C&EN, Washington

When I was asked to give the address at the recent Women Chemists Committee luncheon, I knew immediately what I wanted to talk about. The title was straightforward: "The Challenges for Women Chemists in the New Millennium." But as I delved into the data and did further research on women chemists' issues, I came up with alternative titles.

For example, I thought about calling it "The Y2K Problem," as in the year-2000 problem. We've all heard about the year-2000 computer problem--and we've all heard the dire warnings of what will happen if the year-2000 computer problem isn't fixed: In the worst-case scenario, computers will think that a whole bunch of people have died--and will stop sending Social Security checks. The Federal Aviation Administration warns that airplanes could crash, and some computer experts tell us elevators will stall.

Right away, I could see the analogies to the problems facing women chemists.

So I thought, why not call my speech "The WCY2K Problem"--as in "Women Chemists Year-2000 Problem." But when I finished my research, I decided that the title should be "The XYCY2K Problem"--as in the "XY Chromosome Year-2000 Problem." I'll return to the reasons why I think this title may be appropriate.

It wasn't difficult for me to talk about this topic. I've been covering these issues for nearly 30 years, first as a young reporter for Chemical & Engineering News, and most recently as the middle-aged editor-in-chief.

Since I never throw anything away, I was able to find my earliest article about women's issues that referenced the Women Chemists Committee luncheon. It was published in the Oct. 26, 1970, issue of C&EN. The headline for that article was: "Women Chemists: Concerned Over Rights." Its subtitle read, "As professional chemists, women fight lower salaries, lack of job opportunities, and fewer advancements."

Here's the paragraph from that article that mentions the luncheon: "Indication of the growing concern among women chemists over equal rights was evident at the ACS meeting last month in Chicago. At the traditionally tepid women chemists' luncheon, for example, questions of equal pay for equal work, advancement opportunities, child-care centers, part-time positions, and even whether the society's Garvan Medal discriminates against women (because women are not considered for other ACS awards except the Conant awards) were hotly debated."

No one would call the Women Chemists Committee tepid today.

But this article of 28 years ago certainly raises points that are relevant today: How much has changed for women chemists in the past three decades? How much has the salary gap been narrowed? How much progress has been made in breaking through the glass ceiling at universities and in corporate boardrooms? Can women chemists, especially those with children, really balance a personal life with a professional life? Are things really better? And what are the prospects for the new millennium? Is it business as usual? What can each of us do to make a difference?

I was able to unearth a great deal of information that addresses these questions. This Perspective presents some of these data, discusses the reasons that are usually given to explain the data, and describes a plan of action for women chemists in the new millennium. Most of the data are related to women in academia and in industry, but much of this information is likely to resonate with all women chemists no matter where they work.

When I was a chemistry major in college in the mid-1960s, I never had a woman chemistry professor, or for that matter a woman assistant or associate professor, an instructor, or even a woman graduate student assisting in the labs. But I knew this situation would change, because a lot of my classmates were women who were planning to major in chemistry and become chemistry professors.

And indeed the situation has changed. At the bachelor's level, the percentage of B.S. chemistry degrees granted to women has grown from 14.7% in 1967 to 42.6% in 1996. The percentage of Ph.D. chemistry degrees granted to women has grown from 7.6% in 1967 to 30.7% in 1996.

These data are important because they set the baseline for the subsequent discussion. They are also important because the data help examine the often-heard excuse that the lack of women in high-level academic and industrial positions is a "pipeline" issue.

A few words about the pipeline. The model for women entering science and engineering fields has been the pipeline model, which predicts that if more women enter the education and training end of the pipeline, the result will be more women emptying into the career field and progressing up the career ladder. Presumably, women enter the pipeline, and if they have talent and skills, work hard, and persevere, they will have opportunities to advance like any male employee. But as many researchers in this field have pointed out, the pipeline metaphor does not take into account the possibility that women exit the pipeline into a "pond" that is anything but neutral. At times, it seems that women exit the pipeline into an entirely different tributary than men, a tributary filled with rough currents and unpredictable eddies.

