neurotaylor

The Royal Society: promoting women in science (more data)

Today I’m off to hear Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, give the Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture. It should be fascinating.

However, as I probably won’t get to ask about women in science, and the Society’s campaign to promote women scientists (see also Wired on the topic), I’ve decided to post some relevant data here.

Below are three graphs

The first graph (left) shows the number of men (blue) and women (red) elected every year from when women were first allowed to join. As you see, the numbers of male Fellows grew rapidly after the Second World War, and then steadied. The number of female Fellows, after some early years’ tokenism, began to grow only much later, in the 1990s.

HOWEVER

These raw numbers don’t take into account the fact that the Royal Society nearly tripled in size between 1945 and 2010. This isn’t just because of more people being elected, it’s also because they have been living longer, as membership is granted for life.

So, the middle graph shows the numbers of men and women as a proportion of the overall number of Fellows in the Society, grouped by decade to show a clearer picture. It confirms that the proportion of men has been dropping most noticeably since the 1990s, as more women have been elected. After an initial surge, not much happened for the ladies during the 60s, 70s and 80s. Since then, though, things have been improving.

HOWEVER

To show the trends clearly, the middle graph has two different scales on its vertical axes. This allows easy comparison of how gender proportions are changing, but it hides the real magnitude of the gender difference. So the third graph (right) plots the proportions on identical scales. Yes, that red line crawling wearily along the bottom is for females.

TO CONCLUDE …

Between 1945 and 2010, 2512 men (about 95%) and 129 women (about 5%) have been elected.

Between 2010 and 2010, though, 451 men (about 90%) and 50 women (about 10%) have been elected.

So if you’re keen on working towards a less unequal gender balance at the top levels of science, this particular leading organisation appears to be heading in the right direction. But there’s still a VERY long way to go.

The Royal Society: promoting women in science

Today the Royal Society is doing a Wikipedia edit-a-thon about women in science, as part of its campaign to promote women scientists (see also Wired on the topic).

Below is a graph indicating why they need promoting, especially at the highest levels. The image shows the sex ratio of Royal Society Fellows by year, since women were first allowed to join in 1945 — only a few decades after they gained the vote, and access to universities.

Note how, after an initial splurge, the rate of women joining flattened out until very recently. Note also that the number of Fellows has risen considerably since the Second World War, and most of the new additions have therefore been men.

Note also that, as of 2010, the sex ratio is still under 6%. If there were equal numbers of men and women, it would be at 50%.

At current growth rates, we can calculate that those looking for gender parity at the highest level of UK science will have to wait until the late 2080s.

The Royal Society can console itself, however: at least it’s doing better than the Nobel Prizes. Comparable figures? As of 2010:

Physiology/medicine: 5.1 %

Chemistry: 2.5%

Physics: 1.1%

How about a big-value science prize or prizes for women only? To be christened the Nobelles, of course! That might change the gender bias of science faster than any amount of Wikipedia editing.