1. Call For Pitches: Write an article for Issue 25!

Seasoned and aspiring science writers and bloggers alike: we want to hear your ideas! Submit pitches for the Fall 2013 Issue by Friday, June 7th. 

Guidelines for submitting a pitch can be found here and, in case you’re looking for inspiration, our editorial staff maintains a list of story ideas just for you.

Send pitches or any questions to sciencereview@gmail.com.

2. Join us as an editor or layout designer!

Editors work directly with authors to sculpt the content for each issue from the first draft to its polished final form. Please briefly outline your experience and include a non-technical writing sample with your email.

Join our award-winning layout team and learn to build compelling visuals to enhance science stories. Experience with graphic design, Adobe InDesign, or Javascript is helpful but not required.

To join our fun and diverse team, email sciencereview@gmail.com to express your interest.

This article scratches the surface of a complex issue. It asymptotically approaches topics surrounding (1) the binary division of “men” and “women”, (2) its historical significance, and (3) the work being done to promote “unisex” mentality, including unisex restrooms. It is important to take these efforts into careful consideration when considering the topic of women in science and gender equality (for more information, Nature publishing did this special issue on Women in Science: Women’s Work).

Claude Steele and many other sociologists elaborate on the concept of stereotype threat, which leaks into discourse surrounding the topic of women in science. While this field of research is only recently accumulating more quantitative evidence, the idea of women in science reporting greater inclination to feelings of imposter syndrome and the like is easily related to the discourse of Robert K. Merton on the sociology of science in general over half a century ago:

…when statements are doubted, when they appear so palpably implausible or absurd or biased that one need no longer examine the evidence for or against the statement but only the grounds for it being asserted at all.*  Such alien statements are “explained by” or “imputed to” special interests, unwitting motives, distorted perspectives, social position, and so on. In folk thought, this involves reciprocal attacks on the integrity of opponents; in more systematic thought, it leads to reciprocal ideological analyses. On both levels, it feeds upon and nourishes collective insecurities…

[*Footnote]: Freud has observed to seek out origins rather than to test the validity of statements with seem palpably absurd to us…On the social level, a radical difference of outlook of various social groups leads not only to ad hominem attacks but also to “functionalized explanations.”

–Robert Merton “Paradigm for the Sociology of Knowledge” 1945

Ideally, we do not let our perception of gender interfere, consciously or unconsciously, with our interpretation of the quality of another individual’s work (i.e., ad hominem attacks). Problems include (1) overcoming our initial reaction to categorize individuals in broadly defined stereotypes associated with historical (out-dated) gender roles and (2) appealing to any fallacies supporting the maintenance of out-dated gender roles.

Ask me to describe myself, and I will describe my aesthetics: biology, foreign languages, philosophy, post-modernism, and critical theory. Ask a stranger to describe me, and “female” is a socially acceptable general category.¹ From this category, one may already make many assumptions of who I am and the quality of my work; however, the social category of “woman” is not one with which I would immediately self-identify, though I reside in this category when I check boxes on documents, select a gender pronoun, or use the restroom. Restrooms in the work place are usually segregated into binary divisions of men and women, and there’s a historical (subjectively out-dated) reason for it.

Regular readers of the blog may know that I feel strongly about the importance of skilled leadership in a lab. I believe scientists need to be taught the so-called “soft skills” that are required to be a good leader.

Last year, I recruited a team of dedicated, like-minded graduate students, and we created a class to teach ourselves what we wanted to know–what is the best way to run a lab? As we learned over the course of that semester, effective leadership is not second nature to most scientists, nor is it a mystery of the universe. There are some “best practices” for how to lead and manage that are well-known outside the academic culture, and they should be taught formally as part of a scientist’s graduate curriculum.

For this coming fall, our training program is growing into a series of talks that we’re calling Science Leadership and Management, or SLAM for short. (Allow me to pause here and give a standing ovation to John Haberstroh for his marketing genius. Who doesn’t love a good acronym?) We are preparing a stellar lineup of guest lecturers from a variety of science career paths to speak on subjects like motivating students, building effective teams, delivering feedback, and more. Our vision is that this type of training will someday be developed on a national level, to be applied at any university for any scientific discipline.

If this sounds like a good idea to you, there is something you can do right now to support SLAM. Go here to vote for our entry in the 2013 NSF Graduate Education Challenge. Teresa Lee (beloved BSR author) and I wrote an essay about SLAM for this contest, which you can read below. I’ve also included our answers to a brief questionnaire that accompanied our submission. Please vote now, and ask your friends to do the same!

Note: Registration is required to vote. After you’ve voted for us, take a look at the other entries. There are a lot of great ideas there, and I guarantee you will come away with a bit more hope for the future of science.