I have a kid's book, "What Makes a Rainbow," in which a juvenile rabbit asks various creatures what colors make a rainbow. Curiously, every female animal is addressed without an honorific: Little Chick, Bluebird, Ladybug, and Butterfly, while the male animals are addressed as Mr. Fox and Mr. Grasshopper. Is it petty to suspect that this sends the message that men are to be addressed (and perhaps treated) in a more respectful manner than women? Does it matter that the creators of this book were all women?

No doubt there are those, including women, who would answer "yes" to both questions, but to me they are answered with a clear "no." From birth, girls and boys are given many subtle messages that males are more important than females, that clearly outweigh messages of equality. And those messages of equality sometimes feel forced. Why? Because we do not yet assume equality as second nature.

We have dealt with overt discrimination through legislation probably as best as we can. Only in Orwellian or Vonnegutian worlds have attempts been made to deal with the policing of thought, because in a just and free society this is simply not tenable (even if it were possible). But the question remains, why does sexism by both men and women continue to exist, a generation after we thought we had solved the problem?

This is a question beyond the scope of Linley Erin Hall's new book, "Who's Afraid of Marie Curie? The Challenges Facing Women in Science and Technology" (see link on sidebar*), which attempts only to document that discrimination still does exist, even though many people in power (such as the infamous Larry Summers) deny that it does. This book is necessary, because the current fad of using genetics to explain every possible personality and behavioral trait has ushered in a new dominating ideology that there is nothing more we can do to increase women's success in the workplace, because success now only has to do with the choices that women make freely.

Hopefully this book will shatter these ivory-tower illusions, and help usher in a new era in which we start thinking about real institutional change, rather than just having another "sensitivity training" session and forgetting about the problem. Hall very clearly and correctly points out multiple times that a bad professional climate for women is a bad professional climate for men as well, and that the long hours and grant/publication stress required to establish a productive scientific career in the U.S. are psychologically damaging for most people, regardless of gender. But the book focuses on women because, as bad as the long slog through the meat grinder of graduate school, postdocs, job search and promotion is for men, it is significantly more difficult for women for a number of reasons. (Hall does not point out, however, that other countries have shown that scientists can be productive with reasonable hours. Dutch researchers, for example, have been leaders in entomology, while working 40-hour weeks - which I can attest to based on the hours I spent alone doing research in a lab at a major university in Holland.)

One of the root reasons was touched on above: scientists are often viewed as authority figures, and both women and men still tend to assume that women are not authority figures. Hall's examples, both anecdotal and from published studies, are numerous. For example, when men and women work on a project together in an academic or industrial setting, it is usually assumed by their superiors that the men did the bulk of the work while the women merely assisted. Many superiors assign better projects to men in the first place, and then turn around and deny women promotions because their work does not stand out as much.

One of the biggest problems is how women view themselves. Many never get into science or drop out early because they don't have the self-confidence to proceed. I used to blame these women for their decisions, which can be made despite lack of overt sexism. As my career and life has progressed, however, I have reached a better understanding of how many subtle negative signals about a female's scientific ability over time can eat away at that self-confidence, leading one to take the easy way out, rather than continuing to fight for every achievement. The mainstream media call this "opting out," as if men and women are now on equal footing when they make the decision to quit.

On the other hand, men receive the constant signal that quitting their career makes them a failure, because they are brought up to believe that they are supposed to be the bread winners. So, men are much more likely to stick out unpleasant work environments, because "real men" can handle the stress. Is this really the way for science to be efficient and productive? Does it make sense simply to weed out all those who aren't competitive enough in their class work and research, and make a good proportion of the rest miserable with stress? Yet this is the American system.

The solution to problems caused by ingrained attitudes is elusive, but research Hall describes supports actively addressing hostile work climates. For example, science departments with positive leadership that addresses problems of sexism and harassment as they come up were shown to have much higher graduation rates by women than those departments in which complaints are downplayed or ignored. Women's graduation rates were also correlated with strong student-advisor relationships, which of course benefit men as well. Those departments with few successful women projected the attitude that those who do not like the environment need to "adapt to it (or get out)."

