Climbing the Academic Ladder: Doctoral Women Scientists in Academe: A Report to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (1979)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CHAPTER 5 PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL SCIENCE ADVISORY APPARATUS The Federal government has been seeking formal advice from scientists on issues concerning national policy since the establishment of the National Academy of Sciences for that purpose during the Civil War. During World War II, and especially during the Sputnik era, advisory bodies dealing with science-related issues proliferated. By the nature of their origins and purposes, they were concerned largely with military and national-security questions, and therefore consisted predominantly of physical scientists and engineers. Advisory groups dealing with problems in the life and social science areas evolved quite recently, by comparison. Peer review groups, which evaluate fellowship and research grant applications, have had a similar history. Membership of policy advisory bodies is drawn primarily from the ranks of senior faculty and senior research and technical management personnel in industry. Peer review groups, on the other hand, also contain younger and less well established scientists who are themselves active in the research areas concerned. Both peer review and policy advisory groups can have considerable influence on the course of science, though naturally in different ways. Although peer reviews of research grants and fellowship applications are made on scientific merit alone, different individuals may view merit from different perspectives, and the sum of reviewers' ratings results in quality judgments that will help to determine which applications are funded and therefore, how policy is in fact carried out. Policy advisory groups, by definition, act in a much broader sphere, and their findings and recommendations set the stage for policy-making bodies such as the National Science Board or the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Certain kinds of advisory committees deserve special mention. These are groups whose primary task is problem-solving, formulation of a scientific judgment drawn from existing data which have not been previously synthesized in a way that makes possible the definition of public policy. Examples of this sort of task are recommendations dealing with fluorocarbons in the upper 99

atmosphere, regulation of recombinant DNA research, or the setting of radiation exposure standards. Members of all such advisory bodies therefore have opportunities to delineate policies which affect the development of individual science fields, the priorities among them, and the allocation of public funds to various research areas. Beyond the immediate effects on science, such policies then may have broad impact on society—on jobs, environment and quality of life. Participation in advisory bodies also provides more personal benefits for the members; they become better known and more visible, gain early knowledge of impending research developments or policy changes, and can put that knowledge to use in their own work. It has been pointed out that participation in advisory panels may also help to raise the status of members at their home institutions (Apter, 1973, p. 104). In the hierarchy of science policy advisory groups, peer review committees, site-visit teams, and a variety of specialized subcommittees are the farm teams for the major leagues (the many boards and commissions that deal with more explicit science policy issues on a broader scale). Here is where younger scientists are trained to become policymakers and where they learn not only how to be effective in a new environment but also how to find their way to and through the funding agencies. This process also allows committee chairpersons and other experienced participants to survey the new entrants and judge their capabilities for further service. The extent to which women have had, or now have, opportunities to participate in the shaping of national science policy is not easy to determine with accuracy. Members of advisory bodies have not been studied as regularly as have new doctorates or the professoriate. Although one major study (NRC, 1972) has reviewed the history of science advising, analyzed the varieties of committees which contribute to this field, and made a number of recommendations including greater emphasis on recruiting younger scientists, women, and minority group members for science committee service, no comprehensive definition of science advisory groups exists, and there are no extensive data on their composition. Nonetheless, we believe it is important to assess whether women have opportunities both to be heard in the science policy arena and to derive the usual rewards in prestige and experience from such service. We are therefore including this section with the caveat that the information available is limited and should be viewed as a first approximation. Little in the way of historical comparisons is possible; data on the sex composition of advisory groups are available only for the immediate past and only for some kinds of groups. This overview, then, may serve as a starting point for future assessments. 100

A more detailed taxonomy of science committees than is necessary to our purposes is given in the NAS report cited above. It distinguishes a "technical committee11 which requires only appropriate technical expertise from its members and is thus particularly suitable as an instrument for the introduction of new recruits to committee service (NRC, 1972, p. 14) . In 1970 a total of 57 women served on NRC committees, constituting about one percent of all committee members (NRC, 1972, Appendix D, p. 47). The figure for the National Science Foundation was 7 or 1.9 percent and in 1972, 28 women or 1.4 percent, served on committees of the National Institutes of Health (Apter, 1973, p. 104). Data Sources Peer review panels are generally assembled by the officers of the programs under review, and are drawn from the whole spectrum of disciplines in which grant programs operate. Their composition is thus determined within the relevant agencies. Policy-level bodies may come into existence in various ways, but a common mechanism is to request the National Academy of Sciences, through the National Research Council, to appoint an appropriate group. Some advisory groups, however, are appointed directly by the agencies requesting their services. Because of the difficulties of obtaining comparable data from many and diverse sources, we have not attempted a comprehensive review of all national science advisory bodies, but have focused on four major groups closely related to academic science—the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, the National Institutes of Health, the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA), and the National Science Foundation. Data are derived from published membership lists and were furnished directly to the Committee by officers of the NRC and the agencies. Record keeping varies with the institution and at present is probably most sophisticated at the National Institutes of Health where information is computerized and the coding system permits detailed analysis of membership patterns. A portion of the National Science Foundation data is also computerized. ADAMHA, with smaller numbers of committee members, and NAS rely on manual tabulations. National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council The National Academy of Sciences and its sister organizations, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine, are honorary associations whose 101

