4th European Feminist Research Conference

 

 

Workshop n.4.

The search for new paradigms and epistemiological models: gender and science.

 

 

A ROOM FOR WOMEN IN SCIENCE?

Flavia Zucco, Senior Researcher

Biomedical Technologies Institute, National Research Council, Rome,Italy.

"Women of Science" Italian Network.

 

 

Abstract

 

A recent awareness of exclusion/restriction of women in science, has prompted specific investigations and  positive actions in universities and research institutions. The male establishment will be threatened by these initiatives and the world of science is due to change.

 

However the conceptual framework, which underlies the contemporary scientific endeavour, will not be touched, unless  women enter the scientific world  by addressing general questions on the role of science  as the main source of power and business.

 

The social context is a fovourable one,  many problems being rised by the ethical implication of the scientific outcomes. The extreme specialization of disciplines asks for a more holistic and interdisciplinary approach. The increasing gap between the humanistic studies and the techonological ones is seen as an impoverishment of the overall culture.

 

Women scientists have shown to be more aware of these aspects, also in their professional choices, and for that have been, up to now, penalized.

Thus the challenge is to remove obstacles by remaining uncontaminated from the dominating context,  and by promoting inner changes in the statutes of  the sciences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Women in science: an issue for feminists?

 

            Science was certainly not at the core of the feminist issues in the years '70-'80. Only in the next decade, the discrimination and exclusion, already recorded in other areas of history and lives of women, was acknowledged in science, which was in turn denounced for being not neutral also from the gender point of view.

The decade just ended has seen several efforts in demonstrating "objectively" the discrimination of women in science, through historical studies (Schiebinger), through statistical analysis on the presence of women in the scientific institutions and through specialized investigation on the mechanisms of selection and access  to the scientific careers (ETAN Report, MIT Report, Wenneras and Would paper, just to mention the most recent and popular ones).

Several positive actions have by now been included in national and international laws to cope with the problem of women discrimination, and accompanying measures are in place to help them enter and proceed in scientific careers. Concerning the  world of science, I agree with Londa Schiebinger that feminism, more than an increased presence of women  has played  a big role in  these improvements, and probably will have even a wider impact on them.

By contrast, women in science (except for social sciences and humanities) have been, until very recently, reluctant in joining feminist criticism to a gender biased science. The concept of neutrality is so deeply rooted in the scientific cultural formation, as well as in resesarch work, that it is admittedly  very difficult to escape from it. Moreover the research work milieu is so structured (and even more liberal, with respect to others) that it is difficult to become aware of the subtle gender bias continuously present.    

The situation is still far from being improved, expecially if we are looking for women in power and decision-making places, in scientific institutions, boards, etc. The scientific trends are still decided by the male establishment, which has set up, in time, specific mechanism of exclusive control of this crucial area for the future of mankind.

Where are thus the real problems?

The feminism of equal opportunities has often been heavily criticized by the most radical representatives of the movement, on the basis of its inadequacy to deal with the core of the scientific enterprise.

I see now that these feminists, which refused science as such (in the case of ecofeminists), by claiming the primacy of nature over technology, or (in the case of the most radical feminists) by  supporting the idea of an alternative method of knowledge, came closer to the problem as it appears nowadays. Both of these positions were actually refusing a strategy for the inclusion of women in the scientific world as it is. 

Even if it is difficult for many of us, women scientist, to agree on a radical refusal of science and the scientific method, in the name of a special feeling with the ecosystem or of a feminine method (the often cited B. McClintock "empathy" with the object of study), we have to admit that indeed the problem relies in science itself, as it has been built up in the last century by the male-dominated social and political context. F. Jacob, a 1965 Nobel prize for medicine, has well addressed the point:" the XVII century has been so cleaver as to envisage reason as a necessary tool to cope with the human things. The Enlightment and the XIX century were so foolish as to believe that it was not just necessary but even sufficient to solve any problem"

 

 

2. The (post)modern science.

 

            The contemporary science has undergone, in the century just over,  a major revolution which can be summarized in three aspects:

 

a. The "splendid isolation" of natural sciences.

The increased gap between natural sciences and humanities has been repeatedly pointed out, since two years, in scientific magazines. A classical text by C.P. Snow dated 1959, "Two cultures and the Scientific Revolution", is always quoted as reference, even if the quotations often go far from the real content of Snow's book.

The reasons for the revival of this issue is  that many of the problems of our contemporary society, (which can be summarized in a cultural unadequacy to cope with the technological progress) are ascribed to the isolation of the natural sciences (the science) from humane sciences (the humanities), and to the lack of communication between the two worlds.

This missing link has allowed science to become a tool for social discrimination, to reach an undiscussed authority in private and public matters, being of reference for laws, but also for moral and ethical choices. In all the advanced countries, (except those where religion and church, like in Italy, exercise an overwhelming power on the State) science has become an absolute authority: it is not considered one of the ways to approach the reality, but the way above all.

An example of the totalitarian power of science and its inner and external structures is the influence of a reductionist approach and of  extreme specialisation found in other non-closely related areas of the human thought: even bioethic is structured in order to be absolutely objective, rational and quantifiable. In the opinion  of lay people, the reductionist approach in humanities, even if very effective from the methodological point of view, may appear very inadequate, as well as  extreme specialization may be seen more as a source of authority than of reliable knowledge.

