Women in Metabolic Science.

PerspectivesWomen in metabolic scienceHannah Pallubinsky, Anne-Marie Carreau, and Natalie Jane MichaelHannah PallubinskyDepartment of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The NetherlandsResearch and Teaching Area Healthy Living Spaces, Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany, Anne-Marie CarreauCentre de Recherche CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec, Quebec, CanadaFaculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, Quebec, Canada, and Natalie Jane MichaelInstitut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Québec, Quebec, CanadaFaculté de Pharmacie, Université Laval, Québec, Quebec, CanadaPublished Online:01 Jun 2023https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00133.2023This is the final version - click for previous versionMoreSectionsPDF (265 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInWeChat Evidence replicated over decades has led to an awareness that women are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; 1). Although particularly low numbers of women are often found in the engineering, physics, computer science, and chemistry fields, in recent years, women enroll in and graduate (at the undergraduate level) in biological sciences, often as the majority (∼59%; 2). Doctorate degrees awarded to women in biological sciences are also roughly equal to that awarded to men (2). Despite substantial participation of women in biological sciences at an educational level, a gender imbalance emerges afterward, with less women than men receiving tenured or tenure-track faculty positions (∼22% and ∼34% of these positions, respectively; 3, 4). Women also leave STEM and academic positions in greater numbers than men (5, 6). Thus, women still represent a minority group in biological research settings, such as the metabolism field, especially in more senior and influential roles.Women working in sciences may have to face implicit biases surrounding negative gender stereotypes, their productivity is at risk of being assessed less favorably by the peer review process, and letters of recommendation for women have been shown to focus on different qualities to that of men (7–11). It is important to acknowledge such historical and fundamental disparities when considering the work and positions of women in science. Although many theories and explanations surround the different reasons contributing to the gender gap in scientific and academic settings (1, 12), evidence suggests that increased diversity is associated with multiple positive outcomes, including, enhanced creativity, greater use of a team’s expertise, it assists with overcoming biases, and facilitates scientific research and discovery (13–16).As a group, women may display or possess different skill sets and behaviors to that of men. Sex-based differences in cognitive abilities have been consistently reported. On average, women show greater verbal abilities, perceptual speed, and fine motor skills, whereas men excel in spatial and mathematical tasks and can manipulate items in their working memory more easily (17, 18). From a behavioral perspective, differences in personality traits also exist between men and women (19, 20). In addition, one’s perception of their own ability is influenced by sex. Women tend to underestimate their abilities, even when their actual performance is equal or greater than that of men (21, 22). These combined differences may make a person’s work-based skills harder to recognize, especially when assessing someone of the opposite sex. Such factors may lead to an under-assessment of someone’s overall capabilities and reinforces the importance of mixed gender workforces and decision-making committees.Recognizing the importance of supporting diversity in the metabolic science field, the Recent Advances and Controversies in Energy Metabolism (RACMEM) 2022 meeting held in Quebec City, incorporated numerous networking and mentoring activities into the scientific and social program. Although most of these opportunities accommodated the entire group of graduate students and postdoctoral research fellows attending the meeting, a dedicated “Women in Science” session was scheduled to disseminate a female perspective on advancing a scientific career. This event, sponsored by the Gairdner Foundation, consisted of an all-women panel discussion open to all, followed by multiple individual and group mentoring opportunities for female attendees of the meeting. These small unstructured gatherings allowed more junior scientists to discuss concerns or questions they had about their work and career paths with more senior female scientists in a supportive and semiprivate environment. The event was an overwhelming success as measured by the vast participation and engagement in the sessions. However, a standout observation was that there appeared to be a large unmet need for these sorts of opportunities for the students. The session was dominated by fundamental questions, often of an emotive nature, relating to uncertainty surrounding the participant’s own situation and their next steps forward. These were questions that required external input, discussion, and guidance, and questions that really required answers. Although the involvement and exchange that occurred highlighted the value in providing such a session, it left us wondering if there were barriers potentially preventing the students from having such important