members elect their colleagues by a rather complex process. As such, they are outside the scope of this review. The public advisory functions of the Academies are performed largely (but not exclusively) through the National Research Council (NRC), and Academy members play an important role in these functions. In addition, public reports of NRC committees are subject to review by the Academy's Report Review Committee. Academy members are, therefore, influential in science policy decisions at many levels by virtue of their membership status as well as their scientific eminence. For that reason, an assessment of recent changes in membership patterns of women is relevant to our purpose. Women as a percentage of members of the three organizations are shown in Table 5.1. The numbers of women members of the recently established Institute of Medicine (1970) and the National Academy of Engineering (1964) reflect with reasonable accuracy the representation of women in these professions at levels which would make them eligible for membership. The situation is rather different in the National Academy of Sciences (founded 1863), which elected its first woman member in 1925 and a total of ten women in its first 107 years, prior to 1970. Since then the increase in women members has been explosive by comparison, reaching a total of 33 living members in 1978, or 2.6 percent of all members. In 1977, four new women members were elected, representing 6.7 percent of all new members and in 1978, women were 8.3 percent of the new members. For readers not familiar with the lengthy nomination and election procedures of NAS it should be pointed out that the process may take several years. The fact that the rate of election of women members began to rise rapidly in 1970 therefore indicates that the scientific community had set in motion the process of according more women scientists this recognition well before any explicit requirements for affirmative action arose. It should also be noted that this happened long before the growing numbers of new women doctorates could possibly be of sufficient age to be included in any reasonable pool of potential Academy members. Stated differently, this means that the women scientists now being elected to membership come from the accumulated pool of earlier years, when women represented a much smaller fraction of all scientists. The percentage of new women members now closely parallels that of women on senior faculties. Women scientists are unevenly distributed in the leadership of the academies, as shown in Table 5.2. With most women members having only been elected recently, this is not altogether surprising. If we exclude IOM, however, women are only minimally represented in leadership positions. While we do not believe it useful to argue a need for proportional representation at this level, we do 102

TABLE 5.1 The Participation of Women in the Membership of the National Academies 1977 - 1978 Total Women % Women National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 1,215 33 2.6 National Academy of Engineering (NAE) 765 7 0.9 Institute of Medicine (IOM) 298 33 11.1 Source: Organization and Members, 1977-1978, National Academy of Sciences. National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, National Research Council. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, October 1977. " express the hope that as more women members are elected, their presence among the leadership will also increase. Academy membership is not a requirement for service on the four assemblies and four commissions of the National Research Council, or on the numerous boards, panels, and committees which report to them. In fact, of the total 2616 NRC appointments for terms beginning in 1977, only 420 or 16 percent were of NAS, NAE, or IOM members. We would therefore expect participation by women in these activities to be higher than their membership ratio, reflecting their much greater presence among research scientists, especially in the social sciences which are relevant to much ongoing work of the assemblies and commissions. By and large this expectation is fulfilled, as Tables 5.3 and 5.4 show. Women accounted for 178 of the total 2616 appointments in 1977-1978, or 5.3 percent. This is somewhat higher than their overall NRC participation for this and the preceding year (see Table 5.5) and represents a rising rate of appointments. Normally, appointments are made for three- year terms so that on the average only one-third turn over annually. The rate at which women are now being appointed is therefore close to their rate of election to NAS membership. 103

TABLE 5.2 The Participation of Women in the Leadership of the National Academies 1977 - 1978 Councillors of the National Academy of Sciences Councillors of the National Academy of Engineering Councillors of the Institute of Medicine National Research Council Governing Board Chairpersons of Major Divisions Total Total 17 17 22 14 14 Women % Women 84 0 2 0 0 If the Institute of Medicine is excluded, the percentage of women in the leadership is 1%. Source: Organization and Members, 1977-1978, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, October 1977. It should be remembered, however, that the criteria for committee membership differ from those for election to the Academy. Committee activity involves the broader participation of social scientists and psychologists of whom 14 percent and 23 percent, respectively, are now women (Table 2.8). It is also instructive to examine the current appointment figure of 5.3 percent in relation to the representation of women in the appropriate pool which, for this purpose, we may define as the 1955-1965 doctoral cohort. Women received 7.3 percent of the science and engineering Ph.D.'s during that period (Gilford and Snyder, 1977, p. 24). The percentage of current appointments is still below that figure. The complete absence of women from the Commissions on Natural Resources and on Sociotechnical Systems is especially surprising. Not only are there many eminent women scientists in fields relevant to these Commissions, 104

