Apartheid in Science and Technology?

"In essence, I believe that exclusion of women from traditionally

male enclaves is symptomatic of a greater problem, that is, confronting the very

infrastructure that deliberately intends to exclude women by creating and

implementing policy to do so." -Manjusree Sen, writer and poet,

Cambridge, USA

- January 2005, Dr Lawrence H Summers, president of Harvard University

suggested that one factor in women's lagging progress in science and

mathematics might be innate differences between the sexes. Simply put, Dr

Summers was saying women are biologically inferior and don't have the brains

to do math, science, engineering or technology and as a result can't

contribute to "real science"! Interestingly, exactly a century ago,

the then president of Harvard University, Charles W Eliot, refused to even admit

women because he felt they would waste the valuable resources of the university.

Looks like in the last 100 years, only little has changed except women are now

admitted into Harvard. Maybe Harvard presidents suffer from a 100-year itch.

Deepa Kandaswamy For a woman, especially in Indian society, incomes are still considered “additional”, careers secondary and their roles as mothers and wives “primary” leaving them ridden with guilt and anxiety

It is definitely not due to an inferior brain as Dr Summers suggested, as the

human brain doesn't discriminate between genders; pity, he doesn't know his

high school biology. The human brain is not just any muscle tissue and brain

cells have a unique anatomical structure. Learning causes brain cells to form

new connections with each other; the more axonal and dendrite connections

between neurons, the more synaptic transmissions and the better the thinking

process, irrespective of gender. There is extensive research on this topic

collecting dust in various universities, research foundations and institutions.

Though Dr Summers has apologized since, after a signature campaign by several

people in science and business including women Nobel laureates, the

question remains-why are there comparatively fewer women in science,

technology and business?

According to a UNESCO study, girls consistently match or surpass boys'

achievements in science and mathematics in schools across the world. This doesn't

explain why in later life, there aren't many women achievers in the fields of

science and technology. According to Manjusree Sen, writer and poet, Cambridge,

USA, "In essence, I believe that exclusion of women from traditionally male

enclaves is symptomatic of a greater problem, that is, confronting the very

infrastructure that deliberately intends to exclude women by creating and

implementing policy to do so."

So is there apartheid in science and technology? It appears to be so. Take

for example, Rosalind Elsie Franklin, the British gene hunter whose contribution

was finally recognized in 2003, during the 50th anniversary of the DNA

discovery.

James Watson and Francis Crick of the double helical structure of the DNA

molecule were awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology in 1962. Well, that's

what most biology books teach. The real story is somewhat different.

In fact, three scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize: James Watson, Francis

Crick and Maurice Wilkins. But one essential contributor to this discovery that

would revolutionize biology was forgotten, not only because of a premature death

but because this contributor was a woman: Rosalind Elsie Franklin.

Early in 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick had been working for many years

on the structure of the DNA molecules. They were near the solution, but still

lacking the information that would solve the puzzle. At that time many

scientists were working on the same topic, and the competition was fierce. Linus

Pauling, who would twice be awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and Peace, was

one of them. Alarmed by a paper presented by Linus Pauling on the structure of

the DNA, Watson went to King's College to meet with his collaborator Maurice

Wilkins. In Randall's lab, Watson couldn't find Wilkins but bumped into

Rosalind. It seems they too had an argument (according to Anna Piper, a friend

and colleague of Rosalind). Wilkins finally arrived and took Watson aside in his

office, where he showed him X-ray pictures taken by Rosalind. This gesture of

good faith, done without Rosalind's knowledge, triggered Watson's immediate

understanding of the secret of the structure of the DNA molecules. On April 25,

1953, Watson JD and Crick FHC published the structure of the DNA in Nature

171:737-738. Rosalind's work was also published in the same issue, on page

740.

She kept working on the structure of DNA and on the Tobacco Mosaic Virus and

published several articles and papers when working at Birkbeck College. She fell

ill and died of ovarian cancer at age 37 in 1958, four years before the Nobel

Prize was awarded to her competitors. Doctors say she contracted cancer because

of her work with X-rays with which she took the pictures. The X-ray she used to

discover the secret of life probably killed her.