We should not forget that  the communication between the two different ways of representing the world and reality, implies the relationships between objectivity and subjectivity, between rationality and emotions, between the inner and external world of the individuals. The gap between the two cultures has, thus, deep implications ranging from the formal construction of the different disciplines, to their conceptual representation both in the  cultural framework of a society, and in  the individual experience of life. The lack of communication between science and society is well illustrated by the progressive loss of metaphors able to represent scientific discoveries to lay people, the lack of a unifying symbolic thought.

Indeed, the debate  on the gap  focusses  on several points at the core of the fight between ortodox scientists and those belonging to the so-called "post-modernist school" (social constructivism). The former are even blaming the latter for having encouraged, by their theories,  the "flight from reason",  and the "new age" culture.

Without entering the complexity of this debate, the characteristics of the transformations undergone by the scientific world, the knowledge itself, its relationships with the society, are evident to all of us. It is also evident that these transformations, and not their sociological or philosophical analysis, are at the roots of the widspread aversion toward science, recorded within the society at large.

 

b. Science as technology.

Technology was born long before  science in the culture of humans, who were empirically trying to solve problems. Then science advent has given  the most powerful method of knowing nature, and its laws. However, contemporary science is not practising so much abstraction in order to formulate theories to be verified (or better falsified, according to Popper) by the objective outcomes of experimental activities. In fact science is not so much any more originated by immagination and creativity (the common link with art and other humanities). Scientists are not supposed to produce knowledge as such, but to solve specific problem of practical nature. Several statements, from the above mentioned debate may well illustrate the point. "Scientists wish to say that because experiments enable predictivity, then predictivity justifies experiments." On this respect the genome project is a classical prototype, and the  questions, problems and blame about it are very representative of the characteristics of this new type of research. "The effect of concept-driven revolution is to explain old things in a new way. The effect of tool-driven revolution is to discover new things that have to be explained." A concern has been also rised by a sort of proletarization of the scientific work, with purely executive duties for scientists, which has been produced by this new shape of the scientific world.

Actual science rises in fact more problems, than  it find solutions or explanations to long-lasting question, as it is well meant by  B. Latour claiming that "science is dead: long life to research".

Let me end these quotations by referring to the  K. Kelly  description of  the actual science as a third culture, where the search of the "novelty has taken the place of the search of the "truth", where creation is at the place of the creativity, where the  search for new tools goes faster than the elaboration of new theories. The question is thus: if the culture of technology should dominate our era, how do we pay attention to science?".

 

c. Science as a public institution.

Science nowadays is asked to answer social and economic questions.

This is due to the fact that science, in the last two centuries, became a fundamental institution of the contemporary societies, financed by public money, thus in need to be democratically handled: that means that goals should be stated, decision procedures should be transparent and commonly agreed, money should be located according to priorities and so on.

It is difficult to say if this drastic change is the cause of the technological drift in science or if it is technology itself that has rised much expectation in the society.   Moreover, in a time of global thinking, the social outcome of science is mainly meant in economical terms. Companies are investing more and more in innovative research, to secure profits, treatening, by their policy, the  research freedom  in terms of its planning and access to its results. This prevalent trend speeds up the innovation of  technological tools, giving less relevance to other social outputs or "humanistic" tools which can be relevant as well for the welfare of all. 

Whatever it is the case, the results is that science at the very moment of its highest autority, is at risk of losing its "freedom" or, in other words,  the capability of producing knowledge, according to its classical epistemological statute.

 

 

3. Closing the gap between science and society.

           

            According to the previously mentioned  aspects, we are facing a dramatic change in the structure of knowledge, which may have serious implications for the future and the society at large.

It is thus not surprising if, as a first trial, solutions are suggested in order to reduce the gap or to increase the cross contamination between the two cultures (the latter  is close to the suggestion of C.P.Snow of having "humanists" able to discuss of science and viceversa).

These suggestions concern either the society or the world of science itself: in the first instance, by improving scientific education, starting  from  the primary school; by correctly and exhaustively informing the public; by involving  the society at large in the scientific enterprise, including ex ante and post hoc evaluation of research projects.

In the second instance, by forming more ethically responsible scientists (the scientifc oath); in paying attention to other neglected areas of knowledge (the NIH centre on alternative medicine); in dealing with problems relevant to the third world situation (the recent study on the malaria vaccine), in opening science to minorities, (as e.g. women).

Last, but not least,  I would like to mention areas of research, where the cross-talk between natural sciences and their closer "humanistic" counterparts are already gaining ground and are expected to produce interesting innovative approaches. 

Molecular/behavioral genetics, evolutionary biology (sociobiology), environmental sciences (human ecology) are exemples of moving the boundaries. But, most of all, a general theory of knowledge is searched  in cognitive neurosciences.

"The unity of knowledge: the convergence of natural and human sciences" is,  indeed, the title of a conference organised by the N.Y. Academy of Sciences at the end of June, aimed at "debating on the possibility of having a coherent conception that encompasses the natural and human sciences, and on the implications of new discoveries in genetics, neuro- and behavioral sciences about mind, behavior, culture and values".

