Coffeetime Science: Scientists Who Study Scientists

Your career trajectory could be someone else’s thesis subject

Katja and I are meeting Narges at a local coffee shop – the institute coffee machine is broken again. There are many conspiracy theories going around about how the coffee shop owners must be sabotaging our machine to increase profits, as half the institute is also here. Narges sits down with our coffees and asks us about an event Katja and I went to the other day, the Radcliffe Institute symposium on Women in Biotech. “It was very good, and really interesting” Katja begins “Did you know that there are people out there who study our careers? Well, not ours as such, but the career trajectories of women in STEM fields, and how and why they are underrepresented and in fewer senior positions, for example?” Narges looks intrigued. “It was fascinating to see how things we perceive or experience personally are the subjects of the studies that some of the panelists presented” I chime in.

The symposium covered a range of topics, from analyzing and defining the problem to solution strategies. In particular, several discussions on inherent bias, women’s aspirations and organizational structures struck me as both interesting and insightful. Looking at inherent (societal) bias, one panelist presented her study showing that investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men recently published in PNAS. In this study, the same video pitch was presented to potential investors, narrated either by a male or female voice with pictures of ‘attractive’ or ‘unattractive’ men or women added. The results? Attractive men are most likely to get funded, followed by unattractive men, with women trailing behind, irrespective or their perceived attractiveness. Someone in the audience joked that ‘in order to get funded, female entrepreneurs should hire a Tom Brady to make the pitch for them’, which caused some chuckles in the room. These findings were juxtaposed by another study looking at how men and women define professional success, and whether they thought it attainable. Interestingly, the authors showed that compared to men, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable. “Well, that makes sense” Narges comments “I also know a lot of women for whom, ad the end of the day, a good work-life balance is the most important thing”. Katja and I nod in agreement.

“Another interesting discussion point was how the structure of a particular organization affects whether women are more or less likely to progress to leadership positions”

… I add. “One of the panelists presented her study analyzing more than two-thousand life scientists’ careers in biotech and university settings. She showed that network-like organizational structures (as seen in small, for-profit companies), as opposed to hierarchical settings (such as in universities), are more likely to aid women’s success”. Katja and I had discussed this after the symposium, this finding made sense to me, while it had surprised Katja. “I found the symposium very thought-provoking” I conclude. “We’ve all experienced the inherent bias highlighted by the first study in one way or another, but it’s important to also consider differences in our definitions of success, as well as the kind of organizational structures we might want to work in.” We’ve finished our coffees and returned to our respective organizations, thinking about what kind of organizational structure we are working in.

About me: My name is Christine, and I am currently working as a research specialist at the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts. After my undergraduate studies in Oxford, I moved to London for my PhD and first postdoc. After 7 years in this magnificent city, I was ready for an adventure and decided to go to Boston for 2 years for a second postdoc. As love and science made me swap rainy London for alternately deep-frozen or tropical Boston, 2 years turned into 5 (and counting), and I decided to deviate from the traditional academic trajectory to work as a staff scientist (the rather fancy title of my position is research specialist). Most days, I sit with post-docs and other staff scientists over lunch or coffee, and discussion topics range from the inane to career goals and options, our research, new techniques and technology and the like. I would like to share some of those topics with you in this blog. Want to join in? Grab yourself a cup of your favorite caffeinated beverage, read along, and leave comments. You can read my other blog posts here.