International Women’s Day: the hidden impact of implicit bias

Awareness

This year for International Women’s Day, Michele Gunsior (Horizon Therapeutics, MD, USA), has provided her perspective on gender equity in the bioanalytical field and the impact that implicit bias can have on the journey to gender equality.

Here’s a riddle; even if you’ve heard a version of it, take a moment to read carefully: a boy and his father are driving home through a storm. The strong wind and heavy rains make it difficult to navigate. With limited visibility, the father doesn’t see the large tree that has fallen across the road until it’s too late. The father slams on the brakes and for a moment loses control of the car. Both father and son are severely injured and taken to the hospital by ambulance. The son is quickly wheeled into surgery but the surgeon says, “I can’t operate on this boy; he’s my son!” How is this possible? What was the first answer that sprang to your mind?

When this riddle was given to US university students, 36% said the surgeon is the boy’s other dad in a same-sex marriage [1] whereas only 30% guessed that the surgeon is the boy’s mother. The results exemplify the deeply ingrained nature of gender roles and expectations even in today’s society. To put this in the context of 2019 US demographic census data: same-sex male coupled partnerships make up 0.74% of coupled households, or 462,000 out of 66.5 million [2]. While it’s incredibly heartening that same-sex partnerships have gained such acceptance, the fact that only 30% of college-aged students guessed that the surgeon is a woman should evoke dismay.

Why does this happen? Our brains have shortcuts (heuristics) that allow us to quickly solve problems and efficiently make judgments, in essence, saving brainpower for something else. The problem is that these shortcuts often lead to inaccurate conclusions and/or cognitive biases such as the one described above wherein a surgeon is more frequently seen as male. Implicit or unconscious bias is defined by Merriam-Webster as a bias or prejudice that is present but not consciously held or recognized. Even if unconscious, implicit gender bias happens routinely, even daily, and is damaging to women, their careers, and their family. A recent New York Times opinion article by Jessica Nordell aptly illustrates the cumulative effect of gender bias using a computer simulated workplace: over time the number of women at the higher levels of a company shrinks [3] because of a few built-in assumptions based on established workplace gender bias.

We scientists might think we’re immune to unconscious bias. We’re trained to be impartial, to deal in facts and objective evidence. We’re supposed to look at all possible explanations, the hypotheticals, to evaluate potential gaps and weaknesses. Yet we are still human and have grown up in a world where girls’ toys are geared towards caregiving and socializing, while boys get engineering and adventure sets. As a child in an advantaged country, my holiday and birthday gifts included an Easy Bake oven and Barbie dolls with the make-up counter accessory, while my 1-year younger brother received the science and Lego® sets. If I grew up in a disadvantaged country, I may not have even had the opportunity to go to school for very long. We live in a world where women are conditioned to be nice, to smile, to take care of feelings, and also where women are valued less, seen as less competent, credible and less brilliant than men. If this seems like a strong statement, keep reading. As early as 6 years old, girls are more likely to avoid activities for children that are ‘really, really smart’ [4]. Between 1901-1920, there have been 58 female Nobel laureates and 876 male Nobel laureates [5]. Only 23 women have been awarded a Nobel prize in a science category, and all of these women were white; no black person, regardless of gender, has won a Nobel prize in the sciences [6]. When women do win the Nobel prize in the science category, they more often share the prize with a man than win it on their own [7]. In 2020, there were four female laureates including Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier as co-winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. This past year, all science category winners were male. When the gender imbalance was evaluated statistically by taking into account factors such as academic gender ratio in the science fields, the average age of Nobel winners, and the time lag between work and award, there was a 96% probability of a bias against women [8].

There’s more. When researchers sent identical resumes, except for the purported gender of the job applicant, to study participants the female applicant was less likely to be offered a job, had a lower starting salary and was less likely to be offered mentoring – by both male and female study participants [9]. It’s been replicated in additional ways: what if the name seems to belong to a Black man or a Black woman, or an ethnic minority? Maybe we can fix that with systems capable of masking a person’s gender or presumed ethnicity in the initial resume review process. However, no one is hired on their resume alone – there’s minimally a phone call and a face-to-face interview – and what if now, the person interviewing doesn’t match expectations?

