Cell Stem Cell Forum

Seven Actionable Strategies for Advancing Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine

Kristin A. Smith,1 Paola Arlotta,2 Fiona M. Watt,3 The Initiative on Women in Science and Engineering Working Group, and Susan L. Solomon1,* 1The New York Stem Cell Foundation, New York, NY 10023, USA 2Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 3Centre for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, King’s College London, London, SE1 9RT, UK *Correspondence: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2015.02.012

Achieving gender equality in science will require devising and implementing strategies to overcome the political, administrative, financial, and cultural challenges that exist in the current environment. In this forum, we propose an initial shortlist of recommendations to promote gender equality in science and stimulate future efforts to level the field.

‘‘You have all made it as women in sci- exactly what the issues and concerns The IWISE Working Group acknowledges ence. How did you crack the code?’’ are. They have laid the groundwork to that there are significant administrative Susan L. Solomon, CEO and co-founder begin making progress, and there are and legal challenges to implement this of The New York Stem Cell Foundation many others that are ready to join the type of flexible spending. For example, (NYSCF), asked the group of women effort. organizations must consider the compli- scientists invited to the inaugural meeting NYSCF’s IWISE Working Group assem- cations for investigators and institutions of NYSCF’s Initiative on Women in bled a selected shortlist of recommenda- vis-a` -vis applicable income tax laws. Science and Engineering (IWISE). NYSCF tions to promote and ensure gender Flexible family care spending may also convened the meeting in February 2014, equality in science, medicine, and engi- result in a diversion of a small amount of which brought together women, re- neering, which are outlined below. While grant funds. presentative of multiple career stages, many of the ideas, policies, and initiatives Still, the IWISE Working Group believes disciplines, and institutions, to identify proposed are not fundamentally new, and that the benefits outweigh the costs, and ways to ensure that women not just enter there are other important programs and the group calls for biomedical research fun- science, but remain, compete, and truly ideas to consider, the group chose to ders to make flexible childcare spending excel in scientific careers. highlight a selection from its larger, initial permissible within the constraints of their Their responses confirmed what re- list of the most high-impact, actionable grantees’ award budgets. Interested grant search has indicated to be true. Women strategies. They also sought to promote makers should be encouraged to turn to are paid less (DesRoches et al., 2010) long-term but promising initiatives that groups such as the David and Lucile Pack- and promoted less (Moss-Racusin et al., will require significant collaboration ard Foundation (http://www.packard.org/ 2012). In many fields, they regularly among multiple stakeholders with the what-we-fund/conservation-and-science/ make up a smaller percentage of invited aim of connecting potential partners. science/packard-fellowships-for-science- speakers at scientific meetings and con- The group hopes that the strategies and-engineering/) and the NIH (http:// ferences (Schroeder et al., 2013). Women proposed will reinvigorate conversations, grants.nih.gov/training/faq_childcare.htm) also win fewer grants (Ley and Hamilton, spur action, and spark new ideas to level for best practices and lessons learned. 2008) and have higher rates of attrition at the field for women in science. NYSCF is in the process of implementing every career stage than their male coun- this as a gender-neutral policy. terparts (National Academy of Sciences, Direct Financial Support Strategies 2. Provide ‘‘Extra Hands’’ Award National Academy of Engineering, and 1. Implement Flexible Family Care The IWISE Working Group suggests that Institute of Medicine of the National Acad- Spending grant-making organizations and institu- emies, 2007). Under this gender-neutral policy, grant- tions prioritize creating gender-neutral The responses from the meeting’s making organizations would permit award programs for primary caregivers attendees, however, also indicated that grantees to use a certain percentage of that provide ‘‘extra hands’’ funding op- there is a way forward, and that women grant award funds to pay for childcare, portunities open to all newly independent are making progress. The women in eldercare, or family-related expenses in young investigators. The ‘‘extra hands’’ attendance had succeeded, and with the order to encourage travel to give invited allow investigators’ research to progress right tools and resources in place, others lectures or attend scientific meetings seamlessly and without major interrup- could, too. and conferences. The flexible spending tion, increasing productivity in the early Countless institutions and individuals would also permit grantees greater and critical years of their independence. have committed time, energy, and re- freedom to attend workshops and The award could be used to hire sources to identify, study, and quantify courses, critical for career advancement. technicians, administrative assistants, or