There is also no logic to support the current system of grant and paper reviews that are single-blind only - the reviewers are anonymous, but know who they are reviewing (and thus the reviewee's gender). Arguments that reviewers could still often figure out the author of a paper or proposal based on its content are specious; although that may be true, the process still reduces bias overall. Making reviews double-blind would promote fairness and be an easy policy shift for journals - publishers need simply to provide papers to reviewers without a cover sheet.

Grants are more complex because the granting institution wants to be assured that the awardee has the professional experience to complete the work, but it would certainly be possible to reduce even unconscious bias involved, much of which results in women automatically given less benefit of the doubt as to their abilities. Grants could be evaluated first by the panel for the intellectual content, with biographical sketches of the principal investigators removed. It is clear now that many grants are awarded to people, not projects, and those people review each others' grants in a tit-for-tat system that often excludes women, because there are so few women within the ranks of established researchers. A panel could recommend funding based on the research proposal only, and afterwards evaluate the skills of the researcher. Huge granting institutions such as NSF and NIH could have strict guidelines making it difficult to reject a highly rated grant based on a biographical sketch. Frankly, it is rare that anyone submits a well thought-out project proposal that they are then incapable of implementing, and yet this excuse is used on rejections.

It would be naive to suggest that stricter evaluation procedures would remove bias completely, but they certainly would do a lot to level the playing field for women scientists. Then perhaps women will have a better chance of receiving the grant that might allow them to circumvent the glass ceiling that still persists. Read the book if you still believe it's all about genetics.



* Disclaimer: I was one of the subjects interviewed in this book. However, I receive no benefit, financial or otherwise, tied to the success or failure of the book.

Labels: bias, education, gender

Some researchers (Flegal et al., 2005 and 2007) have claimed, using data for Body Mass Index (BMI) and death rates, that it is somehow beneficial to be "overweight." This is the type of announcement that will always make headlines in the popular press. As usual, these studies are fraught with flaws that would only be accepted in a publication about humans, and are meaningless in the terms that really matter to all of us, which is what decisions individuals should make about their lifestyles in order to have the best chance of living long, healthy lives.

The major reason why studies like these are meaningless is because of the arbitrary nature of definitions: "underweight" = BMI <18.5; "normal" = BMI 18.5-25; "overweight" = BMI 25-30; and "obese" = BMI > 30. There may not be much reason to quibble with the extremes on this scale. As expected, the majority of "excess deaths" were associated with the extremes in weight - both "underweight" and "obesity grade 2" (BMI>35). But of course what makes the headlines is the fact that over the time period studied, "overweight" people had fewer excess deaths of most diseases than "normal" people.

The first question anyone should ask is, what exactly does BMI measure? BMI is nothing more than a ratio of your weight by your height (squared). It takes nothing else into account. As originally conceived, the BMI was not intended for assessing individuals medically. It has become a popular measure in the media because it is somewhat useful for describing population-level trends - such as the well known trend in the U.S. toward more obesity over the last few decades. BMI data in this context can show us that there is something about the lifestyle of Americans which is causing us to gain weight, and in a rational world would lead to measures to provide plenty of decent food and opportunities for reasonable levels of physical activity for everyone in the country.

But for an individual, BMI is not particularly useful, because it does not take into account the individual variation in body type (for example, bone density or muscle density, which contribute far more to weight than fat), not to mention activity level or overall conditioning, or even gender. All the talk of BMI has emphasized calculating one's own BMI, for example at the federal government's CDCsite, which, based on the arbitrary, government-created ranges listed above, spits out an assessment that you are "normal," "overweight," etc. Of course the caveat on most of these sites is given that for "highly trained athletes" BMI may be "high"; it is implied that this condition is sufficiently rare that the great majority of us need not take it into account.

On any football team, even at the lowest level (such as my NAIA college), every player would be considered "overweight," and many are classified as "obese." Perhaps this is a straw man, but I would challenge someone who seriously believes in the BMI as an individual health measure to calculate it for anyone who regularly goes to a gym or just has more than moderate physical activity. Based on my own experience, I suspect that a lot of Americans who ended up in the "overweight" category were fit; hence, the "earth-shattering" results that it is beneficial to be "overweight."