We don't know how many other women suffered the same fate as Rosalind Elsie

Franklin but unlike her continue to remain invisible to this day. They have

often done the work, made the sacrifices, fought uphill all the way and still

been denied even a mention when it came to writing down the "important

stuff." Multiply that by the number of times the woman in question has been

effectively erased from the history and you have a worldwide history of

"women-bashing." How correcting a bit of that becomes

"male-bashing" or "screaming indiscrimination" is a mystery

to me.

By Choice Or Circumstance?



In India, many women graduate from engineering colleges, especially in the

south where there is a 45-50% graduation rate, but give up their promising

career midway depending on the field they are in. Most agree it is circumstance

and not by choice. The few who gave up voluntarily claim it is actually the lack

of available choices due to a rigid system. In terms of family, extreme work

hours seek to liberate men from their role as husbands and fathers and replace

it with a measly set of financial obligations. But for a woman, especially in

Indian society, the opposite is socially enforced as women's incomes are still

considered "additional", careers secondary and their roles as mothers

and wives "primary" leaving them ridden with guilt and anxiety.

Deepa Yuvaraj, a design engineer, HAL, says, "What I find most

unconducive to being a mother and a career woman is this lack of flexibility in

the science and technology domain which mainly fits into factories, PSUs, labs

or rigid government setups. Also, with the key career peaks matching the

beginning years of our children, this might contribute a great deal to fewer

women."

However, where their workplace is flexible, the career women actually are

more in number. According to Dr Sarika Kulkarni, founder-director, Suyash

Software says, "The BPO sector is completely dominated by women and

especially the one I come from (transcription), they continue even after they

have a baby. Many of them work from home as this facility is available to them.

There are almost 60% women as against 40% men and they are doing a good job.

There is little attrition among them and they are by far more productive, and

hence, probably the BPO companies prefer them over men."

Another interesting trend in India is that the sciences, especially medicine,

is considered a more "feminine" option than engineering. This social

perception that has developed over the years can be attributed to the same

mindset of Dr Summers. Do you remember the conversation from the movie "The

Matrix", where Neo meets Trinity for the first time? It goes as follows:

"Trinity: My name is Trinity.

Neo: Trinity. The Trinity? The one that cracked the IRS d-base?

Trinity: That was a long time ago.

Neo: Jesus.

Trinity: What?

Neo: I just thought, um...you were a guy.

Trinity: Most guys do."

It is foolish for any society to ignore the potential of half the population in the name of gender divide or by succumbing to “outdated” notions of identity and culture

This scene brings out the existing prejudice, sexism and myth of being a

woman in engineering or technology. It is assumed if you are an achiever, you

got to be male!

Some women gatekeepers of this status quo disagree. Their argument is that

engineering and technologies are "cowboy" professions and that

women will have to blend in with the men (in other words become invisible or be

"one of the guys") and not conquer them if they wish to stay in the

profession. This might sound sensible and practical at first but one needs to

ask, "Is this fair? Shouldn't we be concentrating on how to make this

"invisible" work visible and valued?  Isn't this perpetuating

the apartheid and the stereotype?" Others argue that it is important for

women to be more "male" than men to get anywhere in these

"male" professions. Women and men who advocate this argument are

living in denial about sexism and discrimination of the current models in the

work place that need to change. There are always exceptions to this situation

but exceptions don't form the majority.

Way Forward



So is there an answer? Considering that computers and technology are here to

stay and are fundamental to development of any country, especially a developing

country like India, it is foolish for any society to ignore the potential of

half the population in the name of gender divide or by succumbing to

"outdated" notions of identity and culture.

As a society, we can choose to be reactive or proactive. While we can

complain about Dr Summers and their Indian counterparts, it won't change a

thing except get fleeting attention and things will go on as usual. If we choose

to be proactive, then we need to examine the current models at the workplace and

family and change them.

How do we do it?



"By easing seniority requirements, by spreading FLEXTIME, by opening

part-time opportunities, we not only humanize production, we adapt it to the

needs of a multistyle family system." Alvin Toffler in the "The Third

Wave"

This requires the combined and conscious effort of all-the management,

employees and the government.

If we think we can go on as before, we are thinking in the short term. If our

goal is to be a developed country, then we need to device strategies,

incorporate changes so we can retain the talented, educated women who are

dropping out of careers but were promising researchers and scientists before

marriage.

This might sound fantastic, but can this be accomplished? It can be. How?

Read my next column.

The author is a writer and engineer based in Trichy, TN, whose articles

have been published in six continents. She is also the founder-moderator of the

IndianWISE e-group