Obstacles Without Borders
By Raisa Rahim
We were excited to start the second year of the SOMA reading group off strong, discussing several issues at the intersection of diversity and equity in academia. Stepping back and taking a global perspective to these challenges revealed patterns that transcend borders.
Who gets to be a professional scientist?
In the Nature piece “Is Science Only for the Rich?”, the authors discussed the various burdens posing obstacles for entry and retention of scientists around the world. A recurrent theme was the prohibitive financial aspect of being in the Academy. Given the poor state of science education in this country, budding scientists need to pay for extracurricular science programs or be well-off enough to live in a district with a good science education system. After the science undergraduate degree (which itself is often a burden), staying in academia means scientists need to be financially secure enough to not be paid as much as they might in other industries. There is also a deep colonialism of thought, where Western science is considered the “right” way of doing science though there is evidence that perceptions are not universal. For example, there is a colonialism of language, where the science of non-native speakers is discounted if their English is not as perfect as a native speaker (though these are not actually related).
If English is to be the language of standardized science communication, journal boards should have paid positions for people who have both broad scientific knowledge and fluency in English and at least one other language. Authors could send in their manuscript in their native language; the text could be translated and sent back to the authors for revision. This centralized approach could be more efficient and equitable compared to an individualized mentoring approach. Attending conferences can also pose a major financial burden that ultimately stifles progress. The current COVID-19 pandemic has shown that we have the infrastructure for virtual attendance, so there should be such an option at no/reduced cost. While this alleviates some of the burden on non-native English speakers, this does not address the underlying issue of rigid scientific exclusion stemming from historical colonial dynamics.
Who gets to stay a professional scientist?
Following the theme of who is incorporated into the academic framework and factors involved in others’ exclusion, the journal article “Factors That Influence Career Choice among Different Populations of Neuroscience Trainees” surveyed a broad range of neuroscientists at various stages in their academic careers. Given that the majority of neuroscience PhDs do not go on to hold tenure-track positions, the authors surveyed participants in order to gauge motivations factored into staying in academia or pursuing other career paths. While the findings are qualified by the many problems of a self-report study, the results corroborate and extend those of the 2019 NINDS study - people from historically underrepresented backgrounds tend not to imagine staying in academia for the long-term. This does not imply that the scientists are “leaking out of the pipeline” though - other important factors (i.e. pay, time requirements, lifestyle, and overall priorities of the Institution) were revealed as significant barriers that affected scholars from historically underrepresented backgrounds differently from those not in these groups.
The best way to alleviate these pressures on scholars from underrepresented backgrounds is for the academic institutions to reprioritize how they allocate funds. Though the article showed an interesting (albeit, somewhat difficult to interpret) interaction between gender identity and race/ ethnicity on interest in staying in academia, it is unmistakable that female-identifying people (especially those of color) are burdened with managing situations outside of the workplace than their male-identifying counterparts (e.g., unpaid domestic labor). This additional workload limits how productive these populations can be (at least, as currently defined within academia, i.e. papers, funded grants, etc.). A mentor’s success should instead be measured in terms of their broader impacts, where a successful mentor-mentee career outcome is defined as a mentee successfully entering the career of their choice, regardless of the industry.
How are these pressures felt within academia?
Evans and colleagues (2018) found that graduate students are “six times [more] likely to experience depression and anxiety compared to the general population”. In a series of Tweets, a Nigeria-based mental health advocate raised the issue of the mental health crisis prevalent among trainees worldwide. They highlighted that universities’ newfound encouragement of trainees’ use of limited campus mental health resources is not a sustainable solution to the epidemic. Without addressing the systemic issues endemic to the toxic Academic structure (funding institutions propagating the publish-or-perish culture, competition, exclusion by identity etc.), this offering is but a band-aid on an open wound. Administrative efforts should focus as heavily on trainee retention as they do on recruitment, as the latter without the former only goes so far to create a thriving workforce.
Systemic changes are sorely needed, reaching all the way to the top. Funding agencies need to shift their priorities when determining which labs to fund. Rather than weighting publications as the most important factor, a more holistic review should be implemented that also values mentoring and service to the institution. Additionally, institutions should devote resources to increasing community and collaboration among scientists, and remove barriers to these protective factors that combat isolation and foster a sense of belonging. Generally, there should be a greater effort to address systemic barriers rather than simply teaching coping strategies to students (which places the burden for change on the individual). These top-down changes should relieve some of the pressures leading to graduate students’ poor mental health.
You can learn more about past and upcoming events, as well as resources we love, by visiting the SOMA website.
Thank you to everyone who attended our reading groups this quarter. We appreciate your candid conversations that bring these important topics to light. We hope you will join us for more great discussions in the Winter!