Of course, these papers are indeed using the typical huge sample sizes to make their point, so aren't they using BMI correctly, to study general population trends? If only they said so in the discussion, or at least included the caveat about the arbitrary divisions in BMI classes, one could more easily put these papers into the proper context, which is that there are health risks associated with the extremes of BMI. But of course they don't. The truth is that only you and your doctor can assess your personal health risks and the benefits to changing your lifestyle (if that is even realistically possible for most people). The media saying to everyone, "hey, it's better to be overweight!" are missing the point. If you are interested in maintaining or improving your health, stop using BMI calculators. Just eat well and get enough exercise to feel good.

References

Flegal, K.M., B.I. Graubard, D.F. Williamson, and M.H. Gail, 2005. Excess deaths associated with under weight, over weight, and obesity. Journal of the American Medical Association 293:1861-1867.

Flegal, K.M., B.I. Graubard, D.F. Williamson, and M.H. Gail, 2007. Cause-specific excess deaths associated with under weight, over weight, and obesity. Journal of the American Medical Association 298:2028-2037.

Labels: health, humans, statistics

What do invasive species and chain businesses have in common? They exist in order to economically benefit a few people, at the expense of most people. They kill off local competitors, which has the long-term effect of destroying communities. We invite most of them into our landscapes and communities where they do their damage, and even help them establish, instead of making an effort to keep them out, or at least making them compete on the same terms as the locals. Each time we invite one in we think that this one couldn't possibly make a difference. We then complain and moan to the government to do something when the cumulative effect becomes obvious over time, but much too late to prevent. They homogenize communities, until over time, it's hard to remember where you are, just by looking around you.

Admittedly, these comparisons are apt only for intentionally introduced invasive species, but most of the worst ones are, because we gave them that leg up that helped them establish. Witness the many horticultural escapees, not to mention European starlings, which failed to establish more than once before an introduction finally took.

The ultimate reason that both invasive species and chain businesses exist is money. The few who expect to make a profit moving species around the world, and planting identical businesses around the world, benefit at the expense of the rest of us. We're the ones who have to expend time and money in a fruitless mission to eradicate pests such as purple loosestrife which was recently still available to buy in many states, even as it was belatedly placed on the noxious weed lists of dozens of other states. We're the ones who would prefer to get exercise, save money, and reduce pollution by walking to a nearby downtown to get what we needed, but who more and more every day have to get in the car and drive for miles to get the merest necessity.

The ecological community changes produced by invasive species and the human community changes produced by chain stores are slow in developing, so usually it is too late when we realize it is a problem. For some reason we do not learn from these mistakes, however. We continue to allow, apparently to serve general principles of economic freedom, importation of alien species which could become invasive, and we assign no responsibility to the importer if they do. We continue to compete for chain stores to open into our communities with tax breaks and other incentives because we are naively convinced by big business that the money brought into the community in the form of property taxes and minimum wage jobs from one employer is somehow better than the taxes and jobs provided by local businesses that will often be driven out of business by the chains. Somehow the profit that goes to local business owners, and thus stays in the local economy, versus the profit from chains that flies out of state seems always to be left out of the equation. Lower prices? Well, of course lower prices are necessary when there is less money in the community to spend. These stores don't arrive to serve an existing need; they create their clientele, rather like cheatgrass creates a fire-dependent ecosystem that extinguishes the natives unable to survive in it, but that suits the cheatgrass perfectly.

We need to stop the transformation of our ecological and economic communities. Downtowns are the heart and soul of small communities, and the small town leaders are letting them be gutted because they fear any consideration but short-term economics. This leads to exurb zoning where no one ever goes outside except to get in their cars. It is too late in many towns, but not all. Some are revitalizing city centers. Community leaders need to hear from those who believe that quality of life, including opportunities to walk and talk to other community members, is more important than a surfeit of minimum-wage jobs, just as nurseries need to hear from those of us who believe that it is not right to sell destructive invasives such as Russian olive trees, even if it is legal to do so.

Once the money, or the native species, leave the community, they are never coming back.

Labels: environment, humans, invasive species