The more we learn about human biology, the more we understand that gender is not binary, and that competencies and abilities don’t sort out by male or female. Our brains, however, haven’t caught up. It falls back on the heuristics deeply embedded in our psyche, shortcuts built upon years of social cues that tell us men are the default, women are the accessory; that men are the ideal employee and women are not as committed, especially if they have children. These gender biases persist across so many areas – how students rate their professors, the number and value of grants being awarded, promotions, laboratory size, mentoring, sponsoring and wages. Whatever category one can think of, there is unlikely to be gender equity and women will typically fare worse than men; however, an example where gender bias tends to disadvantage men is paternity leave and childcare [10]. Because of expectations around gender roles, men may miss out on meaningful bonding opportunities with their children.

Gender expectations also color our interpretation of history and the natural world. One prominent historical example is that of a Viking warrior burial in Birka, Sweden where even in the face of objective evidence we dispute the facts. The burial was long considered to be that of a man, despite the skeleton being female as well as the narratives around fierce female warriors, simply because of assumptions about who could be a warrior, that is, which gender is typically the hunter, and which is typically the gatherer. The controversy was finally settled when DNA analysis incontrovertibly proved the skeleton had an XX chromosome [11]. Furthermore, in the field of songbird research, it was thought for decades, back to Darwin, that singing was a male songbird trait until female researchers questioned the assumption [12] and found that as many as 70% of female birds sing. Imagine what we lose when we don’t diversify our companies and academic institutes to bring in a wealth of other perspectives?

Look around you. Who is in your organization, in management, your department chair, or leadership, the CEO, CFO, COO, CSO, who’s on the board? What do they look like? More than likely they’re white men [13]. We expect men in these roles because we don’t have many examples otherwise. If we were to change the scenario presented at the start of this article to instead feature a CEO, the answer is the same [14]. It’s not to say that men in these positions aren’t highly accomplished but they’ve been given opportunities and allowances women haven’t. Men are accepted at face value; they benefit from a system that rewards them because of their gender. Women, on the other hand, must prove themselves. We have to (or are often told to) get past our own internal monologue telling us we’re imposters or not good enough to apply for the job, or to ask for what we want. But do women really suffer from imposter syndrome, or have we internalized the systemic gender bias we face daily and the hundreds of ways we’re told we’re not good enough? By telling women to ‘lean in’ the onus is us to change, to take individual action (and to become exhausted in the process), rather than to expect and insist that the broken system we’re all part of gets better.

Imagine how difficult it is for women to succeed in an environment where from the moment they’re born society tells them they’re worth less, that they’re not as smart as boys are. The too few female exceptions that rise to the top allow us to think we can rest now, but we cannot; the system is still inequitable despite apparent gains. The data on salaries, for example, proves that we’re not much better off than we were years ago. The overall wage gap between men and women in the US will close by 2111 – 89 years from now – when taking into account the effects of the pandemic on women, and if the current rate holds [15]. For Hispanic and Black women both the median wage gap (< 60% and < 65%, respectively, compared to the median white, non-Hispanic male full-time salary) and projected time to closing the gap (2197, and not projected to close at the current rate) is truly appalling. The wage gap worldwide will take 139.5 years, according to a 2021 report by the World Economic Forum [16]. Over a lifetime, the wage gap results in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars lost for women and their families.

Simply, society values men’s work and perspective over women’s, and moreover society functions on unpaid women’s work – the unnoticed and unrewarded caregiving to aging parents, to children, to spouses, the ways in which women still take care of the majority of the household chores when her partner is male and they both have full-time jobs. Women typically carry the emotional burden to remember birthdays, schedule play dates, doctor’s appointments, schoolwork; in same-sex households the work is more evenly distributed [17]. The pandemic has laid bare the inequities within opposite-sex households and has affected women to a much greater extent than men professionally and personally. As school became virtual it was more often the mother who reduced her work hours or left her job altogether [18].

