Title IX is better known in the U.S for preventing discrimination in education, particularly when it comes to mandating equal funding for men’s and women’s school sports teams. If federal funding for research depended on a similar assessment, wouldn’t it do more harm than good to punish departments or universities if they don’t recruit enough women to science?

The NYT article also delves into some interesting studies of why women tend to prefer non-science careers in the first place. Many things have been written about the need for more childcare support or the need to encourage more young girls to pursue scientific careers. Yet as this article points out, there are still significantly fewer women in science in parts of Europe where healthcare, daycare, and maternity leave for women are quite generous (certainly far better than in the U.S.). The article also brings up the point that, rather than being discouraged from pursuing science careers, many successful female scientists have switched careers partway up the ladder after realizing that they were pushed into science without actually enjoying it. Perhaps, like sports, there are simply fewer women interested in science.

I was left pondering a couple of questions that I’d like to put out there…

1) Is the tendency for women to prefer people-oriented careers over science inherent or shaped by society? (Of course most things are a bit of both, but it’s my opinion that there must be a good deal of biology making social work or teaching more attractive to women. After all, isn’t it generally accepted that we are naturally better communicators and nurturers? Why wouldn’t women be more interested in careers that celebrate their innate abilities?)

2) Does anyone think “Title Nining” science is a good idea? Is it fair to punish research institutions if women just aren’t as interested in science as men are? Are there better ways of discouraging sexual discrimination, without discriminating against other successful scientists, both male and female?

I just wanted to let you know about a new blog to which I contribute. The Alternative Scientist focuses on scientific careers that don’t follow the traditional tenure track. There are multiple authors, and so far we have posts on non-tenure track academic positions; adjunct teaching; scientific administration; industry (biotech and big pharma, no less); advice on negotiating salaries; and my own posts on marketing and grant writing.

Comments and feedback welcome!

Ahead of the the forthcoming career fair in Sept, some of the panel of speakers lined up to speak there have agreed to answer any career-related questions you may have. You can post your questions in the forum and these experts will endeavour to provide answers.

The good news is most of these skills postdocs pick up anyway—or, at least can—whether from an advisor, colleagues, their own initiative or a combination of them all. The competencies the NPA lists include scientific knowledge, research skills, communication skills, professionalism, leadership & management and responsible research conduct. Let’s take a look at each one, one at a time this week, and discuss their importance and utility—and whether or not these should be formalized into postdoc training. Here’s the first:

Scientific knowledge
This one is a no-brainer—and requires little effort. Advisors tend to focus on this area, sometimes to the detriment of others. But fellows can perhaps negotiate for more, by ensuring that they go to a certain number of conferences during their fellowship, by hosting speakers through their local postdoc organizations and through their own initiative by starting, attending and participating in journal clubs. Postdocs, of course, should make sure their advisors allow them time for these activities, rather than requiring that they be chained to the bench.

Here are some tips on setting goals for conferences, making the most of these meetings, and getting staff—and yourself—up to scientific speed.

I have a Phd and am employed at a large pharma. My responsibilities include supporting various labs to use gene expression profiling (microarrays) methodology to address a variety of questions related to drug discovery. I have a strong background in molecular biology (mostly prokaryotic but some in mammalian) and gene expression profiling. I would like to switch over to cell pharmacology (in vitro). Is there any way to do it rather than going for another postdoc in cell pharmacology?

I appreciate all feedback and thanks in advance.

-M.M.

For many developing countries—from Nigeria to Mexico, and Indonesia to Chile—globalization is less obvious. One potentially disappointing, even damaging, trend in these nations is an increased prevalence of private universities — schools that are often unaccredited and that tend to favour more profitable business-administration classes over a basic-science curriculum. This was the thesis of Wayne Patterson, a presenter at the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting and a programme manager for developing countries at the US National Science Foundation. Patterson canvassed representatives from 19 developing countries and found that most shared his concerns, citing a lack of money, a shift in students’ careers away from science, and a continued loss of scientific talent to regions such as Europe and the United States.

Disturbing trend or innocuous case of supply and demand? Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts or personal experiences.

(adapted from this Naturejobs Prospects column)

I’m aware of several potential gaps in coverage. For example, adjuncts—a growing part of the US academic workforce—have substandard or no coverage (http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2007/070208/full/nj7128-678a.html). There may also be gaps between recent crops of fellows, whose retirement savings are being bolstered by these programs, and earlier crops, which haven’t had access to retirement programs during their training (www.nature.com/naturejobs/2005/050120/full/nj7023-336a.html). The NSF report also lacks details about childcare—another important benefit to postdocs and grad students (http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2005/050915/full/nj7057-446a.html).

I’d love to hear your reactions about the quality of your benefits in this forum. Are you satisfied with your benefits or are there major gaps? Have benefits increased or improved over the last decade? Please let us know.