But if we assume for the moment that the pipeline model is valid, we recognize instantly that time must pass in order for us to see results. In the academic world, it takes five to six years after receiving a B.S. degree to get a Ph.D., then you have to add a few years as a postdoc, then another five to six years to get tenure. If we use 1967 as our starting point, it would be the early 1980s before we would start to see women showing up on faculties as full professors in any kind of significant numbers.

In the industrial world, a Ph.D. is not always required for success. Nonetheless, a typical career path from entry to senior executive could take 20 to 25 years from the receipt of the bachelor's degree. If we use 1967 as a starting point, we would begin to see the impact of women in the industrial world around the beginning of this decade.

Returning to the data on women entering the pipeline, we can ask, What has become of these graduates? In the academic area, we can examine data for the percentage of academic positions held by women over a 20-year time span.

These data come from an exhaustive study of faculty trends in the ACS-approved departments conducted by Kenneth G. Everett, Will S. DeLoach, and Stephanie E. Bressan from Stetson University in DeLand, Fla., and published in theJournal of Chemical Education in February 1996. They examined data at 10-year intervals--1973, 1983, and 1993.

Here's what the authors of the study say in their introduction: "The increase in numbers of young women earning Ph.D.s in chemistry in recent years, a development concurrent with a wave of academic retirements and the operation of affirmative action hiring policies, has been anticipated to expand the presence of women on the chemistry faculties of U.S. colleges and universities."

What do the data show? The percentage of academic positions with the rank of instructor held by women has increased from 30.4% in 1973 to 49.1% in 1993. At the assistant professor level, it has increased from 7.0% to 27.2%. At the associate professor level, it has increased from 5.0% to 12.9%. And lastly, at the full professor level, it has increased from 2.5% to 4.3%.

Looking at these data, it would not be surprising to hear someone say, "Well, that's all good news, the percentages are moving upward." Even the relatively modest change at the full professor level, from 2.5% to 4.3%, is a 72% increase.

But the growth in the percentage of women receiving Ph.D.s over this same time period--from 9.7% in 1973 to 28.8% in 1993--has been nearly 200%.

Sometimes people ask about the proportion of men holding these various ranks. The authors of the study also examined that question. They found that in 1973, 2.6% of all men holding academic positions were instructors, compared with 19.7% for women. This figure dropped to 1.4% in 1993 for men and also declined for women, to 10.2%.

Women have made rapid gains at the assistant professor level during this time frame, but looking at the full professor category, 43.8% of all men holding academic positions were full professors in 1973, compared with 61.8% in 1993, an increase of 41% over a 20-year span. For women, these numbers are 19.9% in 1973 and 20.7% in 1993, an increase of only 4%.

How have women fared at the highest levels in academia? In the top 25 research universities that produce the most Ph.D.s, there are no women department chairmen. If we look at the top 42 colleges and universities that produce the most chemistry graduates--both certified and non-ACS certified--only one of them, Trinity University, has a woman department chairman.

What is the situation in industry?

In this realm, data are much harder to come by. The 1998 National Science Foundation Science & Engineering Indicators report does have some data. For example, in a survey of the science and engineering workforce in 1995, the latest year for which data are available, women accounted for 26% of all chemists. Of all scientists and engineers who were employed in industry in 1995, about 18% were women. However, we still don't have data on how many of these women in industry are chemists, and we don't know what their job titles are.

This is the most frustrating part of the data, because the information doesn't exist. And it's an area that cries out for a comprehensive study.

However, if you look through the annual reports of chemical companies, you can get a sense of where women are--and are not--employed in industry.

There is always something very disturbing about these annual reports. For a long time, I couldn't put my finger on what bothered me, because the reports are beautifully written and illustrated documents. The vitality and commitment of the chemical industry and its myriad contributions to our well-being come through on each page.

But I finally did figure out what bothered me. I came across a photograph of a senior management team in an annual report from a leading chemical producer. The photo showed the chemical industry's version of a football team--11 men. I was curious about the lack of women in this one picture. Was it typical?

Sadly, it is. For starters, not one of the Top 100 U.S. chemical producers listed in C&EN's annual review is headed by a woman, nor do any of these companies have a woman chief operating officer.

