Research Reveals Low Exposure of Excellent Work By Female Scientists

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists at the University of Sheffield have found that high quality science by female academics is underrepresented in comparison to that of their male counterparts. The researchers analyzed the genders of invited speakers at the most prestigious gatherings of evolutionary biologists in Europe — six biannual congresses of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB) and found that male speakers outnumbered women. Even in comparison to the numbers of women and men among world class scientists – from the world top ranked institutions for life sciences, and authors in the top-tier journals Nature and Science - women were still underrepresented among invited speakers."

Comments

Re:How does it compare?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the women themselves are fucking up their own chances of peer exposure. No wait, that came out wrong.

In other words, the women are exposing themselves to their husband instead of their peers. No wait, that came out wrong too.

Ah, fuck it.

Age-old dilemma

[Aaron B Lingwood]

If only female scientists would tell us their findings instead of expecting us to read their minds.

Re:How does it compare?

[Dexter Herbivore]

I'm assuming (hoping) that your post was sarcastic in nature. My point was that the summary doesn't appear to match the article. The summary implies that less women are invited due to sexism, the article indicates that less women accept the invites and then provides a theory of why that's the case.

Re:How does it compare?

[Bigbutt]

Actually it does in part. The first part says women are underrepresented in the recent shows. The second part that you quoted said that they _also_ found that in previous years women accepted less invitations than men.

I'd want to correlate it to something more along the lines the folks making the invitations looked at the previous accepts and declines or no answers, and declined to invite them again. So less women were invited this year because less women accepted in previous years.

Then they're trying to figure out why women didn't accept previously and theorized it was due to women wanting to have babies before it's too late.

Or at least that's how I read it.

[John]