and frank discussions about their career trajectories.One of the main concerns arising from these early career scientists was the absence of same-sex role models and potential mentors to help them navigate their career. The lack of sex-specific role models also tended to promote the impression that, as a woman, a University faculty career was not for them. Similar barriers have been reported among women physicians, where the absence of positive role models during training makes consideration of an academic medical career more unlikely (23). This is one reason why the visibility of women, as potential role models/mentors, in scientific meetings and events, and in formal programs of scientific organizations/institutions, are of major importance for allowing the next generations of women to reach their full potential, including faculty positions.Indeed, several scientific associations currently organize mentorship and leadership development opportunities, either specifically for women, such as the Women’s Interprofessional Network of the American Diabetes Association (WIN ADA; 24), or as general programs such as the Global leadership Academy run by the Endocrine Society (25). Even generalized programs with the goals of developing networking, mentorship, and leadership, have the capacity to encourage visible role models for women by appropriately considering gender representativity at these events. These research field-specific programs are associated with many advantages, such as access to global leaders, but they also allow trainees, including women, to reach out to mentors outside of their home institution, thereby increasing the pool of support available.Another frequent comment raised at the RACMEM Women in Science session was the difficulty for trainees and early career researchers to obtain mentorship from women outside of their direct supervisory team or institution. Participants believed this limited their capacity to discuss more “sensitive” concerns they had. These discussions highlight the importance of having access to multiple mentors that may be involved in different areas of a researcher’s career development. Trainees may be under the impression that their “scientific supervisor” is a direct synonym for “mentor,” however, this may not necessarily be the case. University or Association based programs favoring career development mentorship between women may be one solution to this problem. In addition, peer mentorship groups can provide excellent opportunities to develop a mentor relationship in a “safe space.” These relationships can allow for more difficult conversations and have a track record of success for women participating in such groups (26).We are currently experiencing a period of change where the awareness of the importance of increasing and supporting women in STEM is intensifying. Diverse plans and actions are being implemented to try to and address the issues at different levels. Times Higher Education has presented a list of the 2022 “top universities for tackling gender balance” (27). Those scoring highest on the list included Chiang Mai University, which launched a “women in engineering program”; the University of Indonesia, which demonstrated achievement of a number of indicators including gender equality publications and dedicated maternity and paternity policies; and Western Sydney University, which displayed strong efforts in recruiting, retaining, and helping female staff to advance their career (27). One particularly interesting example which was widely applauded, but just as widely criticized, was a program rolled out by the Technical University of Eindhoven (TU/e). In June 2019, TU/e, which was facing a particularly low number of female senior academic staff, introduced a radical scheme with the introduction of the “Irène Curie Fellowship.” TU/e announced that they would only hire women, across all academic positions and all levels, until a goal of 30% female professors was reached in every department (28, 29). Every vacancy available at TU/e was opened to women only, for the first 6 months of recruitment. Since the start of the program, TU/e reports to have hired nearly as many female (n = 55) as male (n = 59) scientists, with the hope of maintaining this ratio (30).Even though the program at TU/e contributes to reaching the target of gender balance in senior academic staff, it has faced a lot of criticism. In June 2020, TU/e had to defend their action in front of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights over claims that their women-first initiative was, in fact, discriminatory (31, 32). After it was concluded that the program was indeed, not proportional, TU/e responded by slightly modifying and then resuming the program. Despite the official “issue” being addressed, a lot of disapproval of the program remains. However, TU/e is not alone, similar initiatives have been adopted across the world. Other academic institutions, including the University of Melbourne, Technical University of Delft, and Essex University have implemented policies such as advertising female-only vacancies or raising the salaries of the female senior staff to eliminate the pay gap (33). Competitions for grants and research chairs have also been run for applicants only from minority groups, including women. Such female-friendly programs can also come at a cost to the women they are designed to favor. Once a position is secured, awardees might face additional