A review of annual reports for 1997 from chemical companies reveals that very few chemical companies have substantial representation of women in their top management or, for that matter, on their boards of directors. The top 19 U.S. chemical producers listed 458 people in upper management, but only 20 were women, just a bit over 4%. Most of these women had titles related to human resources, communications, or finance; very few were line managers of operations, which is an absolutely essential prerequisite for moving up to the top rungs of the corporate ladder.

Women fared slightly better on boards of directors. In 19 companies listing a total of about 250 directors, 25--10%--were women. All of these women were from outside the company, and most of them were not chemists. Most companies had only one woman, but a number of leading chemical producers had two women on their boards last year--among them Dow Chemical, Amoco, Rohm and Haas, Chevron, Phillips Petroleum, and W.R. Grace.

These observations are supported by a recent study from Catalyst, a New York City-based nonprofit group that works with business to effect change for women. Catalyst has tracked the number of women on boards of directors of the Fortune 500 companies since 1993. Their report for 1997 shows that the number of women on boards continues to inch upward, with women holding about 650 of the total 6,100 board seats. Since Catalyst began its survey in 1993, the number has increased from 8.3% of board seats to the current 10.6%, indicating a trend by corporate America to begin capitalizing on the talents of women.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the soap and cosmetics industry leads the Fortune 500 with the highest percentage of women directors, at 19.6%. The pharmaceuticals industry also has a high percentage of women directors--14.8%. The chemical industry comes in at 9%, below the average for all Fortune 500 companies.

In the Catalyst survey, among 20 chemical companies in the Fortune 500, five had no women on their boards of directors.

What happens to these women in academia and industry from a salary viewpoint. Here, ACS has tracked data on salaries for decades. The data reveal the increasing disparity of salaries between men and women as they progress up the ladder of experience. Although men and women start out with virtually the same salaries--and, of course it would be illegal for it to be any other way--by the time they are 10 years beyond their B.S. degree, women are making only 87% of their male counterparts' salaries; after 20 years of experience, they are earning 85%, and after 30 years, they earn 76.5%. Of course, this is an improvement--but not much--since 1970, when I first wrote about women's salaries. Then, women made only 81% of men's salaries at the starting level (compared with parity today), and 70% after 30 years (compared with 76.5% today).

Something is definitely wrong with this picture.

The explanations that are given in each case for the lack of women at the top and the salary gap are problematic, but let me briefly outline what they are--they are remarkably similar whether women work in academia or industry.

Let's look at salaries. One explanation for lower wage figures is that women chemists tend to go into those fields that are traditionally lower paying, such as high school teaching and teaching at four-year colleges. But this raises the question, "If true, why do they do that?"

Another explanation for the salary gap is found in the phrase "Equal pay for equal work." The same degree and experience level do not necessarily mean that the jobs are equivalent. Again, "If true, why is it true?"

Women are also less likely to have full-time jobs than are men, again raising the question of why.

Apart from salary gaps, what is happening to employment of women in academia? There, according to one astute observer, women seem to be "voting with their feet"--or maybe they are voting with their brains--to avoid some of the problems they saw in graduate school. I'm speaking of the long hours, shrinking resources, and lack of time with families that faculty experience. Increasingly, these women are opting out of positions at Ph.D.-granting institutions and accepting positions at four-year colleges and in industry. Some male chemists are also going this route.

But more than anything else, the lack of mentoring and collegiality by male faculty members is seen as the key factor in failing to retain women in academia and move them up the ladder into tenured positions.

C&EN's recent article on the status of affirmative action was a reminder of the subtle and not-so-subtle aspects of discrimination that take place (C&EN, July 20, page 17). The article prompted many women to write to me and to the author, Mairin Brennan, with their stories of a climate that is less than hospitable to success.

In industry, the excuse that is given for the lack of women in top positions is that they aren't in the managerial pipeline. But this is not true, according to Catalyst, which tracks women who have made it to senior management in the nation's largest companies. However, there are real barriers to women obtaining positions of real power--to making the "team" and the picture in the annual report.