O 4J a ^ ^ Q) B or^cN oo -* en CN srcn oo U 0) • •• •• • • •• 60 r^ w B CN CM oo cnen r— -* CM m c CT\ 0) O rH rH •H CO rH M p-l s • rH 0) U Cf l u 1 0) 0) C B • r~- IH XI C 0) O o r^ o 4-1 -H -H •H CT\ 60 U i-i A rH M 0) C w Cf l B Q) C •^ «^f *»o *^ en in *«o csi <f T3 W Z O • XI Q) CN rH in ^' ^5- rH rH CN1 en 3 <*H 4-1 co e e CM rH T3 O • 00 cu 3 0 0 C 0) B 0) Z S e cfl £ c •H 4J •H B •pi XI u a) cu u CO •H 4J U ^3 •H CO 3 CO OB CO •o ^2 U CQ) CJ 0) 0 •H § •H < O U * co O Q. T3 CO rH MH 0) rH •H OrH^a- I-HO vo o m I^ cfl O u •H M U eN rH CO vOCM O OO OOO CO C B 0) B CJ 0) -rt eN m vo Hen es en ey>cn 0) -H 0 0) B Xi 4-l * A U i-l 4-I •H 3 1 Cf l rH «* M C W 3 U O 30) to 4J cn CJ P^ ft 1 OB Z •H CO O 4J UH x: CO O u od oo B M CO m f^^ M > Cf l 0) 54 O CT* B 0) cu 2 rH A 0) CO 4J T) <-^ rj f^ 00 t3 0) 4-J C B cd M 33 0) ^ •H U rH 1 CO C ^*i *r o 0) S O 0) CJ 0) O O • 0) rH I-H en • cd 0 •H 4J >4H 4J C (XrH CO -H 00 c cN<-r>- encn es en r^m OB n 0 4J O -H rH •* •H W <4H 0) c •H Cf l rl 1 CO CO O XI W 4-l Z CO T3 S Cf l 0) O rH X) U OI rH U-l 2 B 1 0 OB T3 O •H §•§ § CO 0) r-l fc ^ B 55 CO PL, U H Cf l CJ O CO C B •H O M cfl CJ •H rl «) Qj a •H CO 3 C -H 0) 4-1 0) *T3 B • U Q) rH O O B X! CO Xi C cfl 3 r^ cfl (X •H 60 U CO CO CO -H XI rH BBU0)<UU U COCOiH0)iHUPQCd rH 0) 4J cj s g U 0 30) -H P T3 B w CTN U M V M iH 4U d B CO 4-l O W cfl 'r-l Xi •H OCJ0)Uefl0)BM M O 14-1 e N CO o M 4-1 M iHC0)COSiHCOQ) 3 T\ rH >0)C QIUSU 4J U Cd 0) 0) '""I B O IH 4 co x: S c Cf l Cf l 0) 4-1 O tO •H 0) O PM XIU60MH4-I X —1 Z CO O V) !£ W 4-I m 4J 0) CO C iH Jf l rH H ij r1 " M Cf l 0) U 03 W i-J 2 cfl C C B B 60 O CT\ O Z P4 O rH U O O O O •H 14-ICO>4HUH14W-H CO CO >4H 0) CO CO 0 -H O O O« B BB BO) B U rNOOOOOOg CU 4-l Xi 0) cfl >> O (>> >s >>XI iH -H-H iHVi -HB XI 4J <U in rHW rH rH rHpL, CO COW Cfl3 COQ) H -H XI <-) X> 43 43 43 CO <0 CO CO O W 4-l rH ^ U r( I -H 3 w ST3 B 3 0T3 -H iHrH -HCO -HtO cue cu cu cu c B BQI ecu a >% coed co co coed H Bc4 §P< H co OX! 0 CJ > CO CO COCOCO OO O O H •^ <i<!<3 cjcj o o 105

TABLE 5.4 Participation in Executive Committees of Assemblies and Commissions Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences Number of Participants Number of Percent of Women Women 18 4 22.2% Assembly of Engineering 20 1 5.0 Assembly of Life Sciences 15 1 6.7 Assembly of Physical Mathematical and Sciences 19 1 5.3 Commission on Human Resources 15 2 13.3 Commission Relations on International 10 2 20.0 Commission on Natural Resources 14 0 0 Commission Systems on Sociotechnical Total 11 0 0 122 11 9.1% Source Organization and Members, 1977-1978 , National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, National Research Council , National Academy of Sciences , Washington, D.C., October 1977. 106

