Etan-main text

Science policies in the European Union
1997).  In this audit, three types of applications were analysed: Project grants
for 1996, Programme grants for 1994-1996 and senior research fellowships
in basic biomedical science for 1994/95 –1996/97.
These programmes were selected for analysis as they are representative of
the kind of support offered by the Trust to scientists in the UK.  The results
of the project grant audit showed that women and men had comparable
success rates (male success rate 27.5%, female success rate 26.9%).  This is
also apparent from Figure 4.3 in which the data are broken down by age.
The publication patterns of the male and female applicants were also
analysed, and shown to be nearly identical.  However, four times as many
men as women applied for the project grants.  The programme grant audit
looked at applications to the Trust that are similar to project grants but
which involve larger amounts of money and are given usually for five years.
Here, women were more successful than men (62.2% versus 47.8%).  The
bibliometric analysis showed that the successful male applicants for project
grants publish significantly more papers per year than do successful female
applicants but that there was no significant difference between men and
women when the expected impact factors were compared.  However men
were five times more likely to apply for Programme grants than were
women.  The Senior Research Fellowship Programme is for scientists five to
ten years after completing their PhDs.  It provides not only salary support
for the awardee but also provides personnel and supply support.  The audit
of this scheme shows that female applicants were more successful than male
applicants (8.6% versus 5.5%).  However, twice as many men as women
applied for this programme.
180 160 140 120 100 80
60
40
20
0
>65
0
20
40
60
80 100 120 140 160 180
60-44
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
21-24
<21
Age band
Women
Men
Rejected
Awarded
Figure reprinted from Wellcome Trust Unit for Policy Research in Science and Medicine
(1997)
Figure 4.3: Wellcome Trust: Number of rejected and awarded project
grant aplications by age and sex (1996)
40

---

The study concludes that for the Wellcome Trust’s Programmes, there is no
evidence of discrimination against women.  Women are appointed in
approximately the same proportion as they apply and comparison of the
bibliometric data shows that their productivity is approximately equivalent
to that of the men.
One striking finding of the study was that women do not apply for
Wellcome Trust project and programme grants in the numbers that would
be expected from the number of female academics working in biomedical
research in the UK.
Funding for young scientists to establish
independent groups
Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowships: UK
The Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship Programme in the UK is not strictly
women-only but gives out a message that encourages women to apply and
has proved very significant for women scientists. These fellowships offer a
salary for four years, an annual research expenses grant, the possibility of
holding appointments on a part-time basis or of converting from full-time
to part-time and back again to help match work and family commitments.
It also provides the possibility of claiming some funds for ‘family support’
such as the cost of childcare during a conference abroad and offers career
advice as well as mentoring and network opportunities. The scheme is
described as targeting ‘…able young people in the first few years after their
PhDs. The scheme is open to both sexes and offers the kind of flexibility
and support that is advantageous to both, but particularly attractive and
beneficial to women.’ It is run by the Royal Society and 48 awards were
made between 1995 and 1999 (a success rate of 5.5%). Of these, 45 (93%)
were given to women. On average, 82% of applications have been from
women.
Emmy Noether Programme (DFG, Germany)
Applicants must have a PhD and be under 30.  Funds are awarded for a
personal salary for two years spent abroad and then for three years including
research support in Germany.  A fifth of the first 53 awards were given to
women.
BioFuture Programme (BMBF, Germany)
Awards include a salary for the recipient plus resources for personnel and
running costs, this amounts to approximately 1.5million euros per group for
five years.  Thirty-two awards were made in 1998 and 1999 (success rate
4.1%).  Of these 6 (or 18.8%) have been made to women.  Nearly a fifth
(16.1%) of applications were from women.
Max Planck Junior Groups (Germany)
These are for five years and cover the successful applicant’s own salary, as
well as providing support for personnel and supplies.  In 1999, 8/34
positions (23.5%) were held by women.
Fairness and funding/modernising peer review
41

---

Science policies in the European Union
These figures show that there is no shortage of quality applications from
young women scientists.  In particular the large number of women who
apply for the Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowships show that the unusual degree
of flexibility these fellowships offer is highly valued.
Determinants of  ‘academic success’
Peer review focuses on output and productivity as well as excellence.
However, the determinants of productivity are complex.  A large cohort
study of academic paediatricians in the US was conducted to identify which
factors determine academic productivity (Kaplan et al, 1996).  The authors
found that women’s academic careers were significantly less brilliant than
those of their male colleagues with an equal number of years in the field.
Academic success depended on scientific productivity, and women
produced fewer scientific papers per year than men.  However, when a large
number of potential explanatory factors were examined, multiple regression
analysis revealed that two factors determined academic productivity and
hence, success:
•
a high level of financial and practical support from the clinical
department; and
•
little time spent with patient and teaching duties.
The poor success of woman doctors depended on their lower publication
pace, which in turn depended on the fact that they were assigned more
basic patient care and teaching of students than their male colleagues.
In this study, there was no relationship between academic productivity and
family structure – those women with children did not produce less than
their childfree colleagues.  Indeed previous studies have shown that married
women, as a rule, produce more scientific papers per year than single
women - and those with children have equal or higher productivity than
those without children (Cole & Zuckerman, 1987; Luukkonen-Gronow
and Stolte-Heiskanen, 1983; Kyvik, 1988).  Career breaks and childcare are
important issues nevertheless and taken up elsewhere in this report.
More research is clearly needed to establish whether there are fundamental
differences in the ways in which women and men publish and whether such
differences, if they exist, are discipline dependent. One study of biochemists
has suggested for instance that women tend to publish more information
per paper than men (Long, 1992). They publish fewer papers, but those they
do produce are cited more frequently (Sonnert and Holten, 1995a, 1995b,
1996) (see also the Wellcome Trust data discussed above on Senior Research
Fellowships). In addition, there is little data to throw light on the question
do men and women with similar positions have the same sized groups. It is
important to compare men and women of similar ages and experience, and
at universities of similar standing. Enough individuals have to be included in
the sample so that the results are significant. Long, using data from the US
showed not that position depends on productivity but that rather,
productivity depends upon position! These findings run parallel to
bibliometric results on the relationship between the size of research group
or laboratory and productivity (Long, 1978). Finally, information based on
European data rather than extrapolation from data collected in the U.S
would be helpful, particularly if it would allow comparison between the
42

---