Etan-main text

situations in different European countries. In this connection we look
forward to the results of the study to examine grant application behaviour
in the UK.
Output and productivity are regarded as susceptible to objective
measurement.  However, it is important to bear in mind other factors such
as power relations at work, the impact of networks on creating
opportunities and assumptions related to gender in sponsored mobility.
Women in the humanities and social sciences in France are reported as
being more likely to work in groups than men, and therefore being less able
to establish a visible, independent reputation (Collin, 1992).  The impact of
the domestic division of labour is difficult to calculate but evidence shows
clearly that it is not evenly shared by men and women.  Men will have more
time to invest in their careers.  In the Netherlands, more women researchers
in science and technology research are reported as remaining single (Stolte-
Heiskanen, 1991).  For scientists of either sex with children, opportunities to
find funding to undertake post-docs abroad or indeed to be mobile more
generally may be compromised, and/or be assumed by assessors to be
compromised.  The notion of a gender contract, with a breadwinner
husband and a homemaker wife underpins the design of many fellowships.
It can lead to stereotypical assumptions about men and women, to men’s
advantage and women’s detriment, in the networking and discussions, in the
allocation of opportunities and recommending that goes on as background
noise to the objective peer review system.
The ethics of doing research on one sex only
In many instances, research on one sex only is entirely justified, for example
in medical science where a condition such as pregnancy only applies to one
sex or in the social sciences where the overt focus of enquiry might
specifically and legitimately be on the experiences, behaviour or views of a
single sex. However, to undertake research on one sex and apply the results
to both is poor science. There are examples of this in medical science (see
UK study of grant application behaviour
‘The Wellcome Trust and the UK Research Councils are working together in a
consortium to examine grant application behaviour amongst academic staff. Following
reports showing that fewer women academics apply for research grants than expected,
we asked the National Centre for Social Research to conduct a national survey into
grant application behaviour.  The Centre is conducting a postal questionnaire of 8,000
researchers at all levels from 50 universities.  Both researchers and universities will be
randomly selected.  The questionnaire will focus on the following four areas:
•
How often do men and women apply for grants?
•
Do university career structures affect grant-applying behaviour?
•
Do women and men share the same workload?
•
Do attitudes towards making applications differ between the sexes?
We expect the results of this survey to be extremely valuable in helping to review our
own policies and practice.  It is likely that they will also be of use to universities in
examining their own practices.
The study has received the endorsement of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and
Principals, the Association of University Teachers and the National Association of
Teachers in Further and Higher Education.  The consortium will report on the results of
the survey in April 2000.’
Lawrence Low, Wellcome Trust.
Fairness and funding/modernising peer review
On the ethics of medical
research performed on
men only I
Male volunteers and patients
are routinely the objects of
study in medical research,
which has led to sub-optimal
treatment of women, for
example those with cardiac
disease, and also to sub-optimal
drug dosage regimes for women
and the elderly, as most
pharmacological studies have
male volunteers. The Medical
Ethics Committee in Göteborg,
Sweden, took a decision in 1997
to return research applications
in which researchers intended
to study only persons of a
single sex (usually males),
despite the disease in question
being of concern to both sexes.
The researchers were asked to
specify the rationale for the
one-sex-only design. In 1999,
the Swedish Medical Research
Council adopted a policy that
one-sex-only designs should in
principle not be granted
research money.
The decision of the Göteborg
Ethics Committee arose after a
lay person (a woman) contacted
one of the committee members
and severely criticised an
advertisement in the local
newspaper asking for male
volunteers for a medical study
on alcoholism. ’I don’t want my
tax money to finance research
restricted to only men’, she
said.
43

---

Science policies in the European Union
On the ethics of medical
research performed on
men only III
A study of 22,000 physicians
began in 1981 that
demonstrated a beneficial effect
of an aspirin every other day on
coronary heart disease. Not a
single woman was included in
this study.
Science 248,1601. 1990.
boxes). There have also been cases in social science, particularly in
economics, where labour market analysis is based only on male participation
rates. The decision of the Swedish Medical Research Council not to fund
research on single sex projects without an adequate justification is a course
of action other funding bodies might like to consider.
Conclusion
There are a number of issues raised in this chapter, which warrant further
attention. The peer review system is credited with objectivity and fairness
but the Swedish study showed that this it is not always adhered to strictly.
The study results were devastating for the research community and led to
widespread reforms. However, the rigorous Wennerås and Wold study was
only possible because of the right in Sweden to free access to public
information and because the system was based upon numerical scores.
Research councils in other Member States, especially the Netherlands and
Denmark, have conducted their own reviews into the peer review process.
It is essential that the whole of the academic community have confidence
on the peer review system. Transparency and regular scrutiny and review are
essential. Funding bodies are urged to address this issue.
Secondly, statistical monitoring is important. Research councils and other
funding bodies should monitor the gender of applicants and awardees on an
annual or bi-annual basis. If, as appears to be the case, applications from
women are small relative to their numbers in the discipline, steps should be
taken to understand why this is so and to remedy it. Positive action
measures may be appropriate.
Thirdly, the gender composition of research funding bodies, and indeed
editorial boards for journals, is a matter of concern when the proportion of
women members can in cases be ridiculously low. The process whereby
individuals are appointed to such panels is not always transparent or
democratic: rather names emerge from existing members. Panel members
tend to reproduce panels in their own likeness. Targets could be set to
ensure, as in the Italian public bodies, that a gender balance is achieved. The
impact of male networks and the exclusion of women from senior positions
in the research councils (discussed in chapter 5) are a cause for serious
concern. Widening the social base of the elite determining excellence is an
important issue (and is further discussed in chapter 5).
Fourthly, there is a concern about male networks and trusting a ‘safe’ that is,
personally known pair of hands. Applications from well-networked
applicants can result in rewarding past performance.
In conclusion, the peer review system is rightly revered as an honest, fair
attempt to reward and invest in excellence. However, the system has its flaws.
Research funding bodies need to engage with them and address them
urgently.
On the ethics of medical
research performed on
men only II
 ‘American women have been
put at risk by medical research
practices that fail to include
women’
Patricia Schroeder, 1990
44

---