*The science meritocracy myth devalues women* FERNANDA STANISCUASKI <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#con> Authors Info & Affiliations <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#tab-contributors>
*SCIENCE *30 Mar 2023 Vol 379, Issue 6639 p. 1308 As Women’s History Month comes to a close, we shouldn’t overlook the women who contribute so much to science and yet continue to be devalued, ignored, and discouraged from pursuing an academic career. Women researchers are cited less often than men (*1* <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#core-R1>) and are substantially less likely than men to be credited with authorship within research teams (*2* <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#core-R2>). A variety of factors contribute to gender disparity in science, including harassment (*3* <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#core-R3>), conscious and unconscious gender bias (*4* <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#core-R4>), and motherhood (*5* <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#core-R5>). One often-overlooked obstacle is the myth of meritocracy (*6* <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#core-R6>), a set of assumptions that obscures the challenges faced by women and other underrepresented groups. The idea that academic success is solely based on individual merit and hard work is deeply ingrained in scientific and academic systems. The meritocracy myth presumes that those who rise to tenured and leadership positions are more capable or prioritize research more highly than those who do not. However, systemic barriers, including biases and discrimination, often prevent women from advancing in their careers regardless of their skills or commitment (*7* <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#core-R7> ). To dismantle the meritocracy myth, institutions must acknowledge that hiring and promotion decisions are subject to explicit and implicit biases as well as expectations that discriminate against certain groups (*8* <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#core-R8>). For example, individuals may unconsciously favor candidates who fit stereotypical ideas of what a successful academic should look like. In addition, expectations that scientists will work long hours are more difficult to meet for those who bear the brunt of caregiving responsibilities at home—most often women (*9* <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#core-R9> ). To increase women’s participation in science, academia must work toward equitable career advancement opportunities. Metrics of success should include mentorship, community engagement, and social impact (*10* <https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adh3071?et_rid=776236892&utm_campaign=SCIeToc&af=R&et_cid=4656157&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_source=sfmc#core-R10>) as well as traditional measures such as number of publications and citations. Measuring success should also involve a holistic approach that considers the individual’s experiences and recognizes the barriers and challenges they may have faced. A true meritocracy would value individuals for their skills and work ethic without penalizing them for their background, identity, or personal obligations. We can’t let misguided assumptions make the pursuit of science untenable for the next Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, or Gladys West. KR IRS 31323 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorWHHmLCCiJ30N%2Bq%2BkVMSS-KtHKLS9Z89cnMC%3Dtyri6ZQ%40mail.gmail.com.