TABLE 5.5 The Participation of Women on National Research Council Bodies, 1975-1978* 1975 1976 1977 1978 Total Individuals 7,888 7,658 7,484 7,638 Women 311 303 347 391 Percent 3.9% 4.0% 4.6% 5.1% *The figures show participation as of approximately June 30 during each of the years and are believed to be reasonably comparable. They summarize the numbers of individuals serving, rather than appointments which involve some duplication. All levels of NRC bodies are included since the Office of the President of NAS does not tabulate membership by sex for different structural levels within NRC. Thus, the figure for 1978, 5.1 percent, reflects participation at all levels and is slightly lower than the 5.3 percent shown in Table 5.3 for committee participation, which was obtained by tabulating the information in the NAS directory, Organization and Members. Source: Memorandum from S. D. Cornell to P. Handler, October 1978. but the topics of interest have such broad public impact that it seems unlikely that women scientists experienced in these areas cannot be found. Without going into excessive numerical detail, it is evident that the membership lists of the NRC Board and panels charged with studying environmental problems— "society's conflicting demands on environmental values" (NAS, 1977, p. 128)—include almost no women, in an area which is replete with women scientists and in which women have been especially active as concerned and informed citizens. National Science Foundation The National science Foundation's several Directorates each have an advisory committee and these in turn have subcommittees. In addition, some directorates primarily utilize peer reviewers for handling proposals. NSF is covered by the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 which 107

requires "the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee" (Sec. 5.b.2). This provision may be interpreted in various ways within the several directorates in their selection of committee members. Nonetheless, as Table 5.6 shows, there has been a steady increase in the numbers and proportions of women committee members over the last few years, to a level that exceeds their representation in the scientific doctorate pool. It has been suggested that Congressional oversight and Foundation leadership have played a crucial part in this change.* Table 5.7 shows the sex distribution of peer reviewers for the last two years, the period during which the data have been computerized. A comparison of the two years shows an overall increase in the proportion of reviews solicited from women. This also occurred in every directorate except AAEO and MPE. Interestingly, in 1978 in every directorate except Science Education, women completed a higher proportion of reviews than the proportion of reviews solicited from them. TABLE 5.6 Sex Composition of National Science Foundation Advisory Committees 1972-1977 NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PERCENT YEAR MEMBERS WOMEN WOMEN FY 1972 358 14 4 FY 1973 389 33 8 FY 1974 411 32 8 CY 1975 652 67 10 CY 1976 747 81 11 CY 1977 926 131 14 Data furnished by Becky Winkler, Committee Management Coordinator, National Science Foundation 108