Again men-scientists are looking for a unifying conceptualization, by the idea that the neurosciences are depositary of the answer.  The Universe was the very same area of interest for Copernicus and Newton:  but their  respective scientific revolution derived from the novelty of their resasoning about it. Neurosciences are indeed a very attractive and intriguing area of research, but if it is not approached in a completely new and orginal way, it will probably not produce more than a preparadigmatic science, according to T. Khun definition.

 

 

4. The room for women is science.

 

            It is impressive that, in these assays, debates, initiatives the very source of this kind of science criticism, the women culture and feminist issues, are never aknowledged. The scientific community seems suddenly inspired by some "platonic idea".

All the  analyses on the contemporary science, now  officially recorded in assays, books and whatsoever, are reflecting nothing more than what women have kept saying in  the last 25 years!  

All the previous suggestions for remedies to the gap, can be esily agreed upon, especially by women, who can recognize in several of these proposals  the echos of long-lasting feminist fights. Some of these passwords have been already translated, in some countries, in specifc policies.

All of them entail for sure an amelioration of the system at least for a better integration of science within the society at large. Moreover if, at the best, they will be in place all at once, a change in science will be recorded, even a remarkable one.

However no one of them will thouch the core of the problem. I would like to address again the Kelly's question, previously mentioned: "if the culture of technology should dominate our era, how do we pay attention to science?".

Indeed, if that is the problem, the point is not to find a room for women in science, but the room for women should be science.

Often, in the previously mentioned debate, many voices have claimed the desperate need for a new generation of  scientists with a broad vision of the world, with minds capable of crossing disciplinary boundaries with originality and freedom, which would well fit with the nomadism theory. Intuition, imagination, inventiveness, and not just rationality are at the basis of research and discovery. Complexity needs innovative approaches, which reductionism can't solve, by definition!

At least once, in our history we can be the fertilizer (and I like to use this word) of this neglected land which is science: it is well known that non-traditional contributions (either speaking of populations, sciences, arts, cultures) has often rised new strenght and possibilites of development. Women entering science, as participants less contaminated by the dominating culture, may well address questions in a different ways, may well look at the external world with different eyes, invent and discover new ways of conceptualization of what is already known. Of course, in order to play this role, we have to enter science  "en masse" avoiding homologation to the most current rules, we have to enter science by bringing in it the freshness of our thought, the richness of our life experience, the value of our sense of responsibility.

Most of all, we have to be as passionate and creative as we are in our daily life: we have to learn how its is possible to fell in love also with  molecules or ancient drawings, we should be able to play with theories and spend time with them. We have to make again science an art!

Unfortunately this is not the message that is presently going to the younger generation of women, and their answer is the refusal of sciences and hard technologies, which could be well a choice, provided it is!

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Adelman R.C. (1998) A view from the other side, Science vol.279, 819.

 

Anonymous (1997) Subjectivity, objectivity and the insights they bring, Nature vol.389, 213.

 

Anonymous (1999) Cultural divides, forty years on, Nature vol.398, 91.

 

Banville J. (1998) Beauty, charm, and strangeness: science as metaphor. Science vol.281, 40-41.

 

European Commission (2000) Science Policies in the European Union.

Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality, European Commission, Research Directorate-General.

 

Kelly K. (1998) The third culture. Science, vol. 279, 992-993.

 

Hobsbawm E.J. (1994)  Age of extremes-The short twentieth century 1914-1991, Pantheon Books, Random House Inc.

 

Latour B. (1998) From the world of science to the world of research?, Science vol. 280, 10 April.

 

Mazlish B. (2000) Before the great binary divide, Nature vol.404, 434-435.

 

MIT (1999) A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT,

Massachussets Institute of Technology.

 

Rescher N. (1999) A call for unification, Nature vol.399, 320-321.

 

Rotblat J. (1999) A hippocratic oath for scientists, Science 286, 1475.

 

Schiebinger L. (1989)  The mind has no sex? Women in the origin of the modern science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London.

 

Schiebinger L. (1999)  Has feminism changed science? Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London.

 

Seltz F. (2000) Decline of the generalist. the vigour of every discipline depends on people of broad vision. Nature vol 403, 483.

 

Snow C.P. (1959) Two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

 

Stokstad E.(2000) Stephen Strauss's impossible job: alternative medicine, Science vol.288, 1568-1570.

 

Tachibana T. (1998) Closing the knowledge gap between scientists and nonscientists, Science vol.281, 778-779.

 

Wenneras C. and Wold A. (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer review, Nature vol. 347, 341-343.

 

Ziman J. (1998) Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science vol.282, 1813-1814.

 

Ziman J. (1996) Is science losing its objectivity? Nature vol. 382, 751-754.

 

Zucco F. (1998) Life sciences, women and technology. In: Atti del III Congresso internazionale "Donne, scienze, biotecnologie: quale avvenire per il Mediterraneo?" Forum internazionale delle donne del Mediterraneo-Reseau Unesco, Torino 29-31 gennaio 1999.