The most critical deterrent to women who aspire to top management in industry--according to chief executive officers and women alike--is women's lack of significant general management or line experience. Catalyst concluded, "Until more women become plant managers, heads of sales and marketing, vice presidents for operations, division presidents, and other senior line managers, and until more female executives have charge of businesses with substantial profit and loss responsibilities, the pipeline to corporate leadership will continue to lack a critical mass of women."

Catalyst emphasizes there are nontrivial obstacles to creating a critical mass, including male attitudes about women and the exclusion of women from informal networks that build trust and visibility that could lead to line management positions. Men need to see women as members of the team who can contribute to reaching the company's goals. Women also need tosee themselves as members of the team.

Several years ago, Gerhard Sonnert, a sociologist, and Gerald Holton, a physicist--both at Harvard University--conducted studies on the factors that affect gender equity in science. They focused on the "web of hidden processes that significantly thwart the careers of many women." These are processes of marginalization that may have important ramifications for a scientific career, and in many cases these processes were gender related in ways that suggest the fundamental differences between men and women.

Let me give a specific example of what Sonnert and Holton mean. This is a true story reported in a recent article that appeared in the January/February issue of The Sciences magazine by Hunter College sociologist Virginia Valian, author of the book "Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women." The incident takes place at a science department at a prestigious university, around 1990, and it illustrates how expectations that arise out of gender differences can drag down a woman's career.

Valian describes this scene: A newly hired young woman talks to the chairman of her department, a man, about the courses she will teach. She wants to teach a large introductory lecture course. The chairman refuses, saying the students will not accept a woman instructor in that role. The woman insists that she can do it, but the chairman doesn't want to take a chance and assigns her to a lab course instead. The woman is understandably not happy with the decision, because lab courses eat up time. As a young faculty member, she needs to spend as much time as possible developing her research and writing for publication, so she can earn promotion and tenure. Meanwhile, a male peer, also a new Ph.D., is assigned to the lecture course, and he will have more time for research than she will. As circumstances have it, he's been given an advantage because of the chairman's unsubstantiated belief that the students won't accept a woman instructor.

The chairman thinks he was being objective about the students' preferences and is shielding an important course from risk. Nothing about the meeting causes him to think his decision might have been unfairly guided by gender differences.

There are, of course, many men who are wonderful mentors to women. But even those who are wonderful mentors acknowledge that they subconsciously make decisions based on gender. One eminent male chemistry professor recently admitted to me that when interviewing candidates for faculty openings, "many male chemistry professors still tend to identify with candidates who remind them of themselves when they were coming up through the ranks."

Sonnert says: "The subtle nature of gender disparity implies that a quick fix is unlikely."

But fix it, we must.

And this brings me back to the "XY Chromosome Year-2000 Problem." Many of my best friends are men, and I know that men are not all mean-spirited, uncaring people. True, men are from Mars, and women are from Venus, and it would be foolish for us not to recognize that there are differences between men and women that are hardwired into our DNA.

Over the millennia, these differences in DNA have conferred certain evolutionary advantages for both men and women, and I firmly believe there is nothing much we can do about these hardwired differences. I know that this is a controversial statement, and not everyone will agree with it. But if it is true, I know we can't depend on a hardware fix, at least not in time for the new millennium. There just isn't enough time for a new motherboard to evolve.

But as is the case with the year-2000 problem, software fixes are not only possible, they are urgently needed. We've discovered with the year-2000 problem that mistakes were made years ago--programmers took what has turned out to be a disastrous shortcut when writing computer code. For example, when they wrote code for the year 1946, they left out two digits, 1 and 9. By analogy, to correct the "Women Chemists Year-2000 Problem," we have to correct past mistakes. We have to include all of the attributes and abilities of women from the start.

We all need to understand how our gender perceptions develop, how they work, how they are maintained, and how they affect career aspirations and goals. If we understand these differences in our perceptions, men and women can work together more effectively to achieve common goals.

It would be wonderful if these software fixes were as easy to achieve as installing a TurboTax disk on your home computer. But there is no CD-ROM for gender equity. We need to use multiple creative approaches in our software fixes. And we can't expect them to be perfect. As one computer expert recently said, in referring to the well-publicized fixes for the Eudora e-mail problem: "Like any other consumer product, it is not unusual for software to have flaws. People have a pipe dream of perfect software, and it will never happen."