tD O LO ro O LD •— (O O CM O O CO CM ^.l O CO CM ro r^* r^. LO o ro cvj ro (^ , Q^ I— cn cn ro ^- f— O> Ol ro ^ , ^ « + + + + LO co r*. cn O r^ vo LO ro CO cn co co 1 — O CM CM •— C? Oi OO P- CO =3 00 CO vo «r co r— CM CO o cn cr. ^- CM -o Q1 CM CO Q1 cvj co * CC + * * ~o ' c t*- •o CM LO O co LO r^ ^a r- VO r-* Ol *3- O o o ro i — ^r VO CO CM o ro •— vo VO CO ^J" Of t— CO CO LO r— r— 1 — h- LO CO tO t/l UJ LU| §! OO CM LO ro ^J- O vo CO| vo r-- •— P^ r^ CD * t •» CM CO O r- vo VO CO P*- LO ro co o V) CO 0 .— co in r~ CO P•- LO P^. yi Q1 co cn o ro vo CM Q) CO CO O m vo cvj •Jo Q) o; i — CM ( — CC •— CM •— u =tt + + •f X c: CO o +J . •0 O VO r- O *»• <T "io r— co 10 CT.P-P- u_ 0 Q1 0> S- O in ro cn in vo r- o tn ro •— ^- VO ^J- c: (/1 c~ 1— a. cn •— I— CT. 01 ro at QJ - M ' i »s I i c _ 3 S CO O o 0 < fO CO LO i — co cn •— LO VO CVJ CVJ O . •r- • ro cn ro in ro i — ^c • co cvj o •— o ^~ ^_ . 4-> IA cn ^° ^f CM CM CO ,— co co CM CM iD CO 1 OJ CC •<»• ro •— i HI CC ^3- cvj ,— I C 0 4-t i E; O __ ^D Of CO o i- L. rO Lu •— C3 Of o ocn (— ^- vo to vo ^ ^ • ' cu oo •M CM CO CO CO CM r— •— 0 (O CM P^. O O% CO LO P^. CM CTl .— LO 4-> 4-> "5 O cn co CM o S- CJfs. t— ^ H^ t — C o ^; c a\ + s! 5 + ** + * 4J -. s CO u •r- !£ O >- 5J m LO tj- cn r- O CM cn »>• in co co in vo 2 CO CO CO CM O CO co crl •— CU </) CO CO O CM •— <u CO I""- CO CM LO CM O Q. Q- S 01 I r\ I ( ... •0 ••' 1 *-l_ r CU r** o ro *1- oo ^>- > Q) O LO iO cvj vo co O O LO LP O ul VO ri^Z ^ , Qt cc T VO •— + + CC <u CC ro ^- r- 4J 4_> aj iTJ C =tt; =»- + + C u u •r— r~t ^ T3 LO <u c •O •r- r* £ Q) >^ S •r* ^ u_ m r— *3- Cn cn vo vo cu / •— ^- co at vo co O Qf Q O CO * 11 CTi , — o i— co co ro cn cn . — r- ro ci o CO 00 CM OS OS ^^2 Q. £ > Of ~s- c ai <o to ro Q) vi C Zt— o s.« + I o 1— + &. I/I "d-e i f ai U c O -C Lu UJ CM CM O ro cn ^• u <a- cvj oo O CM 00 (O •0 ° ° CO •r— 0* -r- •M *"* « 3E • cn i — CM ^- vo r** z •— r*. LO vo cr» vo cr O -o Q> U ra C C7l C C (0 C CO O S- •r- *- Q) S- X Ql co cn r— C1f *t ** ^ S'rQ 'o. " a: CM CM + CM CM O in •o .c O (U ;*fc I -It + i a> ^i 3 4-J •i— i— • •— t- C 0 *£ u S- U (O •r—o -a CO &- i4- Of C LLJ Ol CO _C C (O i — LO CM cn in in ^ VO VO vo ^r *? c o •o 0) 5 O) -r- e HH VO VO CO ro ro vo o cvj r^ vo r*<. cvj ^r o •4-> LU "O S- cn cn •— i- a\ co •— •O c •r— "O rO CO (O C M U "_ + t. O 1- O o L. 0 •r- <U 4-> JC rO *_ QJ *t~ •!- > > O) LU LU 4J to CO ^ rO a: a> 5 CM O CO VO *J" CO 5 . CM r^*. Vn CO CM *t ^- P- Cvj LO LO VJ HI i— ••- C "o Oi • in vo o ro cn vo CO CM ro in vo V) co *3- •— r^ co •— C O >^ Jo Ir5 ,c > •- • • ., QJ O t* -o <O ^3- VO CM QJ cvj ^- cvj a •r- U- *I JZ .C QJ *•" <J s_ c Di ^ + + 4fc *_ • , 4. >> > Qf a, O_ Ql u -M Qf CO c •0 r— cu *J (O * Qf U 3 LJ V> * *r- 3 - a. cu •4-J ^. in r~ o in ro in ( ro ro ro P** P*^ OO Q- <D ^ o E VJ .— <j T) U 1 * rO Q ZJ 4-> U **- t. fl3 O CM cn ro P*. O CO O cvj <y\ o f^. O CO " ^ c §•01 "S O *4J _^ t- J— cn co CM r— r"^ r— cyt co ro r- CO t/1 ^ O • C. C o o 4J LL, CO eV9 + + U. CO (jp •+- CO •r— ro ^ •— ^ ^ CO Q. •r- "0 4-> 4-> •M O Q. •r — •r- CO U CM CM O 1 CO •* r*. ro vo cvj o^ r** VO CM VO LO LO Ol ^ •- t— *t Z CO 5" tX CO ••- Oi . •— co r~ co ^t- •— tO S- V) vo ro r^ *» *r cn t/1 CM r— Ot VO *J- P^. E o II II II II II II II r-" f*"^ Q1 vo ro vo cn vo vo CU cvj CD r*. P^* ** VO 3 •t-> O Cl_ LlJ LX' LO ^H co *£ <r CC •— T* CVJ r~ a: O*I CM CM ,__ co • t/l LjJ to 'h r- r— + + •tt •— + + CO ^ *x 3E co co i c >, O •— •~D ro "£ <C CO r~~ co * P** 00 >t CO ^ r — co r-. oo ^3 .c ^_ r^ t^ LL. U. P^ r^ U- U. "^ Ol CO 3 3 r>> LL. U. 0> 0I tt tt Q <Lt x: o 4-J U I/) L. • Q1 Q) + | 11+| CO d> -+- ] 11+1 •-~ -C TO m sis, ils, C 4- > •t3 LU c LL.U.CD Lu U. CJ1 3 P- +-J g c ,— •—(0 a id J= • — • — (O •U (D ^C •U 4-> O 0 0 c c 4-> 4-* O O O •U 4- > O +J •U t_J o o S 2 0) \~ O O r t— t— ^~ ' t— 1— t— t— + * 109

