Despite decades of fighting for people’s rights, discrimination remains one of the most topical issues on the agenda of the 21st-century world. In addition, discrimination nowadays takes a variety of shapes, making both children and adults representing minorities feel insecure. At present, different types of discrimination exist; there is racial profiling, discrimination of sexual minorities, and, finally, ethnic or national discrimination, the most well-known types of profiling. The problem has trickled into a number of spheres, including business and education; however, the idea of discrimination dictating its rules to the realm of science seemed absurd up until recently. Despite the attempts of bringing the principles of equality to work among researchers, some of the academies view certain types of people as unwelcome in the world of science. Among the most common types of discrimination in the world of science, gender profiling takes the first place (Valian, 2014).
The evolution of women’s role in science has gone an admittedly long way and has led to impressive results; while previously, women were literally not allowed into the “holy of the holies” – the world of natural sciences, in the 20th and the 21st centuries, a major breakthrough occurred – women finally entered the field of research and gained an opportunity to not only partake in science projects but also be the leaders of ones.
Nevertheless, at present, tangible inequality can be observed in the roles of men and women in science. First and most important, female researchers and scientists are paid less than men, though working equally hard and making a nonetheless significant contribution to the evolution of science. The financial aspect of the problem is emphasized the most frequently and, as a result, is often considered the most efficient argument in the debate regarding the existence of inequality between men and women in science (Charyton et al., 2011).
The problem of gender profiling, however, does not stop at the aforementioned point; not only do women get paid less than men for their research, but their contributions to the development of natural sciences are often belittled. The fact that women win fewer grants than men do can also be related to the effects of gender profiling in research, particularly in natural sciences (Luntz, 2011).
It should be noted that similar tendencies can be observed in other fields of science and humanities as well; the extent of gender profiling, however, is considerably less impressive than the one, which can be observed in natural sciences. For example, recent exploration of the issue has shown that women face better chances for promotion and academic evolution when taking part in researches in social science; the same can be said about the women who have chosen humanities. The difference in treatment of women in natural sciences and humanities, however, not only breaks the stereotypical understanding of the role of women in research but also reinforces it; according to the latest opinion polls, male researchers consider natural sciences the domain of men, whereas the field of social research and humanities was referred to in a rather condescending manner as the female domain (Mershon & Walsh, 2012).
The results give enough reasons for concern. Though women have been provided with a range of chances in becoming full-fledged members of research teams, the only areas that women have gained access so far seem to be restricted by humanities and (occasionally) in social sciences. A range of measures have been undertaken in order to address the problem; however, gender profiling still exists in a number of institutions. As the research carried out by Clayton (2011) shows, “despite enormous gains ensuring equal opportunities for women scientists, there remain stark differences between the numbers of men versus women who reach top positions in science” (Clayton, 2011, para. 6).
The fact that years after a continuous process of addressing the issue, the problem is still in its place, is very disturbing. Women still are a minority in the realm of scientific research, and their rights are infringed on a regular basis. Therefore, the appropriate measures must be undertaken in order to solve the problem and provide women in science with the same rights that men can enjoy.
It would be wrong to claim that nothing is being done to handle the problem of gender profiling in academic institutions and centers for research. Quiet, on the contrary, several programs have been launched to deal with the lack of equality between male and female researchers, particularly in the field of natural sciences. For instance, in 2004, a program, which was supposed to enhance women’s participation in natural sciences, was launched; a decade later, the initiative was repeated, with admittedly satisfying results.
Presupposing that the women, who have already gained some weight in the world of science, should mentor younger women, therefore, helping the latter improve their status and acquire new skills efficiently, the given initiative allows for bringing the rates of chauvinism in the field of natural sciences down. Despite the fact that the initiative has only been launched in the field of medicine, particularly the cancer treatment department, the movement is bound to grow increasingly influential until women are finally recognized for having the same rights for being promoted in research as men do (Young, 2007).
When it comes to identifying the force that has the greatest impact on the rebirth of the feminist movement in natural sciences, the votes are traditionally split between the U.S. government and the scientific community. The choice of the most powerful agent in the given case is very complicated, seeing that the U.S. government members clearly have more power to change the situation, yet the members of the scientific community are capable of shaping the state regulations so that the new rules and regulations could have the maximum effect on the field in question. No matter how powerful the state authorities may possibly be, one should still admit that the scientific community is of much greater power here. Because of the inability to execute a direct control over the scientific establishments, state authorities are barely capable of handling a particular case of women’s rights infringement; as a result, the effects of the regulations issued by the state hinge upon the policy chosen by the scientific community.
Though numerous measures are undertaken regularly in order to eradicate any forms of discrimination from the realm of science, gender profiling still exists and manifests itself in despicable attitude towards female researches, insultingly low wages for women engaged in scientific projects and the notorious “glass ceiling,” which many female employees fail to breakthrough in the process of building their career. In the 21st century, ignoring the issue will mean defying the basic principles of democracy. Women deserve to be given the same rights as men enjoy in the field of natural sciences. Until female scientists are treated in the same way as male researchers are, the battle for equality must continue.
Reference List
Charyton, C., Elliott, J. O., Rahman, M. A., Woodard, J. L. & DeDios, S. (2011). Gender and science: Women Nobel laureates. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(3), 203-214. Web.
Clayton, J. (2011). Fix the system, not the women. Science. Web.
Luntz, J. (2011). Gender barriers in science. Australasian Science, 32(6), 22-23. Web.
Mershon, C. & Walsh, D. (2012). Organizing women: Diversifying leadership and addressing discrimination in the political science profession. Web.
Valian, V. (2014). Interests, gender, and science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 225–230. Web.
Young, C. (2007). Women, science, and gender bias. Boston Globe, 1(10), A.15. Web.