U.S. Women in Science and Engineering, 1960–1990

In 1960 entered kindergarten in a public school in suburban Massachusetts. Twenty-seven years later, left school with a Ph.D. in molecular biology. By 1990, the final year of this study, had decided to end my career a research scientist. The thirty-year period that is the subject of this article brackets the period of my own education a scientist. This article is partly an effort to understand that experience. Introduction start with a pair of strong but conflicting impressions. On the one hand, seems clear that and girls with an interest in science are better off in the United States today than they were thirty years ago. They are certainly more visible: today textbooks, magazine articles, and advertisements frequently show engaged in scientific pursuits, and most parents and teachers seem eager to encourage girls in these pursuits well. The validity of these efforts is accepted a matter of course. Today few people would accept Bruno Bettelheim's mid-sixties assertion that the underrepresentation of in science and engineering is a reflection of the natural order, that as much may want to be good scientists or engineers, we must remember that they want first and foremost to be womanly companions of men and to be mothers [6, p. 15]. On the other hand, see the career trajectories of the five men and five in my own graduate research group. It is the men, some of whom prospered in graduate school and some who did not, who have moved steadily forward in their careers research scientists. Most of the men are now junior faculty members at respected research institutions. But three of the have left research altogether, while the other two languish in postdoctoral positions, apparently unable to settle on a next step. Each of us has an explanation for where we are and for what we have done, and each of our stories makes sense; but am struck by the extent to which we have managed to reproduce the old pattern. do not believe that ours are isolated cases. In a May 1992 article in the New York Times, announcing the newly elected members of the National Academy of Sciences, reporter Natalie Angier noted: Though have been swelling the entry and middle ranks of science since the 1960s, the percentage of elected to the high-profile academy has hardly budged for the last 20 years, averaging 5 to 10 percent of the total. Even more discouraging: At an organization like Howard Hughes [Medical Institute], which provides exceptionally generous grants to relatively young biomedical researchers who are considered the brightest stars of their generation, are no better represented than they are in the academy; . . . only 22 of 223 are women [2, p. 24]. We of the baby-boom generation have been accused of a certain arrogance. Idealistic in our youth, we assume that the purity of our youthful intentions has automatically carried over into our adult lives. Also, members of an enormous demographic group, we expect that our influence will be felt and that our views will prevail. Consequently, many scientists and engineers among us assume that our generation's heightened concern with gender equality has all but erased the remnants of opinions such Bettelheim's from our profession. Equity, if not already here, is certainly right around the corner. I don't understand it, one baffled member of the Academy upon being informed of the persistently small percentage of women, it seems strange that there would still he so few women [2, p. 24]. The last trickles of the baby-boom generation are presently moving into the postdoctoral job market. Now is an excellent time to assess the swath our generation has cut through the science and engineering professions. What exactly is the current status of women? Does differ from the past? What are the prospects for the future? In short, how do image and reality compare? Statistics There is no question that the number of in science and engineering(1) has increased over the last three decades. …