Cell Stem Cell 16, March 5, 2015 ª2015 Elsevier Inc. 221 Cell Stem Cell Forum

postdoctoral fellows or in other creative analysis is needed, the IWISE Working diversity, in all of its forms, ways at investigators’ discretion in Group believes that this may carry over throughout its programs. Studies order to make research more efficient to female candidates winning grant have demonstrated that often when they become primary caregivers. awards in peer-reviewed processes. subtle, unconscious, and implicit Dean Laurie Glimcher, now at Weill When a woman declines to sit on a com- biases exist in academic science, Cornell Medical College, pioneered a mittee, she should be asked to recom- which have the potential to nega- version of this award, the Primary mend three additional female candidates tively impact outcomes in review Caregiver Technical Assistance Supple- whom she feels would make exceptional processes. To that end, please be ments, at the National Institute of Allergy reviewers. Funders and conveners should aware of potential implicit biases and Infectious Disease during her presi- keep lists of the suggestions for alternate when reviewing, scoring and dis- dency at The American Association for candidates for their future reference and cussing candidates and applica- Immunologists (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ to share with other groups. The IWISE tions throughout the review pro- researchfunding/traincareer/pages/pctas. Working Group encourages organizations cess so that we can work together aspx). Later, Massachusetts General Hos- to share widely with one another names to combat their potential negative pital (MGH) implemented the Claflin Distin- and lists of potential female reviewers impact. guished Scholar Awards (http://www2. and speakers to make it easier for organi- massgeneral.org/facultydevelopment/cfd/ zations to identify them. For example, 5. Focus on Education as a Tool claflin.html) with promising results (Jagsi the Women in Cell Biology Committee of Institutions, grant makers, and scientists et al., 2007). Subsequently, other institu- the American Society for Cell Biology must commit to education as a tool to tions such as the University of Pittsburgh keeps such a list (http://ascb.org/ combat the issues facing women in sci- School of Medicine, the University of wicb-committee/). The IWISE Working ence. Academic institutions should make Massachusetts School of Medicine Group suggests that at a minimum, fe- gender awareness training a standard (http://www.umassmed.edu/ofa/Equity- males should comprise 20% of all review component of their postdoctoral orienta- Diversity/Faculty-Scholar-Award), and committees. The group acknowledges tions and train principal investigators to Stanford University (http://med.stanford. that women are often overcommitted in proactively take measures in their own edu/diversity/about/mccormick.html)im- this capacity. However, until there are labs to mitigate gender disparities. To do plemented similar types of award and more women in these fields from whom their part, grant makers should provide programs (Munson et al., 2014). In a to choose, some of the burden must un- seminars and convene roundtable dis- unique example, the Christiane Nu¨ sslein- fortunately be placed on the women who cussions on gender issues in science Volhard Foundation, based in Germany have already succeeded. This does not for their grantees when possible. For (http://www.cnv-stiftung.de/en/goals.html), discount the fact that male reviewers example, NYSCF plans to provide these devised a program to provide ‘‘extra should also be encouraged to be as bias resources at its annual scientific retreat, hands’’ awards to young investigators for conscious as possible, while we work which all externally funded scientists are financial assistance specifically intended toward equal candidate pools of male required to attend. Organizations should to alleviate household obligations and do- and female reviewers. share educational content and resources mestic responsibilities. For example, the 4. Incorporate Implicit Bias as widely as possible. funds could be used to hire help in the Statements household, purchase home appliances, Studies have demonstrated that subtle Major Collaborative and or pay for childcare. and often unconscious gender biases International Initiatives While more quantitative analysis is exist throughout society, and specifically, 6. Create an Institutional Report needed to assess the impact of such pro- in academic science (Moss-Racusin et al., Card for Gender Equality grams, the examples are illuminating and 2012). To help mitigate the negative In what would require significant collabo- encouraging. impact of such biases, unconscious atti- ration and partnership, the IWISE Working tudes, and prejudices, the IWISE Working Group recommends that a task force be Psychological and Cultural Group suggests that grant makers incor- convened to develop a set of quantifiable Strategies porate ‘‘implicit bias statements’’ into criteria, which, when taken and analyzed 3. Recruit Gender-Balanced their external program review processes. together, will form an Institutional Report External Review Committees and These statements describe the concept Card for Gender Equality to evaluate insti- Speaker Selection Committees of implicit bias to reviewers and reiterate tutions on these practices. Based on the Funders and conveners of symposia the organizations’ commitment to gender institutions’ scores in each of the estab- should adopt gender-conscious peer re- equality, to equality of opportunity for men lished criteria, they will be assigned a view committee and speaker selection and women candidates, and to diversity, gender equality grade. Institutions will be committee recruitment policies. A recent in all its forms, throughout their programs. reevaluated on an annual basis. study found that the presence of at least NYSCF uses the following implicit bias With the support of the Doris Duke one woman on speaker selection commit- statement: Charitable Foundation, NYSCF reconv- tees for scientific symposia correlates ened an expanded IWISE Working Group, with a significantly higher proportion of As an institution, The New York which included men, in February 2015 to invited female participants (Casadevall Stem Cell Foundation seeks to pro- develop an institutional report card for and Handelsman, 2013). Though further mote gender equality and increase gender equality. The group decided that

