Materials Today Volume 00, Number 00 September 2016 COMMENT Comment working in the science and engineering of ceramics and glass has Recognition of achievement not been conducted and here we suggest it as a discipline for consideration as a model for study. Ceramics and glass, a sub-unit – priorities and process of materials science and engineering, encompasses (oxides, 1,2,* nitrides, borides, carbides, inorganic carbon) both traditional Lynnette D. Madsen 1 and new materials. A study of 100 women of achievement in this Svedberg Science, Inc., United States 2 discipline has just been published [2] and this group offers a useful National Science Foundation, United States model for recognition of achievement for organizations in general. [email protected] Election to the National Academies ‘‘is considered one of the 1,2 highest professional honors . new members are elected by cur- Rita R. Colwell rent members based on outstanding achievement and commit- 1 University of Maryland, College Park, United States ment to service’’ [3]. Inherent to the process is nomination by an 2 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States academy member, to be recognized for achievement and subse- quent election by the membership. Election to foreign associate is also important, since foreign associates comprise approximately A closer look at the national 10% of membership in the Academies and foreign women can be academies (and have been) elected as associates. Unlike a nomination for the Nobel Prize [4], nomination for membership in the US National Academies is made by US academy members. Honorary membership organizations strive to recognize excel- Thirteen outstanding women having significant accomplish- lence in performance and achievement. Election of new members ments in ceramics and glass science and engineering have been is driven primarily by a process involving current membership. elected to membership in The Academies (Table 1). In a 2005 Selecting individuals to nominate is difficult, complex, and relies article, Alberts and Fulton state, ‘‘we describe recent efforts to heavily on personal knowledge and/or the reputation of accom- make [NAS] more welcoming, especially to women and to younger plished individuals. Identifying and inducting new members from scientists’’. Nomination of younger candidates is encouraged, but outside established circles remains a challenge and a major hurdle. it is not clear how election of a more diverse set of members will be Diversity, in a wider sense (beyond topical area, geographic distri- achieved. For the women listed in Table 1, their age of election bution, or age), can be a helpful guide in the initial nomination 1 ranged from 43 to 60, with an average age of 51. In the 2005 process. Successful and highly cited women scientists and engi- Alberts and Fulton article describing the NAS process, it is stated neers comprise one category of new members or foreign affiliates that, ‘‘For the past 2 years, newly elected members have been 56 being considered; this approach can serve as a model or prototype years old, on average.’’ However, in a 2012 article [5], it is noted for recognizing achievements of underrepresented groups in gen- eral. that the class ‘‘average age has dropped by 3.5 years from last year, to 58’’, indicating uncertainty about the age statistic. In any case, Election of women to the US National Academy of Sciences the age at the time of election of the 13 women NAE and NAS (NAS), National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and National members (Table 1), was lower than average. However, statistics Academy of Medicine offers a useful model. Currently, 15.4% of across the entire NAS/NAE membership, by gender, would be more NAS active members and 11.9% of foreign associates are women informative. If the age of women at the time of their election is, on and 6.9% of both NAE active members and foreign associates are women. The process of selection and election to the National Academies has been reviewed and results for specific fields pub- 1 Excluding Bonnell whose age at election time is not known and noting lished [1]. Analysis of the recognition of high achieving women Dresselhaus twice for both elections. 