Bridging the Gap: The Under Representation and Gender Gap in Microbiology

Written By: Felicity Carvalho

The field of microbiology, like many other STEM fields, is not exempt from gender disparities. In microbiology, women’s findings and their voices are constantly oppressed by males in the field. Due to this, there are fewer and fewer women feeling empowered enough to pursue an interest in not only microbiology but STEM fields altogether. 

The Matilda Effect, first recognized in the 1800s—not named until 1993— refers to the continuing era of prejudicial biases against women scientists for their breakthroughs in STEM, where women’s work results in attribution to male colleagues in the industry. Despite significant efforts to increase the representation of women in microbiology, underrepresentation in senior microbiology positions persists. Today, while  50% of positions in life sciences are filled by women, the percentage of women in postdoctoral tenure-track positions is less than 40%. Moreover, 18% of professors in the biological fields are women which indicates less representation in higher track positions.

One key barrier contributing to gender disparity in microbiology is the bias in acknowledgment. A name encounter was when microbiologist Esther Lederberg was denied acknowledgement for her contributions to the genetic research of the bacterial genome, while her male counterparts received Nobel Prizes in 1958. While she now is attributed to her pioneering early research into the bacterial genome—recognizing lambda phage, a binding protein in DNA—she was not recognized for her contributions in microbiology for any larger-scale awards, including the Nobel prize. This instance underscores the real-world results of the Matilda Effect which still impacts science today in the distribution of prestigious awards.

Nobel prize winners Tatum, Lederberg, and Beadle

While the acknowledgment of the Matilda Effect has created more progressive initiatives in recent years, there is still progress to be made in the allocation of prestigious awards to women researchers. Since 1901 when the first Nobel Prizes were awarded, only five women out of 225 awarded prizes have received a physics prize, three out of 97 in economic prizes, and 12 out of 227 prizes in medicine and physiology. 

Today, the number of women who advance into academia decreases per level, even though 50%  of life science Ph.D. graduates are women. When looking into this the gender citation gap becomes a broader issue that impacts the evaluations of female corresponding researchers in regards to careers and pay grade. Looking further into this inequality, it has been concluded that women receive fewer citations than men—this gap expands wider as careers grow. While the citations of research seem a more minute issue, it contributes to a bigger issue of gender pay gaps where men accordingly are paid higher wages than the equally contributing women in their fields.

Job type per gender in STEM fields

Direct ties between the gender citation gap and the gender pay gap have been correlated as if you have fewer citations you are likely to get a negative evaluation and thus not be promoted, as seen in women, and the reverse is seen in the average amount of male employees. Due to these inequalities, the field number of women participants has been decreasing for years. This loss of women participants contributes to the lack of diverse opinions and innovation. While many women in the field are underutilized for their contributions it causes the research of all individuals to be overlooked and therefore limits scientific breakthroughs in microbiological research. In addition, the limit to the abilities of women to work their way up the social hierarchy in research positions decreases women mentors and role models and causes a shift in the number of girls and young adult women who want to pursue microbiology and STEM as a whole, causing the inequality of women to grow wider. 

While there has been progress in recent decades in improving the acknowledgment of women's research in microbiology and other STEM fields, the Matilda effect as well as gender pay and citation gaps are still prevalent especially where men are given more opportunities than women in different workplaces. To combat these gender biases calls upon multifaceted initiatives to not only empower girls and broaden company initiatives. Implementing gender inclusion policies in workplaces, utilizing educational outreach, properly recognizing women in prestigious prizes, and funding research, fosters a more inclusive and diverse environment for future generations of scientific research. 

Sources:
Hagan, Ada K., et al. “Women Are Underrepresented and Receive Differential Outcomes at ASM Journals: a Six-Year Retrospective Analysis.” PubMed, 1 December 2020, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33262256/. Accessed 4 February 2024.

Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia, et al. “The Matilda Effect in Science Communication: An Experiment on Gender Bias in Publication Quality Perceptions and Collaboration Interest.” Gender Action Portal, Science Communication, February 2013, https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/matilda-effect-science-communication-experiment-gender-bias-publication-quality-perceptions-and. Accessed 4 February 2024.

Lamm, Lisa. “The Matilda Effect: How Women Are Becoming Invisible in Science.” Lost Women of Science, 10 February 2023, https://www.lostwomenofscience.org/news/the-matilda-effect-how-women-are-becoming-invisible-in-science. Accessed 4 February 2024.

Nobel Prize. “NobelPrize.org.” NobelPrize.org, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/. Accessed 4 February 2024.

“The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1958.” Nobel Prize, Nobel Prize Outreach, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1958/summary/. Accessed 4 February 2024.

Rossiter, Margaret W. “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science.” jstor.org, Sage Publications, Ltd., 9 November 2017, https://www.jstor.org/stable/285482?mag=erasing-women-from-science-theres-a-name-for-that. Accessed 4 February 2024.

Wheatley, Rachel M., and Lois Ogunlana. “Gender shapes the formation of review paper collaborations in microbiology.” royalsocietypublishing.org, Royal Society, 19 May 2023, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2023.0965. Accessed 4 February 2024.