Skip to main content

Not Just for the Boys - Athene Donald ****

Physicist and Cambridge college Master Athene Donald takes on the complex and important issue of the gender balance in the sciences. We get plenty on the problem and the vast difference there is between the stats in the biological sciences, where there are more female than males entering the profession, and subjects such as maths, physics and computing, where females remain significantly in the minority. We also see how career progression, even for the biological sciences, seems biassed against female scientists.

What is less clear is the solutions. One of the essential contributory factors, for instance, how science is taught in secondary schools doesn't get as much coverage as it deserves. Donald mentions the important aspect of hands on - how taking part in experiments is an important introduction, but health and safety has made it far less part of the curriculum - but not how to overcome this. And there's no real mention of the way that school science, particularly physics, focuses on the boring stuff. For example, the physics of special relativity, with its implications of time travel, could easily be taught at GCSE level - far more exciting and interesting than the usual stuff.

Elsewhere we get a lot on role models - I've never really had a role model and am not convinced they make a big difference to life choices. But it could be just that I'm not the right kind of personality for that to be the case - reflecting that no one size fits all approach will work. Again, I think we could have had more about solutions than is provided. Where the book really comes alive is when Donald talks about her own work and experience - I suppose this is a kind of role modelling, but I think you already have to have got the science bug before this becomes of interest.

It is certainly true we still have a long way to go in some subjects, but I think there could have been some recognition of how far we've already come. When I did Part II experimental physics at the Cavendish, a couple of years behind Donald, there were only about half a dozen women in the cohort. Things have moved on. In the science Twitter I follow, female scientists and their work get lots of coverage. And though Donald says (without evidence) 'female scientists as talking heads on TV are still rare', I'd say (also without data) that's just not true anymore. Interestingly, when Donald mentions black hole imaging, it's female talking heads that were featured.

One thing that isn't explored is the impact of science fiction (and gaming for IT). When I talk to scientists, male and female, they often mention science fiction as an early stimulus of interest, and many computer scientists began their interest in the field as gamers. It would have been interesting to see how much the gendered attitude towards these areas leads through to those taking STEM degrees, and how this could be encouraged in female readers and technology users.

This is a really important topic than needs addressing. Donald does so effectively, though the book might have been more effective from a scientist or science writer with a bit more journalistic flair. Even so, it's a significant step in making sure the discussion remains highly visible, which may lead to some more concrete and effective solutions.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more