In a July 7, 2007 essay written for New Scientist magazine called “Why women lose out in the lab”, Symond wonders if there is a connection here with the rate of scientific papers written by males and females.

A comprehensive study was performed by Yu Xie and Kimberlee Shauman, in American Sociological Review, which showed that men produced 33% more published papers than women over a two year period of time. When extended to the length of a professional career, that number of papers was almost double for men over women.

According to Symond’s article, women have been accused of not being “as good at science as men”. They have also been cited as not being able to put in as much time as men in their publishing pursuits due to extra duties such as child-rearing.

Also, as written by Symond, there have been numerous attempts by scientists to explain this difference in male and female researchers, notably the 2005 comments made by then-Harvard University president Lawrence Summers.

Symond paraphrases what Summers said earlier: “…while the sexes do not differ in their scientific ability on average, men exhibit a wider variation in ability than women. Thus there are relatively more men with exceptional scientific ability than women.”

On the other hand, Symond contends that women are often judged much more critically than their male counterparts, even to the point of discrimination. They are often not given as much support and encouragement as men during their early careers.

A study—by Dario Sambunjak in the Journal of the American Medical Association—that Symond uses as support for this contention states that mentoring (support and encouragement) in a medical scientist’s early career produces overall better results in career satisfaction, steady progression up the scientific career ladder, and overall positive results in the production of research and resulting journal articles.

Symond also cites studies that show women in the scientific community who raise children do not have an adverse research output. In fact, he mentions one study (in Research in Higher Education) that shows a positive correlation between research productivity in women and number of children reared.

Symond also talks about the quality of research and scientific papers versus the quantity of research. He found that men and women who had published equal numbers of papers showed distinct differences in the quality of their papers. On average, these woman scientists were cited in other scientific articles 20% more than men scientists.

Symond wonders if women may work harder on producing better quality articles, while men may work harder on producing a larger quantity of articles. He says, “…measuring scientific ability on the basis of quantity of papers published is an important part of what keeps men on the top.”

Quantity of published papers, according to Symond, is not necessarily an accurate measure of a “good scientist”. It is, however (in the real world), an important indicator of whom more likely will be awarded research grants and additional funding—what Symond calls the “productivity puzzle”.

Author’s note: A subscription is necessary to gain access to this online article at: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19526112.200-essay-why-women-lose-out-in-the-lab.html;jsessionid=GFNPACIKHMBJ.

The paper is also published in paper form in the July 7-13 issue of New Scientist, pages 48 and 49, under the title “Quantity, quality and equality”. The article brings up many interesting questions about male and female scientists. Symond concludes his paper by saying:

“In the long term, solving the productivity puzzle will not come just from analyzing publication trends. Instead, we must examine why women are slower at publishing at the outset of their careers. This means exploring everything from women’s support systems to such complex issues as whether research output reflects the sexes’ different behavioral strategies. At the same time, if we are to increase the number of women in science without socially divisive measures such as affirmative action, we must shift our thinking about what makes a good scientist.”

Author's note: "quantity" and "quality" word use was corrected 7/19/07 per catch from watchful reader.

{moscomment}