National Institutes of Health A special tabulation of the sex composition of the membership of the 91 NIH public advisory committees in September 1978 showed women to hold 19.3 percent of the appointments (Table 5.8). The figure appears to be a most respectable one in comparison with the figures for NSF and NRC. It is higher than the current percent in the labor force of women holders of doctorates in the biological sciences, 16 percent, and higher than the 13 percent of those with degrees in the medical sciences (Table 2.8) especially when it is recalled that a large proportion of these women hold relatively recent degrees. At the same time, several considerations need to be borne in mind. The life sciences, with appropriately greater represesentation at NIH than at NAS or NSF, have a substantially higher representation of women than other sciences, except psychology and the social sciences. Secondly, the tabulation includes some lay persons, who are appointed as public representatives to some committees and some specialists in non-scientific fields, such as education and hospital administration. Finally, it should be pointed out that there are numerous committee members with professional degrees and some participation by those without advanced degrees. The ADAMHA distribution reveals even higher participation by women on committees, with a figure of 29 percent for late 1978 (Table 5.8). The proportion is substantially higher than the 14 percent of women social scientists in the labor force (Table 2.8). In addition to social scientists, and especially psychologists, however, ADAMHA committee membership includes substantial representation of psychiatrists, social workers and staff members of drug abuse, alcohol or mental health centers and clinics. Inspection of the various levels and types of NIH and ADAMHA committees reveals variation in the participation of women according to committee function and composition (U.S. Public Health Service, 1978a and 1978b). There is greater representation of women at the higher levels of the NIH and ADAMHA structure on committees that are required to include representatives of the public or of an affected population (e.g., the population affected by sickle cell anemia). Thus, the policy-level advisory committees show higher proportions of women participants than the initial review bodies or the boards of scientific counselors who review intramural research programs within each institute. The current representation of women on NIH committees has been attributed to two factors: costly litigation (Association for Women in Science, et al. vs. Elliot Richardson, et al.) and the centralized structure of the Institutes that permits close monitoring of appointment procedures to assure the inclusion of women and minorities. 110

r— crl ^~ co /^ ro co o s« O CO CO CTi ^3. CO CM O CT1 /ro CM i — r— i — CO OO CO CM £ o cr> co vo f — . O r-. en r— co •z. CO OO CO CO en co LO r— 4- -t- S- ** U u) CD crl r— 10 S& co co o in O 4— O in vo CM r^. CO CO O OO CU CM • — CM CM CO CO CM CM CO I/) •t-> CU 4-* -o c in 4J s- cu c *r. CU (0 .r- Z5 X O 0 O ° in r— \ — i — O CM CM i — CM §ro CU 00 co oo <_> z r— r— r— CM " •" CO f-^, • -C CTN ^J •r- 4-> r4 C | * VO OO CM l-~ u (0 <-> m s- to ** co r— r- -^ ** * * # -K 3 O -C u en P*** CD t- CSJ CM CM CM * * * * •^- in ••- O^ ) — C Di i. CO i-H «3 O 5 ro -O 4- cu M •r- O <1> ^— ^x—x *^-^^~^ C E O £ -o •> o c c cu z in r— ^o CM . •K -tc -X * * * * * C CO O E 4-> S CM LO <a• 1 — O s •-! rO CC * — • — * — ** — Q 3 CO O 4J co co en vo C •Mi/l •H 1 % &5 • • • • n * * * * • rO ^~ i u S ro 0) t- -I- T r-.- vo r-.. o> JS * * * * zc >t cu i— i -0 _L ; Z t. E 4-> PJ c cu zc 1 — u in CO E s- -r- s: 4-> CO CC "O CO iS z z VO CT> CT^ r— CO o •lC * * * i to in ^• <^" zc -z. *+:•** CO 4- ef ro C w %~* ^_ ' — ** — *^ — ^ CJ 4- O i — CO o r— + •r— o <: 4- E CO .c: ro *- - 4- CO 1 +-> 4-> 4-> ct 4- 4-> +J •r- 3 O C ro Ol CO X c r— C ZC £ S en in cri r-^ CTV r** LO in co *3- in .— r— r— en 06 +J E £*-••- 03 u: £>•« § ** C CO Ol rO t/1 c . .^ <4- (— ^__^, OO CO CM CM CO Ol OJ ^-' ro i * m isi •H 'io > ° <o OJ C 4-> CO ro 00 •r- CO - O c Cn ro -r- CO -C 4-> ce "> ^— ^^— ^ *~^-*— ^ C ^ 1 *-> 5 Tj •t- cu • 1 — LO LO CO CO T- *^*** — -^^^~* ,-- 4_> O o oo r^ vo U1 4-> o oo r^. oo r**. 03 CO O •r- O l i c" 13 Z CM r— r— r— Zl ro z oo r— CM cr> 3C CO u E c: cd P* +J -Q "— *^- 4-> «t 4-> l/l ~— -— cu +-> >, O -c cu -r- Lr U U •H cn CT •r- 4-> E o •^ U "O ^~ 3 C •H C l/> |-( UD 1^ OO CM 1- •!— o r— in in ••— O •r- S- 2 4J <O fl^ Ci E ^ E <-> > O M >> CO ^ CQ 10 un en T3 O r~- CM LO E T3 in CO OO LO ^£3 VD O •* (O •"- CO Pu ro U O 4J C S- CO in ••- ° O 0 ^ ^ -SS O " •^ en ro •^ O O >• "*""* " ^^* *^^. ^-** ^— * . — .. — ,. ^. . =J O Z! E S- t- "O O ro O ^• co r^x crt (J o CO 00 O O ro C o *t E O_ CX. =1 <_) z z CM CM r— i — '— Z ( — ( — cu c s- n: o * — *^ — ^^^^ — ^ ^ — • — ^* — — • E O -C SI <-> MH B ,'-' ' ' '"' Q ^ <: . cu o O >•> (/) . <c i — c in I S- T3 _1 -C ZC T3 O •r- 4-t z: c > O t- CU CO <t ro C T3 c ja Q .c cu <a: 1 OO LO CTv O O 1 — CV1 VO C ro ct E u C <t •* CO ro l/) CU Ei — 4-> > CO ^ cr> crv LO in O O l*- co ro NJ 4J O i — N ••— ' O SO =J i — 4-> C 1- OO LU C i. 4J 1 <J S- u->- •O S- O O z CM CM CM CM LO OO CM CM >, >> •t-> -r- 4- O f) j") i/) C_) •r- 3 l« ro </) O C 6 en CM cvi en LO LO VD kD •z •o •o in O) cu "o 0. Q. o <-J ^ — * — - — - ^ — ^^"*— • — CO CO u> •.- en c -C -C s..r > ro ro in in CU 4-" ••- •r- 4-> S- C C C C C O) O Cn S- 1. Ol 4-> U ••- SB c 3 3 E O S- -U •r- O •4- H- cu ro <U C T3 CO en s- ex cu oo LU U ro ro ro 4-> > CO S- -O 4-J -t-J C C CU CO in ro ro O3 O -C S- in vo r*^ oo in VD r** oo Q os: o i— ex, g L. 4-> 0*• en en en r— r— r—~ r— * 4- * + + 4- — -. tO CL r— r— r— •— -™j n cu H O-oo 111

