Inequities exposed in salary survey OPINION
Transcription
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