222 Cell Stem Cell 16, March 5, 2015 ª2015 Elsevier Inc. Cell Stem Cell Forum

Table 1. Proposed Phase 1 Institutional Report Card for Gender Equality as more data become available on the effectiveness and impact of the award The proposed Report Card would ask the NYSCF applicant’s department chair to answer the following questions: and the evaluations are tied more closely to funding (Munir et al., 2013). Beginning d What proportion of your department’s undergraduates is female? in 2016, the UK’s National Institute for d What proportion of your department’s postgraduate students is female? Health Research, a major funder of clinical d What proportion of your department’s faculty (assistant, associate, full professor) is female? research, does not plan to shortlist any d In the last five years, what proportion of your department’s tenured faculty members that were applications from Biomedical Research recruited from outside your institution was female? Centers or Units for funding unless the d In the last five years, what proportion of your department’s first time tenure track faculty academic partner institution has achieved members that were recruited from outside your institution was female? at least the Silver Award (http://www.nihr. d What is your institutional policy regarding paid family leave and pausing the tenure clock? Is ac.uk/infrastructure/Pages/infrastructure_ there additional support available on top of the recruitment account to fund this? biomedical_research_units.asp). This d What is your institutional policy regarding female representation on internal committees? standard provides a strong incentive for What is the current percentage of female representation on appointments, promotions, finance, institutions to work toward achieving Sil- award, and strategy committees? ver status, and it is helping to raise the d In the past 12 months, what proportion of the speakers on your department’s external seminar profile of women in science in the UK. program was female? It is ironic and concerning, though perhaps not surprising, that there are anecdotal reports that much of the burden it should be rolled out in two phases. The scale and in a larger, collaborative effort for preparing Athena SWAN submissions Phase 1 report card should be used spe- between biomedical research funders, falls on female faculty. As Phase 1 of the cifically by grant-making organizations, government organizations, and institu- NYSCF report card is rolled out, institu- like NYSCF, to assess institutions in grant tions. The IWISE Working Group began tions must avoid the same pitfall. application processes. The group inten- outlining the content of the Phase 2 7. Partner to Expand upon Existing tionally created a simple, short report Report Card at the February 2015 meeting Searchable Databases of Women in card so that department chairs could and plans to release the results once Science, Medicine, and Engineering easily complete it on behalf of investiga- finalized. The IWISE Working Group suggests that tors applying to grant awards as part of In both phases of the report card, it will funders, academic institutions, and scien- the application process. Table 1 shows be necessary to obtain relevant bench- tific journals collaborate with the European the proposed Phase 1 report card. marking data in order to assess institu- Molecular Biology Organization (http:// To increase the impact of the report tions’ gender equality practices, which www.embo.org/science-policy/women- card, the IWISE Working Group recom- will be challenging due to the international in-science/wils-database-of-women-in- mends that grant-making organizations scope of the report card. It is also impor- life-sciences), the American Society for join together with NYSCF to use the card. tant to acknowledge differences in clinical Cell Biology Science Navigator (http:// Initially, the group envisions a data-gath- versus non-clinical career paths in the ascb.org/science-navigator/), and other ering exercise. However, as grant-making Report Cards and evaluation metrics will relevant organizations to develop or organizations accumulate completed need to be adjusted accordingly. expand upon existing, searchable data- cards, they would require institutions to The Athena SWAN award in the United bases of women in science, medicine, maintain a certain grade or to actively be Kingdom (UK) serves as an ambitious and engineering. The database will provide making progress toward achieving that model (http://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality- assistance to research institutions, political grade in order for the institutions’ re- charter-marks/athena-swan/) to develop institutions, scientists, universities, search searchers to be eligible to apply for funding. a report card. These awards recognize committees, conference organizers, and The IWISE Working Group believes that in- and celebrate good practices in recruit- editors to identify women scientists for stitutions will be incentivized to take gender ing, retaining, and promoting women in positions and activities such as profes- equality seriously once significant funding scientific fields. Institutions that sign up sorships, chairmanships, speaking oppor- is attached to their report card grades. to the Athena Swan Charter can apply tunities at conferences and meetings, In addition to potentially withholding for Bronze, Silver, and Gold Awards. selection for advisory groups and commit- funding opportunities for poorly perform- They must achieve a number of well- tees, participation in manuscript and ing institutions, the report card will serve defined goals and metrics to demonstrate grant reviews, and serving on the scientific as a way to recognize institutions deter- that they are promoting best practices for advisory boards of companies, among mined to exhibit excellence in gender creating women-friendly working environ- others, all of which are critical components equality. Highly graded institutions will ments. For example, institutions that for career advancement. be awarded ‘‘stars’’ and encouraged to schedule meetings during core working Though there are significant political, educate other institutions and share best hours to ensure parents can drop off and administrative, financial, and cultural practices. pick up their children from school are challenges that must be overcome in In Phase 2, an expanded report card demonstrating best practices. order to implement these strategies, targeted at institutions versus depart- The Athena SWAN awards have we must find a way forward and ments would be implemented on a wider become increasingly influential in the UK continue working together to change the

