Late 2006 saw the release of what has come to be a very influential report from the National Academies in Washington DC. The report – Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering – was researched and written by the aptly named Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. This was an illustrious bunch, consisting of 17 women and 1 man from the cream of the scientific establishment. The committee was chaired by former Secretary of Health and Human Services (as close as you’ll get in the US to a Minister for Health) and now president of the University of Miami, Donna Shalala.

As Shalala wrote in the Preface of the report, the committee was charged with the following tasks:

• To review and assess the research on gender issues in science and engineering, including innate differences in cognition, implicit bias, and faculty diversity.

• To examine institutional culture and the practices in academic institutions that contribute to and discourage talented individuals from realizing their full potential as scientists and engineers.

• To determine effective practices to ensure that women who receive their doctorates in science and engineering have access to a wide array of career opportunities in the academy and in other research settings.

• To determine effective practices for recruiting women scientists and engineers to faculty positions and retaining them in these positions.

• To develop findings and provide recommendations based on these data and other information to guide faculty, deans, department chairs, and other university leaders; scientific and professional societies; funding organizations; and government agencies in maximizing the potential of women in science and engineering careers.

The report was issued at a press conference in September 2006, and a press release listed the following broad range of recommendations made by the committee:

“Trustees, university presidents, and provosts should provide clear leadership in changing the culture and structure of their institutions to recruit, retain, and promote more women — including minority women — into faculty and leadership positions. Specifically, university executives should require academic departments to show evidence of having conducted fair, broad, and aggressive talent searches before officials approve appointments. And departments should be held accountable for the equity of their search processes and outcomes, even if that means canceling a search or withholding a faculty position. The report also urges higher education organizations to consider forming a collaborative, self-monitoring body that would recommend standards for faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion; collect data; and track compliance across institutions.

University leaders, the report adds, should develop and implement hiring, tenure, and promotion policies that take into account the flexibility that faculty members may need as they pass through various life stages — and that do not sacrifice quality to meet rigid timelines. Administrators, for example, should visibly and vigorously support campus programs that help faculty members who have children or other caregiving duties to maintain productive careers. At a minimum, the programs should include provisions for paid parental leave, facilities and subsidies for on-site and community-based child care, and more time to work on dissertations and obtain tenure."

Without many more details, it’s hard to disagree with the spirit of these recommendations.

However, the devil – as usual – is in the details, and a lengthy article in the March/April 2008 edition of The American (a project of the American Enterprise Institute) explains why.

If you’ve got time, it’s definitely worth a read, as the potential implications are profound.