Gender equality in science – that would be an innovation

Looking at the World Economic Forum’s latest annual league table of gender equality published this week, it’s hard not to spot the correlation between gender equality and growth. As the table shows, smaller gender gaps are directly correlated with increased economic competitiveness.

While some European countries can feel proud of their positions in the league, (Spain and the UK moved down the ranking in comparison to last year) there remain many instances in Europe of institutional sexism, which are a drag on women’s participation and elevation in the work force, and thus represent a waste of an important resource.

This is reflected across all sectors in the boardrooms of Europe’s companies, but in one field in particular – that of science – there are more pervasive and entrenched shortcomings. These range from a failure to make science attractive to girls in school, to the sprinkling of women choosing to study physical sciences at university and their under-representation on research funding bodies, to retaining women scientists in a profession with notoriously demanding hours and the requirement for travelling and relocating for preferment.

The waste of resource is well-recognised, has been documented by many European Union and national surveys, and the attempts to address it are numerous.

Next week the EU is having another go at taking on institutional sexism in science – that is tackling the career structures and culture that prevent women from competing on merit for jobs, funding and publication of research – as part of the preparations and build-up to Horizon 2020, the €80 billion R&D programme due to get underway in 2014.

In advance of the European Gender Summit in Brussels on 8 – 9 November, the European Science Foundation (ESF) has published the results of a consultation in which it asked those involved in framing policy for their views on the correlation between gender and innovation. The resulting document is claimed by the ESF to, “Redefine gender issues in science and innovation.”

Unfortunately the report is such a conflation of political correctness and contorted, bureaucratised English that it verges on impenetrable; it is almost as impossible for anyone not steeped in gender jargon to understand as it is for a non-expert to decipher particle physics.

If saying, “There is an overwhelming support for the inclusion of the gender dimension as a way of improving research quality, innovative potential and institutional R&D&I capacity that is needed to address the challenges facing Europe,” means, “It would be good for Europe’s competitiveness if women scientists were on equal terms with male counterparts,” few at the conference next week, or in the wider world, would disagree.

It’s a similar struggle to understand some of the statements on which respondents to the survey were asked to comment: “Gender should be an integral part of the scientific knowledge creation process,” being a case in point.

It is obvious that Europe needs to do more to capitalise on its expensively-trained women scientists, to keep them in the workforce and encourage them to get involved in the translation of their research into products - to become entrepreneurs. Innovation policy as much as equal opportunities legislation needs to support this.

There’s an underlying prejudice dating back to the gentleman polymaths of the Enlightenment which holds that women – distracted by other duties – aren’t dedicated enough to generate science of the highest quality. The (empirical) evidence says otherwise.

But the language used to justify equality measures must be clear and unambiguous. If not, it becomes another opportunity to lampoon the Eurocrats – and won’t be taken seriously. 

As the Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn says, setting the scene for next week’s Gender Summit, “Specific measures are needed to support women’s scientific careers.”

Now that seems clear enough in anyone’s language.  

genSET gender report