stigma surrounding receiving their position due to “only” being a woman, which downplays their excellent track record of scientific and academic success.In the future, more attention should be paid to a general cultural change at academic and research institutions. Greater acknowledgment of the barriers to success occurring in some groups, and strategies to support women, without disadvantaging them or others around them, is required. Although we have focused on the issue of gender disbalance in this perspective article, there are additional minority groups that also need to be considered, to support inclusivity and reflect the increasingly diverse body of students.In summary, we are in a period of change. New programs and initiatives are being developed to support women in science, including in the metabolism field. Although it may take some time to fine-tune the methods, the momentum is building. As a group of newly appointed (women) Assistant Professors and metabolism researchers, it is clear that numerous opportunities are emerging. We urge all women in our field, and others, to reach out and take advantage of these changing times, and draw attention to the importance of the scientific community continuing to work together, to ensure that the next generations of scientists develop to their full potential.GRANTSThis research was supported by the Sentinel North Initiative funded by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (Partnered Research Chair in Sleep Pharmacometabolism to N.J.M.), the Fonds de recherche du Québec–Santé (FRQS; J1 Research Scholar award to N.J.M.), the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW) programme for Translational Research together with the Dutch Diabetes Fonds (951 05007 to H.P.), VILLUM FONDEN (21055 to H.P.), and the Fonds de recherche du Québec–Santé (FRQS; J1 Clinician-Scientist Research Scholar award to A.-M.C).DISCLOSURESNo conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSH.P., A.-M.C., and N.J.M. drafted manuscript; H.P., A.-M.C., and N.J.M. edited and revised manuscript; H.P., A.-M.C., and N.J.M. approved final version of manuscript.REFERENCES1. Blickenstaff JC. Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gend Educ 17: 369–386, 2005. doi:10.1080/09540250500145072.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar2. National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966-2010. Detailed Statistical Tables NSF 13-327 (Online). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/ [2023 Mar 21].Google Scholar3. Foley DJ. Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States: 2006. Detailed Statistical Tables. NSF 09-317 (Online). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED507638 [2023 Mar 21].Google Scholar4. Goulden M, Frasch K, Mason MA. Staying Competitive: Patching America’s Leaky Pipeline in the Sciences (Online). https://www.americanprogress.org/article/staying-competitive/ [2023 Mar 21].Google Scholar5. Hewlett SA, Buck Luce C, Servon LJ, Sherbin L, Shiller P, Sosnovich E, Sumberg K. The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology (Online). Boston: Harvard Business Publishing, 2008. https://store.hbr.org/product/the-athena-factor-reversing-the-brain-drain-in-science-engineering-and-technology/10094 [2023 Mar 22].Google Scholar6. Huang J, Gates AJ, Sinatra R, Barabási AL. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117: 4609–4616, 2020. doi:10.1073/pnas.1914221117. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar7. Hill C, Corbett C, St. Rose A. Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (Online). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 2010. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509653 [2023 Mar 21].Google Scholar8. Trix F, Psenka C. Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse Soc 14: 191–220, 2003. doi:10.1177/0957926503014002277.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar9. Carli LL, Alawa L, Lee YA, Zhao B, Kim E. Stereotypes about gender and science. Women ≠ scientists. Psychol Women Q 40: 244–260, 2016. doi:10.1177/0361684315622645.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar10. Roper RL. Does gender bias still affect women in science? Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 83: e00018–19, 2019. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00018-19. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar11. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H-D. Gender differences in grant peer review: a meta-analysis. J Informetr 1: 226–238, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.03.001.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar12. Avolio B, Chávez J, Vilchez-Román C. Factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in science careers worldwide: a literature review. Soc Psychol Educ 23: 773–794, 2020. doi:10.1007/s11218-020-09558-y.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar13. Nielsen MW, Alegria S, Börjeson L, Etzkowitz H, Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Joshi A, Leahey E, Smith-Doerr L, Woolley AW, Schiebinger L. Opinion: Gender diversity leads to better science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114: 1740–1742, 2017 [Erratum in Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114: E2796, 2017]. doi:10.1073/pnas.1700616114. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar14. Intermann K. Why diversity matters: understanding and applying the diversity component of the national science foundation’s broader impacts criterion. Soc Epistemol 23: 249–266, 2009. doi:10.1080/02691720903364134.Crossref | Google Scholar15. Freeman RB, Huang W. Collaboration: strength in diversity. Nature 513: 305, 2014. doi:10.1038/513305a. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar16. Valantine HA, Collins FS. National Institutes of Health addresses the science of diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112: 12240–12242, 2015. doi:10.1073/pnas.1515612112. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar17. Halpern DF. Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities (3rd ed.). New York: Psychology Press, 2000. doi:10.4324/9781410605290.Crossref | Google Scholar18. Sherwin BB. Estrogen and cognitive functioning in women. Endocr Rev 24: 133–151, 2003. doi:10.1210/er.2001-0016. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar19. Costa PT, Terracciano A, McCrae RR. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. J Pers Soc Psychol 81: 322–331, 2001. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar20. Weisberg YJ, Deyoung CG, Hirsh JB. Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the big five. Front Psychol 2: 178, 2011. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar21. Ehrlinger J, Dunning D. How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance. J Pers Soc Psychol 84: 5–17, 2003. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.84.1.5.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar22. Weiss EM, Kemmler G, Deisenhammer EA, Fleischhacker WW, Delazer M. Sex differences in cognitive functions. Pers Individ Differ 35: 863–875, 2003. doi:10.1016/S0264-3707(03)00061-9.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar23. Edmunds LD, Ovseiko PV, Shepperd S, Greenhalgh T, Frith P, Roberts NW, Pololi LH, Buchan AM. Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence. Lancet 388: 2948–2958, 2016. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01091-0. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar24. American Diabetes Association. WIN ADA (Online). https://professional.diabetes.org/content-page/win-ada [2023 Apr 25].Google Scholar25. Endocrine Society. Global Leadership Academy (Online). https://www.endocrine.org/our-community/building-community-and-global-exchange/global-leadership-academy [2023 Apr 25].Google Scholar26. Cree-Green M, Carreau AM, Davis SM, Frohnert BI, Kaar JL, Ma NS, Nokoff NJ, Reusch JEB, Simon SL, Nadeau KJ. Peer mentoring for professional and personal growth in academic medicine. J Investig Med 68: 1128–1134, 2020. doi:10.1136/jim-2020-001391. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar27. Times Higher Education. Top Universities for Tackling Gender Equality (Online). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/top-universities-tackling-gender-equality [2023 Apr 22].Google Scholar28. Eindhoven University of Technology. TU/e Vacancies for Academic Staff Exclusively for Women for the Time Being (Online). https://www.tue.nl/en/news-and-events/news-overview/17-06-2019-tue-vacancies-for-academic-staff-exclusively-for-women-for-the-time-being [2023 Apr 22].Google Scholar29. Eindhoven University of Technology. Irène Curie Fellowship (Online). https://www.tue.nl/en/working-at-tue/scientific-staff/irene-curie-fellowship/ [2023 Apr 22].Google Scholar30. Cornelissen A. TU/e to Resume Modified Irène Curie Fellowship Program (Online). https://innovationorigins.com/en/tu-e-to-resume-modified-irene-curie-fellowship-program/ [2023 Apr 22].Google Scholar31. College voor de Rechten van de Mens. The Board Assesses Preferential Policy at TU Eindhoven (Online). https://www.mensenrechten.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/07/03/college-oordeelt-over-voorkeursbeleid-tu-eindhoven [2023 Apr 22].Google Scholar32. College voor de Rechten van de Mens. The Board Assesses the Revised Preferential Policy at TU Eindhoven and Provides Practical Tools for Employers to Reduce the Disadvantage of Women. https://www.mensenrechten.nl/actueel/nieuws/2021/03/02/college-oordeelt-over-herziene-voorkeursbeleid-tu-eindhoven-en-geeft-praktische-handvatten-voor-werkgevers-om-achterstand-van-vrouwen-te-verminderen [2023 Apr 22].Google Scholar33. Grove J. University of Essex Hikes Salaries for Female Professors to Eliminate Pay Gap (Online). Times Higher Education, 2016.https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/university-of-essex-hikes-salaries-for-female-professors-to-eliminate-pay-gap [2023 Apr 22].Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESCorrespondence: N. J. Michael (natalie.[email protected]ulaval.ca); H. Pallubinsky (h.[email protected]nl). Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation CollectionsAJP-Endo CollectionsInter-Organ Communication in Homeostasis and DiseaseThis collection contains research on inter-organ communication in normal or pathologic physiological processes—particularly studies addressing the interplay between cells within metabolic and endocrine organs in the regulation of metabolic homeostasis. More from this issue > Volume 324Issue 6June 2023Pages E553-E555 Crossmark Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2023 the American Physiological Society.https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00133.2023History Received 5 May 2023 Accepted 9 May 2023 Published online 1 June 2023 Published in print 1 June 2023 Keywordsdiversitymetabolismresearchsciencewomen Metrics