Because women chemists have been battling these issues for so many years, there are existing networks and resources we can seek help from. These include the ACS Women Chemists Committee; the Association for Women in Science; the Advocates for Women in Science, Engineering & Mathematics; NSF; and Catalyst. In fact, the National Research Council published a 90-page booklet in 1993 listing organizations that encourage women in science and engineering.

We need to call on these resources to take specific actions. Numerous studies documenting the problems have been conducted, and numerous books and articles have been written about what can and should be done. I culled through about two dozen of these books and articles for some of the best ideas--to which I've added a few of my own. Let me share them with you. While it is not exactly a David Letterman Top 10 list, it is a starting point:

1. At the top of my list is mentoring. Each of us must promise to be a true mentor to one young woman. She could be a child who is interested in science, or she could be a graduate student. She might be a young employee in your firm. And if there is one thing you do for this young woman, it's this: Tell her how outstanding she is.

Lack of self-confidence and lack of self-esteem are nearly universal problems that haunt women at some stage in their development: Girls and young women in particular suffer from a lack of self-confidence that holds them back. But all of us knowwomen well into their 40s who are very successful at what they do who still think they aren't good enough, smart enough, thin enough, or pretty enough to succeed.

These feelings start very early on. I'm sure we all remember the talking Barbie doll who whined, "Math class is tough." In response to outraged women, Mattel took Math Barbie off the market. But maybe Mattel could be convinced to create a Barbie doll who says, "I know the valence of all the elements."

Everyone knows a brilliant woman who doesn't know her own worth. It might be you, or your daughter, or your wife, or a colleague, or one of your graduate students. When I travel to universities, I see this all the time--bright young women Ph.D. candidates who are insecure and put themselves down when I praise their achievements. This is what I tell them: By virtue of the fact that you are at one of the top universities in the country getting your Ph.D. degree in chemistry, you are the best. Don't ever forget it.

Do men have a gene for self-confidence on their Y-chromosome? Perhaps they do! Maybe cloning will help us in the long run, but in the short term, let's get on with the software fixes.

As an aside, it is not only women who need mentors. Although it is true that every study shows that women cite a lack of access to both mentors and influential colleagues as a major drawback to advancement, in these same studies, men also cite a lack of mentoring and career development training as a primary factor in holding them back. So what's good for women is good for men as well.

2. My second action item is addressed specifically to women. Visualize yourself with power, and then use it. It's time for women to stop deferring to men. Women need to stop thinking that their opinions aren't as important or well formed as those of their male colleagues. And here's the reason why: If women want to be equals with men, they have to understand that men do not like negotiating with wimps. Come to think of it, women don't like wimps either! Men respect power--they respect powerful men, and they respect powerful women. If women want to earn respect and make progress, we need to negotiate from a position of strength.

I have a name for this action item--I call it "bravado without arrogance."

3. Be open to change. In a recent book titled "Membership in the Club: The Coming of Age of Executive Women," Dawn-Marie Driscoll and Carol R. Greenberg describe the five R's--those qualities that are expected of successful people in business--but this could also apply to academia. These five R's that define a culture of success are:

   Respect (both earned and given)--the basic premise in all successful relationships.

  Responsibility--the willingness to be responsible for your own actions, to avoid blaming problems on others.

  Resourcefulness--to get the job done.

  Revenue development--proposal writing or bringing in new business.

  Risk taking--essential to innovation.

Women are a part of this culture of success only to the extent that they explicitly embrace and deal with the five R's.

4. Construct a personal agenda with a series of five-year plans focusing on your objectives, goals, and career aspirations. Revise these plans regularly so they are up to date. Ask yourself: Where do I want to be in five years, and what must I do to get there? Don't wait for others to define this agenda for you--it won't happen.

5. Pledge to work for change at the highest levels in your organization. Studies have shown that change comes when the person at the top is committed to it. The most successful companies in terms of hiring and promoting women--which are summarized in an excellent book by Catalyst--are characterized by CEOs who were committed to making a change. These CEOs recognize that women are essential intellectual assets who will contribute to revenue generation and increasing shareholder value.

