Inequities exposed in salary survey OPINION

Vol 465|24 June 2010
OPINION
Inequities exposed in salary survey
More than 10,500 industrial and academic scientists worldwide completed Nature’s salary
and satisfaction survey, published in this issue (see page 1104). Here, five career experts
comment on the results of the poll. Differences in benefits, mentoring and contentment
could have national and international ramifications, they conclude.
Kathleen Christensen
Director, Workplace, Work Force and
Working Families programme, Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation*
On every continent, in every country, where
adequate data exist, Nature finds that, 6–10
years after completing PhDs, women scientists
are paid less than men, and the gap widens over
time (see graph). Are women being stalled in
more junior positions, or advancing to senior
posts but just earning less than male peers?
Evidence exists for both scenarios.
In some cases, the gap is probably the result of
bald sexism: women, equally or better equipped
than male colleagues, are passed over for promotion. In other cases, it is likely to be a result
of the clash between childbearing and rearing
and the demands of the career-critical years. But
much of the earnings inequality is, I suspect, an
aggregate effect, over many years, of accumulating inequities in resources and respect.
Women scientists often start their careers with
slightly lower salaries, in more poorly equipped
labs, with fewer graduate students, and appointments to less-prestigious committees. Women
are less likely to win high-status prizes. They are
less likely, typically because of family reasons,
to go on the job market to jockey their salaries
higher. They are more likely to take leave for
childbearing (I would not call spending time
with one’s child a disadvantage, but it sometimes
plays out that way career-wise). Each factor
alone may not account for the salary shortfall,
but cumulatively they squarely position women
at the low end of the salary range.
And then there are the common incivilities that reflect subtle sexism. At scientific
meetings, women scientists not getting the
microphone to speak and, when they do, being
interrupted sooner than loquacious male colleagues. Or women being expected to be ‘office
wives’, organizing social events and running
lab administration. Although each such slight
may seem trivial, overall these micro inequities are corrosive to women’s careers. They can
impair job performance, damage self-esteem
1006
and prompt a literal or a figurative withdrawal
from the workplace. Their effects on salary
and advancement are real and detrimental.
Whatever the causes, lower salaries have
serious consequences. Women will enter old
age typically having accumulated fewer assets
to draw on. Where state pensions or retirement
plans don’t offset the shortfall, women will
feel the double whammy of lost earnings and
inadequate pensions.
As women, we have learned to pick our battles.
We are better at negotiating starting salaries or
campaigning for ways to pause the tenure clock.
But what do we do when the gestures, tones and
requests don’t even rise to the level of an issue,
much less a battle and, if we turn them into one,
we are branded with the career-killing B word?
Most women keep their mouths shut and pay
the price, as this survey confirms.
In the private sector, entire businesses teach
corporate managers about how unconscious
and hidden biases create brutally unfair playing fields. The National Science Foundation’s
ADVANCE programme and the Alfred P.
Sloan Awards for Faculty Career Flexibility have
attempted to ensure comparable culture changes
within the academic workplace. But much work
remains to be done to ensure that resources are
equalized and micro inequities eliminated, so
that the fields on which women and men play
are levelled and salaries are equitable.
*The views expressed are those of the author and not
the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
GLOBAL GENDER DISPARITY
Average salaries of men and women
diverge over time.
Salary in $US (thousands)
Sex scandal
90
Males
70
Females
50
30
≤2
years
3–5
years
6–10
years
11–15
years
≥16
years
Time after completion of PhD
© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Brain circulation
Mohamed H. A. Hassan
President, African Academy of
Sciences, Nairobi, Kenya
Pay them and they will stay. Keep them and it
will pay. Those are the two simple messages of
Nature’s survey.
Countries wherein the salaries of scientists
are rising rapidly — for example, Brazil, China
and India — are those where job satisfaction
is rising. These nations are also stemming the
brain drain and increasing their publications
in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Most importantly, these countries have made
enormous economic progress over the past
two decades, showing a correlation between
science, salaries and sustainable development.
The survey underlines several other issues.
First, scientists are not rich. But in countries
with strong and growing scientific capacity,
they are paid well. They are members of the
world’s ‘upper middle class’. Moreover, the
incomes of scientists do not fluctuate as widely
as in some other well-paid professions. Despite
the steep global economic downturn, salaries
for scientists in many countries have largely
held steady or even increased in some countries over the past year.
Second, as more countries pay their
scientists well, international collaboration is
likely to increase. In the past, scientists could
— and would — freely move to where their
work received the most respect and rewards.
As more countries give greater respect and
rewards, more scientists are likely to stay at
home yet still work with colleagues across
the globe. This is borne out by the increasing number of joint publications with authors
from multiple countries and the growing
number of international research projects
involving scientists from around the world.
Rising salaries in developing countries have
helped turn ‘brain drain’ into a homebound
‘brain circulation’.
Third, once salaries allow scientists to live
in reasonable comfort, other factors quickly
become important. Notably, a stimulating
OPINION
NATURE|Vol 465|24 June 2010
teaching and research environment and a
deeply rooted culture of science. Such factors
account for countries in which scientists are
well paid but relatively unproductive, and others
where salaries are modest by international
standards, yet productivity is high.
Money is not everything but it counts for a
lot. Some developing countries have learned
this lesson well, whereas others (particularly
those in sub-Saharan Africa) have not. Simply
put, in the world of global science, you must
pay to play.