Cell Stem Cell 16, March 5, 2015 ª2015 Elsevier Inc. 223 Cell Stem Cell Forum

landscape for women in science, engi- New York; Carolina Pola, Senior Reviews Editor, Primary Caregiver Technical Assistance neering, and medicine. It is the IWISE Nature Medicine, New York; Claire Pomeroy, Supplements, http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ Working Group’s hope that eventually President, The Lasker Foundation, New York; researchfunding/traincareer/pages/pctas.aspx Vanessa Ruta, Assistant Professor, The Rockefel- we will stop talking about women in sci- Stanford University, http://med.stanford.edu/ ler University, New York; Beth Schachter, Consul- diversity/about/mccormick.html ence and start talking about equality in tant, Beth Schachter Consulting, New York; Rache University of Massachusetts School of science, so that in time, excellence, not Simmons, Chief of Breast Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, http://www.umassmed.edu/ofa/ gender or any other measure of diversity, Medical College, New York; Kristin A. Smith, Equity-Diversity/Faculty-Scholar-Award Associate Director, External Programs, The New is the only standard that must be Women in Cell Biology Committee of the Amer- York Stem Cell Foundation, New York; Susan L. considered. ican Society for Cell Biology, http://ascb.org/ Solomon, CEO and co-founder, The New York wicb-committee/ Stem Cell Foundation, New York; Gordana Vun- CONSORTIA jak-Novakovic, Professor, Columbia University, New York; and Fiona M. Watt, Professor, King’s REFERENCES The members of the Initiative on Women in Science College London, London, United Kingdom. and Engineering Working Group are Paola Arlotta, Associate Professor, Harvard University, Massa- Casadevall, A., and Handelsman, J. (2013). MBio 5, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS e00846–13. chusetts; Cori Bargmann, Professor, The Rockefel- ler University, New York; David Berg, Clinical The 2015 IWISE Working Group Meeting was sup- DesRoches, C.M., Zinner, D.E., Rao, S.R., Iezzoni, Professor, Yale University, Connecticut; LaTese ported by a grant from the Doris Duke Charitable L.I., and Campbell, E.G. (2010). Acad. Med. 85, Briggs, Director, Philanthropy Advisory Services, Foundation. The initiative is also supported by 631–639. FasterCures, New York; Moses V. Chao, Professor, The New York Stem Cell Foundation. Jagsi, R., Butterton, J.R., Starr, R., and Tarbell, Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine, N.J. (2007). Arch. Intern. Med. 167, 343–345. New York University School of Medicine, WEB RESOURCES New York; Giuseppe Maria de Peppo, Principal Ley, T.J., and Hamilton, B.H. (2008). Science 322, Investigator, The New York Stem Cell Foundation The URLs presented herein are as follows: 1472–1474. Research Institute, New York; Catherine Dulac, Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., The American Society for Cell Biology Science Professor, Harvard