship. Applications to the Social Fund are
made by Member States rather than by individuals. Co-financing has to be
found from national sources. Nevertheless, the Social Fund provides a useful
opportunity to initiate projects of benefit to women in general, and to
women in science in particular. Starting in 2000, equal opportunities will
also be introduced into all aspects of decision making, project selection,
monitoring and evaluations of projects supported by the Social Fund.
Contact details for the European Social Fund, and for its representatives in
each of the Member States can be found at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/esf/en/index-htm.
Conclusion
Gender is a key organising principle in scientific institutions to the
detriment of science.  The issue needs urgent attention.  ‘Waiting’ for
equality will not work: indeed the position of women is worsening in some
areas.  Calculating how many men would need to be dismissed and replaced
by women to achieve a gender balance is intriguing (see Chapter 8) but not
lawful or practical.  The rigorous application of the principle of equal
treatment would make a difference but would not be sufficient.  Good male
scientists should have nothing to fear from transparent, fair and effective
recruitment and promotion practices.  More positive action projects such as
those identified above to kick-start the gender equality agenda are essential
but not sufficient.  A conscious effort needs to be made by employing
institutions to address the underlying structures and systems, which
disadvantage women.  These include acknowledging how ‘merit’ and
productivity’ are social constructs predicated upon male patterns of
working, and making institutions less reliant on male networks to secure
succession plans.  The balancing of work and life needs to be tackled by
universities and research institutes (see Chapter 7).
30

---

Policy points
•
More scientific methods of assessing merit, quality and
productivity.
•
Transparent and fair selection and recruitment practices; all posts
to be advertised; job and person specification for all posts.
•
End of use of patronage to fill posts and jobs tailored to fit
particular candidates.
•
Gender disaggregated statistics on applications, recruitment and
promotion.
•
Positive action measures to kick start organisations with very low
numbers of women applicants and awardees.
•
Addressing the situation of careers for the woman returners.
•
Support for networking among and with women scientists.
•
Use women’s networks to circulate information about
appointments and funding procedures.
•
Women already in science to be treated equitably, given equal
resources and included in decision-making roles at every level in
the institution.
Quality and fairness in scientific professions
31

---

---

4
Fairness and funding/
modernising peer review
Peer review is the system of evaluation by which the majority of grants and
other resources necessary for conducting research are distributed within the
research community.  It is also used to review the scientific merits of
academic papers and books.  Peer review is a key element of academic life
and an important mechanism in the safeguarding of excellence.
Anonymous refereeing is a highly respected part of the culture of science
world-wide.  The peer review system should ensure that the best projects
and best scientists are funded and the best research is published.  However,
recent research has shown that there are flaws in the way the system
operates.  Systems need to be checked for gender biases in design or
implementation.  Sometimes – as shown by the Wennerås Wold study
discussed below – they can go wrong.
The evaluation process relies on the notion that research colleagues (peers)
are the best equipped to judge other scientists.  However, it also relies on the
rather naive assumption that evaluators can rid themselves of prejudice
prevailing in the society at large and perform perfectly objective
judgements.  This chapter reviews the operation of the peer review in the
allocation of post-doctoral fellowships and the funding of research grants,
showing how, although it is ostensibly gender-neutral, the system can be
flawed, to the detriment of women and good science.
Post-doctoral fellowships
Post-doctoral fellows form a homogeneous group of scientists at a similar
stage in their careers.  How does the peer review system operate in the
allocation of these sought after positions that open up career tracks?  What
is the gender distribution of post-doctoral awards by different national and
international organisations?
‘Nepotism and sexism in peer review’
The shortcomings of the system were revealed recently in a study in
Sweden conducted by two women scientists who took advantage of
Swedish law that allows access to public papers.  Christine Wennerås and
Agnes Wold conducted a study of the Swedish Medical Research Council’s
(MRC) evaluation process in order to elucidate why it was twice as likely to
33

---