This procedure is regularly allowed at NIH and ADAMHA with a concerted effort to interpret the "balance" of the Federal Advisory Act to apply to women and minorities. An additional appointment stricture, designed to prevent excessive utilization of a limited number of scientists, is the rule that a committee member have a minimum break in service of at least one year before appointment to another committee. It is recognized at NIH, however, that this rule is more frequently waived for women and minority appointees.2 As part of its procedure for monitoring appointments, the Committee Management Office of NIH has computerized data that would permit the kinds of detailed analyses of the participation of women scientists that are beyond the scope of the present report but might be usefully undertaken in the future. (Some of these studies have been conducted at NIH, and trend data are maintained.) As currently coded, for example, these data would permit analysis by sex of the percentages of appointees who have accepted or declined appointment, distribution according to types of degrees, the proportion of appointees who have held prior appointments to NIH committees, the employment sector of appointees, and committee members' rank in their employing institutions. An Overburden on Women Scientists? In view of the rather recent emphasis on having women scientists represented on advisory bodies, a concern has been raised in some quarters that women scientists may be overburdened by requests for service which are hard to deny. The obvious potential problem is that with a rather small pool of women with appropriate backgrounds, a few scientists will be called on excessively with possible detriment to their research and other obligations. Certainly, for historical reasons, the list of qualified females could not have been very long. Some women may have had to turn down invitations and may have elected to give first priority to their own research rather than to advisory service. This concern may well be justified. NRC records for 1975 show that women held 367 of a total of 8462 advisory appointments, but that unduplicated totals for this period were 311 out of 7888. Over 15 percent of women's appointments, but only 6.a percent of men's, therefore represented duplicate or multiple service. These figures do reflect a disproportionate burden on a few women scientists, although we have data only for one year and do not know how widespread or persistent this problem is. A cursory examination of the lists of women members of NIH advisory committees also showed some duplication of NRC committee participatants. A study of 112