University, Massachusetts; Graham, M.J., and Handelsman, J. (2012). Proc. Kevin Eggan, Harvard University, Massachusetts; Navigator, http://ascb.org/science-navigator/ Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 16474–16479. Sindy Escobar-Alvarez, Program Officer, Doris Athena SWAN Awards, http://www.ecu.ac.uk/ Duke Charitable Foundation, New York; Valentina equality-charter-marks/athena-swan/ Munir, F., Mason, C., McDermott, H., Morris, J., Bagilhole, B., and Nevill, M. (2013). Advancing Fossati, NYSCF-Helmsley Investigator, The New The Christiane Nu¨ sslein-Volhard Foundation, Women’s Careers in Science, Technology, York Stem Cell Foundation Research Institute, http://www.cnv-stiftung.de/en/goals.html Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine: Evalu- New York; Elaine Fuchs, Professor, The Rockefeller David and Lucile Packard Founda- ating the Effectiveness and Impact of the University, New York; Laurie H. Glimcher, Dean, tion, http://www.packard.org/what-we-fund/ Athena SWAN Charter. (London: Equality Chal- lenge Unit). Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; Valentina conservation-and-science/science/packard- Greco, Assistant Professor, Yale University, fellowships-for-science-and-engineering/ Munson, M., Weisz, O., and Masur, S. (2014). The Connecticut; Barbara J. Grosz, Professor, Harvard European Molecular Biology Organization, American Society for Cell Biology Newsletter 37, University, Massachusetts; Ya-Chieh Hsu, Assis- http://www.embo.org/science-policy/women- 9–11. tant Professor, Harvard University, Massachusetts; in-science/wils-database-of-women-in-life- Mary Hynes, Research Associate Professor, The National Academy of Sciences, National Acad- sciences emy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine Rockefeller University, New York; Robert Klitzman, Massachusetts General Hospital, http:// of the National Academies (2007). Beyond Bias Professor, Columbia University, New York; Sandra www2.massgeneral.org/facultydevelopment/ and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women Masur, Professor, Icahn School of Medicine at in Academic Science and Engineering. (Washing- Mount Sinai, New York; Christine Mummery, cfd/claflin.html ton, D.C.: The National Academies Press), Editor-in-Chief, Stem Cell Reports, Professor, National Institutes of Health, http://grants.nih. pp. 50–112. Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands; Betsy gov/training/faq_childcare.htm Schroeder, J., Dugdale, H.L., Radersma, R., National Institutes of Health Research, Myers, Program Director, Doris Duke Charitable Hinsch, M., Buehler, D.M., Saul, J., Porter, L., Foundation, New York; Melissa J. Nirenberg, http://www.nihr.ac.uk/infrastructure/Pages/ Liker, A., De Cauwer, I., Johnson, P.J., et al. Associate Professor, New York University, infrastructure_biomedical_research_units.asp (2013). J. Evol. Biol. 26, 2063–2069.

224 Cell Stem Cell 16, March 5, 2015 ª2015 Elsevier Inc.