Short-changed
Stacy L. Gelhaus
Chair, US National Postdoctoral
Association Board of Directors
The gender discrepancies in the workforce
that this survey shows are alarming. They echo
concerns voiced at the first National Summit
on Gender and the Postdoctorate, convened
by the US National Postdoctoral Association
(the board of which I chair) to discuss pipeline
breaks in the promotion of women. Women
represent approximately 50% of postdocs in
the life sciences, yet only 10% of the tenuretrack faculty members in the United States.
The large salary differences between men
and women are not surprising — previous
surveys have found the same. But the point in
time when this gap opens is notable. Across all
countries, salary diverges about 6–10 years after
acquiring a degree, perhaps after a postdoctoral
position or at the time of first promotion.
There is surely not a single reason. Previous
studies point to the biggest obstacle to women
obtaining a tenure-track position being children. As delegates at our summit discussed,
campaigning for or making use of familyfriendly policies, such as part-time or flexible working, is still frowned on; many think
that if you aren’t in the lab 80 hours a week
you can’t be successful. Some suggested poor
negotiating skills and a lack of confidence as
reasons why women are not as financially
successful. This survey also shows that the
‘two-body problem’ — partners finding jobs
near one another — is increasingly difficult in
Western nations.
Science must achieve gender equity to promote a diverse research enterprise. The obvious solution is to simply increase the salaries
of women in the scientific workforce. However,
the problems that have created this disparity
will remain. To solve them, we need more
information. Are women more likely to take a
lower-paying position to follow their partner?
What does the salary comparison look like if
females without families are compared with
all males in the West? We must find out what
exactly it will take to make women scientists
equal players once and for all.
Europe’s edge
Beate Scholz
Chair, European Science Foundation
Member Organisation Forum on
Research Careers 2007–10
century’ ahead. Meanwhile, European science
policy-makers must do their utmost to close
the gender gap. With an ageing population,
Europe can no longer afford to waste any kind
of brain potential.
Happy China
Cong Cao
Author of China’s Scientific Elite
What surprises me most is that Chinese
scientists seem to be more satisfied with their
The survey confirms that Europe has some work than their counterparts in Japan — my
work to do to pay women scientists fairly, and impressions from talking to working sciento pay all its scientists competitively.
tists in China had indicated their feelings to
That said, overall, researchers seem to be be more mixed.
contented people whose job satisfaction is
According to the Satisfaction Index, a combased on more than just salary levels. Social- posite including salary, benefits and worksecurity issues — such as health-care benefits, ing environment, Japan scores lowest of all
pension schemes, working hours, vacation time countries and has witnessed the smallest
and parental leave — score significantly lower improvement among the four Asian countries
as motivators than do scientific independence surveyed — China, India, Japan and South
and guidance by colleagues and supervisors.
Korea. Meanwhile, scientists in China, India
Northwestern Europe tops the league for over- and South Korea reported rapid improvement
all job satisfaction (top five: Denmark, the Neth- of job satisfaction.
erlands, Sweden, France and Switzerland). Asian
But Chinese academics are disappointed
countries lag behind, with Japan scoring lowest, with their earning power, given their advanced
just below China and India. Science policy- education. Their salaries are the lowest among
makers in Europe must preserve this slight Asian scientists, and indeed, among the sciencompetitive edge as the European Research tists surveyed. This is somewhat to be expected
Area is not competitive in terms of salary levels. because Chinese scientists have had difficulThe European Partnership for Researchers is a ties securing positions related to their trainstep in the right direction. This
ing with the recent enrolment
aims to allow greater mobilenlargement in higher educa“The biggest talents
ity through portable grants
tion and the increasing return
need a high degree
and pension schemes that
of Chinese scientists trained
of idealism to stay in
offer attractive employment
overseas. Such disaffection
and working conditions.
European academia.” could still cause brain-drain
Being a researcher in a pubproblems, though. With a
licly funded institution is not a way to get rich. Chinese degree being valued less in recruitYet scientists’ incomes are higher in North ment and promotion, many Chinese scienAmerica and Australasia than in Europe. The tists are going abroad to have their credentials
longer the work experience, the steeper the sal- ‘gilded’.
ary increase in North America. Europeans start
Chinese scientists are less worried about
on similar salaries to North Americans, but see benefits such as health care, maternity and
only slight increases in pay over time. Thus the paternity leave, and retirement plans, which
biggest talents need a high degree of idealism the pre-reform ‘iron rice bowl’ employment
to stay in European academia rather than to offered. This may imply either that they are too
change countries or sectors.
young and energetic to be concerned or that
The gender disaggregated statistics confirm job security really takes precedence. Without
the scandal of which we are all aware: all around stable employment, benefits are a pipe dream.
the world, women researchers earn significantly
Finally, I’m concerned to see the low level of
less than their male colleagues. These gaps are satisfaction with guidance received from supeparticularly alarming for leading industrial riors or co-workers, coupled with a higher level
nations such as Japan and Germany.
of satisfaction with degree of independence.
It remains to be seen whether, with rising These to me pinpoint the same problem: that
salary levels for researchers in China and India, mentoring is failing in China.
■
the same gender gap will open. Hopefully, more See Naturejobs, page 1104, and comment online at
balanced conditions will emerge in the ‘Asian go.nature.com/8Z6tnr.
© 2010 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
1007