multiple committee service by women would therefore require a cross-comparison of the rosters of various national scientific bodies. Discussion Three issues are of concern regarding the participation of women scientists on science policy advisory bodies, the most obvious of which is equality of professional opportunity and recognition for women scientists. Secondly, we must make some educated guesses regarding the size of the pool of potential women committee members, particularly for technical committees where the dominant qualification sought is expertise in a sometimes narrow field. Less clear is the question of whether advisory bodies dominated by men may arrive at conclusions which differ from those potentially reached by sex-balanced bodies, and whether such a potential flaw adversely affects the usefulness of their decisions. Equality of Professional Opportunities The participation rate of women scientists in top-level advisory groups is roughly comparable to their representation among senior faculties, but we have already seen that the latter group is very small for historical reasons. No very precise comparisons are possible in any case since participation varies so widely by fields and with individual advisory bodies. The enhancement of professional opportunities for women at this level is probably not a major consideration, although public recognition and the opportunity to serve the nation are important even to those who have already achieved eminence in their fields. For this reason we believe that more women scientists should be serving in high-level advisory groups. The appropriate pool is certainly large enough to furnish additional candidates at this time, and is growing rapidly. Women scientists qualified to serve on a variety of policy groups may have to be sought in non-traditional ways and places. For example, women who have served with distinction in small colleges or in research institutes may find themselves outside the usual recruitment channels, though fully suited by experience, maturity, and interest to take part in advisory activities. We recognize, of course, that recruitment of potential committee members is a delicate task and has entirely legitimate concerns with personal compatibility and ease of collaboration in addition to high scientific competence. Convenors of committees, therefore, tend to place great reliance on personal acquaintance for recommendations; most suitable women scientists are not really outside this network. They simply 113

have been overlooked more often than men in the past, and should now be sought out more purposefully. The low participation rate in lower-level advisory functions and the overburdening of a few women scientists are probably closely linked. If women are untried in these positions, those who have already been tested are probably seen as more desirable or predictable candidates. As we have shown in earlier chapters, however, there is a much larger pool of appropriately situated women scientists than NRC is utilizing in this way. Inadequate use of women scientists at these levels now will insure their continued paucity at top levels since it denies them the opportunities to learn how the game is played. It also deprives them of experience, recognition, and rewards which would in themselves further their careers. With frequent turnover of membership at this level and with the frequent appointment of ad hoc and short-term advisory groups, increasing the utilization of women scientists would be a simple matter. We strongly urge that this be done. Highly specialized technical committees may occasionally encounter problems in locating women members, depending on the specialty involved. It is quite clear that in certain subfields of the physical sciences, and quite probably in other specialized areas as well, women with the requisite expert background may literally not exist. Sex-balanced Committees? There are no data which suggest that women scientists as a group draw conclusions and make decisions any differently than men scientists. However, it is not only possible but likely that on many science-related issues they may base conclusions on different or additional kinds of evidence, and if that is so then final decisions may indeed be different if women play a part in them. For example, among major social issues which are addressed by science advisory groups, those dealing with health, nutrition, and family planning (either nationally or world-wide) or with environmental problems are very likely to be viewed from different perspectives by men and women because of large differences in their respective experiences in society. Whether such differences would lead committees to make better judgments is not something that can be predicted; perhaps they would simply consider a wider range of options. In an era when science policy decisions are increasingly under public scrutiny and must be more responsive to public perceptions of their impact than in the past, it seems insensitive, at the least, to ignore half the public. Decisions about energy policy, conservation, recombinant DNA research, health, or chemicals in the environment affect

women as much as men. women are especially active in consumer groups concerned with such problems. Women scientists work in these areas as often as in others. It is at least possible that their fuller participation in the policy advisory mechanism would lead to policy recommendations which are both sound and more acceptable to the public. Conclusions and Recommendations We are encouraged to note that the rate of election of women to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine during the last few years is beginning to approach the current presence of women scientists at levels commensurate with such recognition. We trust that the rate of increase will keep pace with the growing numbers of women scientists who achieve distinction, and that their greater representation will also shortly afford them more opportunities for leadership within the Academies and the National Research Council. We are encouraged by recent changes in the representation of women on committees of NIH, ADAMHA, and NSF and to a lesser extent, among the NSF peer reviewers. At the lower levels of science policy advisory service, we are concerned at the underutilization of women scientists in general and the overburdening of a few. Given the broad range of fields involved, there are literally many hundreds of women scientists fully fitted by experience and achievement to serve on these bodies. Further, the turnover rate for such service is high enough to permit much more rapid growth in women's participation than has been realized so far. We urge an increase in the rate of appointment of women scientists to such positions with expansion to keep pace with their increasing representation in the doctorate pool. While we commend the establishment of a "Talent Bank" or resource file for new appointments which the Commission on Human Resources is currently considering, we urge that recruitment efforts for women go well beyond such a file. Specific nominations solicited for specific purposes are, in our judgment, likely to produce more viable candidates and serve the additional objective of keeping the scientific community aware of the need to augment women scientists' careers in this fashion. We would also suggest that a new form of record keeping would assist the NRC in identifying the areas in which progress has been uneven so that greater efforts may be exerted there. 115

NOTES by Herbert Harrington, Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, National Science Foundation. This paragraph is based on statements made by Suzanne L. Fremeau, Committee Management Officer, NIH. 116