1369-7021/Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2016.08.001 1 Please cite this article in press as: L.D. Madsen, Mater. Today (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2016.08.001 MATTOD-795; No of Pages 3 COMMENT Materials Today Volume 00, Number 00 September 2016 TABLE 1 Female NAS and NAE members in ceramic and glass science and engineering. Name Academy [23] Year of election Age at election time Della M. Roy NAE 1987 60 Mildred S. Dresselhaus NAE, NAS 1974, 1985 43, 54 Maxine L. Savitz NAE 1992 55 Elsa M. Garmire NAE 1989 49 Alexandra Navrotsky NAS 1993 49 Uma Chowdhry NAE 1996 48 Bonnie J. Dunbar NAE 2002 53 COMMENT Laura H. Greene NAS 2006 53 Julia M. Phillips NAE 2004 49 Katharine G. Frase NAE 2006 48 Emily A. Carter NAS 2008 47 Dawn A. Bonnell NAE 2013 Unknown Karin M. Rabe NAS 2013 52 TABLE 2 Highly cited academic women in ceramic and glass science and engineering who are not members or foreign associates of NAS or NAE. a a Name Citizenship h-index Citations Expertise Ulrike Diebold American and Austrian 54 14,000 Interdisciplinary research in surface science. Clare P. Grey British 55 11,000 Examination of solid state materials using nuclear magnetic resonance. Jueinai R. Kwo American and Taiwanese 56 10,000 Materials physics of thin films by advanced molecular beam epitaxy. Hua Kun Liu Australian 76 22,000 Electrochemistry and the development of clean energy materials. Linda F. Nazar Canadian 68 16,000 Solid state chemistry and the development of energy storage materials. Nava Setter Swiss and Israeli 65 16,000 Functional ceramics focusing on piezoelectric and related materials. Nicola A. Spaldin British 60 21,000 Development and application of first-principles theoretical techniques to study the fundamental physics of novel materials. Marı´a Vallet-Regı´ Spanish 64 20,000 Bioceramics with clinical applications. a Web of Science (Core Collection) or ResearcherID. average lower, it may be a result of women working in disciplines citation numbers, of which the women [1], indeed, rank highly. In where they are underrepresented, and therefore believed it neces- a survey about women and Nobel Prizes in Physics [11], five sary to accomplish significantly more and earlier in their careers. women were cited as those who were very strong candidates. Perhaps such overachieving accounts for lower age at election for Other women of great promise were also highlighted. Nazar is a women. However, individuals in the past have been elected to NAS Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and Grey a Fellow of the at a young age: Edward C. Pickering [6] at 26, Theodore W. Royal Society of the UK (particularly notable since a 2014 report Richards [7] at 31, Simon Newcomb [7] at 34, and Carl Barus showed that the UK Royal Society has selected fewer female [7], Deborah S. Jin, and Susan Solomon [8] at age 36. members than the NAS) [12]. In year 2012, the number of nominees to be elected annually to Why should having more women in the National Academies NAS was increased from 72 to 84. Opening the door to more matter? Aside from the obvious prestige and recognition, inclusion members offered the potential to increase diversity. Unfortunate- in science and engineering societies and academies influences ly, the data do not support such a trend [9]. According to NAS by- career paths and opportunities and provides talent and wise laws, geographic distribution is considered when committees are counsel for the country. Delay or omission to election not only appointed. Gender should also be considered, since diversity impedes individual careers, but also scientific and technological breeds excellence [10]. Obviously the number of citations of an progress and expertise serving the nation. Future nominations, individual’s publications alone does not, and should not, secure with underrepresentation, that is with too few women in The nomination (or election). However, it can indicate contenders for Academies, perpetuates gender imbalance. Because women tend to nomination. Listed in Table 2 are women [3] whose publications have wider networks [13] and as members eligible to nominate have been frequently cited. A random selection and comparison of deserving women, will be able to tap those networks. recently elected (2013–2015) NAS and NAE members accom- Published research shows that diversity has positive impact. plished in materials-chemistry-physics research indicate similar Diversity in team composition yields greater success in solving 2 Please cite this article in press as: L.D. Madsen, Mater. Today (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2016.08.001 MATTOD-795; No of Pages 3 Materials Today Volume 00, Number 00 September 2016 COMMENT complex problems [14]. Publications of results achieved from Disclaimer diverse research teams have received 34% more citations than Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations those produced by homogenous teams, with gender-diverse expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not groups recognized as producing results of higher quality [15]. reflect the views of NSF. Conversely, an analysis of 2.5 million research papers showed homophily (connecting and co-authoring with surnames of the Acknowledgement same ethnic group) resulted in publication in lower impact jour- The work contributed by Lynnette D. Madsen was, in part, performed in an nals with those publications receiving fewer citations [16]. Independent Research/Development (IR/D) Program while serving at the Science by its very nature should be meritocratic, with similar National Science Foundation (NSF).