Band together with other women in your organization, gather data that document the facts, and take your well-reasoned concerns to the top of the organization--to your department chairmen, your provosts, your university presidents, your company presidents. Show that you're serious about action, and that you're willing to be part of the solution. And here's a specific idea: Tell your president that you want him to invite a visiting committee of distinguished men and women to come in and examine the situation objectively and provide recommendations for change. ACS could help in getting volunteers for these committees.

I call this the special weapons and tactics approach, also known as a SWAT team. I guarantee you that a university president or a corporate CEO will notice when a dozen powerful women visit his office and suggest a visiting committee.

If the SWAT approach works, it won't be long before we have a chemistry department or a chemical company where the people at the top more accurately reflect the workforce.

6. Information is power. Acquire it and share it. Plan seminars that help women--and men--get the information they need on how to move through their professional careers, how to handle problems that might arise, and how to mentor others.

7. Find powerful and successful women in other disciplines and seek their advice. Business schools are a good source of such women--but also look around your community. Look for women leaders in your state legislature and in small businesses. Invite these successful women to give talks at your organization.

8. Get a life! That is, a life in addition to your work life. Balancing a personal and professional career is difficult . . . but it can be done by carefully setting priorities and not getting distracted by other things. This means you must learn to say no, something that is especially hard for women to do. When we see a woman who seems to be able to do it all, believe me, she's not Superwoman, she's just super organized. She has learned to say no to those things that distract her from the important goals she's set.

9. Last, and this is my personal motto for living, "Carpe diem!" I'm a firm believer in seizing the day. Don't let a day slip by without doing something to solve this problem. As Dale Carnegie used to advise people taking his public speaking course, "Today is the first day of the rest of your life." Make the most of it.

Why does my Top 10 list contain only nine items? I want you to finish this list. I want you to send me your ideas, and I'll publish the 10 best ideas in C&EN.

I've discussed the challenges for women in the new millennium. Meeting these challenges will not be easy, but we can succeed if we each do our part.

There is a wonderful story, a fable that comes to me courtesy of Harvard University chemistry professor and Nobel Laureate Dudley Herschbach, who has long been an advocate for and mentor of women.

The tale appears in the autobiography of Emilio Segrè, a distinguished physicist, who said he got it from a Quaker lady in Philadelphia. For the version given here, Nobel Laureate Gertrude Elion has provided a perceptive conclusion.

Two young frogs were frolicking in a rainy garden when they spied a curious, gleaming object. They jumped right in and found themselves in a pail of milk. It was wonderfully novel, far more exciting than a puddle of water. For a while they enjoyed splashing around. But they began to get tired and looked about for some solid perch on which they could rest. Much to their dismay, they discovered that there was no such perch. They became panicky and tried to jump out of the pail, but the walls were too high and too slick. They fell back again and again.

At last one of the frogs gave up; it decided there was clearly no hope, collapsed, and drowned. The other frog, no less terrified but much more stubborn, continued jumping. Over and over that frog leapt up and fell back. Finally, the second frog was exhausted and resigned to sinking into the milk.

But the frog suddenly felt something solid under its feet. A little island of butter was forming. Buoyed by a surge of hope and adrenaline, the frog managed a few more jumps and in doing so churned a chunk of butter big enough to provide a resting place. It later served as a launching pad that allowed the frog to spring out of the pail and hop away, weary but wiser.

Gertrude Elion concluded: "The second frog must have been female!"

I'm not suggesting that women go into their kitchens and start churning butter. But as this fable illustrates, we need a launching pad to move ahead as well as to provide a springboard for future generations. Energy and perseverance do pay off. Let's work together to make it happen.

This Perspective is adapted from a speech delivered by Madeleine Jacobs, C&EN editor-in-chief, to the Women Chemists Committee luncheon at the ACS national meeting in Boston. Rebecca Walther, a former C&EN program assistant, helped immeasurably in obtaining the data presented.

Sidebar: Recommended reading

Chemical & Engineering News
Copyright © 1998 American Chemical Society