In so many ways we are better than we were, but in others we are worse. The sexism and misogyny directed at women aren’t so overt anymore (though it does still happen), which is an improvement but it also means it’s more insidious, hidden in ways that allow us to think we’re past the era of female discrimination at work. This is a fallacy. Women walk a very fine line between speaking up and being labeled aggressive or remaining silent and being overlooked, as one example. When we take on leadership roles and behave in typically male ways we’re viewed as cold and uncaring, domineering instead of assertive and confident. We’re penalized if we step outside of expected gender norms, such as negotiating for a promotion or a pay raise. Ask any woman you know if she’s experienced gender bias and the odds are she’ll have multiple instances both large and small. I once received feedback in my year-end review that I was too ‘passionate’, written in a way clearly indicating it was not positive feedback. Not only was it vague, but the feedback was also not actionable in a meaningful way. What I ‘heard’ from this was that I was too outspoken and should keep my perspectives, valid or not, to myself. I wondered if I were male would I have received the same feedback. In speaking with other female colleagues over the years, I’m not the only woman to whom this assessment, or something similar, was given.

In March 2021 for International Women’s Day, the American Association of Pharmaceutical Sciences (AAPS) screened ‘Picture a Scientist’, a documentary film that details how women have been and still are unfairly treated in science [19]. I had seen the documentary previously through the Association for Women in Science (AWIS) and eagerly watched it again. There were so many instances and facts that struck me and to name a few: the blatant harassment that can still exist, and that in STEM faculty across the USA, females are rated inferior on every dimension. For women of color, this is even more insidious and complex. It’s a failure to allow women their full humanity and to recognize their lived experiences, or to be aware of the intersectionality of their existence and the myriad ways they face discrimination.

Maybe you’re thinking ‘but I don’t do that’; ‘I don’t discriminate’. Unfortunately, we all do it to some extent, no matter how enlightened [20]. The goal is to understand what our particular biases are and counteract their effect. Am I more likely to think favorably about someone who looks like me, or a person from my hometown or the university I went to? Why do I like this applicant? Or better, why don’t I like this applicant; is it based on their qualifications or a gut feeling? We must actively question our default thinking and work against the inherent biases that we all have, no matter how aware we may be of them. Awareness is the one step we can undertake personally, being aware, for example, of how we treat our colleagues – whose ideas are promoted, where is the idea attribution, how much weight is given to a male opinion vs female opinion or one from a colleague of different ethnicity. Also, how often are women interrupted versus men, who are being mentored or sponsored, hired and promoted, paid more, and what role am I playing in achieving gender equity? Would I treat this person differently if they were a different gender? Gender bias is largely unnoticed, unconscious and unintentional. We all believe ourselves to be unbiased but this is a false perception. Like men, women can and do fall prey to the same biases that place more value on men’s accomplishments than women’s and which lead to the persistent and seemingly intractable pay gap. Having biases means we are human; awareness of biases means we can act to combat them. This year the theme of International Women’s Day is #BreakTheBias [21]. We are all challenged to highlight women’s achievements and stand against inequality.

We can also demand a commitment from our workplaces to actively recruit, hire and promote a diverse and inclusive workforce. Gender equity is not an individual’s issue to solve, although as individuals we can have a profound impact in changing the common narrative, we must also solve it systemically and structurally. To bring more equity into the workplace and society, we must have a culture of change. The Lego® Group, for example, has recently announced it will remove gender bias from its products and marketing [22]; industry organizations such as PhRMA [23] and Bio [13] and their member companies are committed to advancing inclusive workforces, clinical trials, and health care systems. Many countries are mandating more equal gender representation on corporate boards [24]. In the end, it’s not just about elevating women, it’s also about increased engagement, productivity and diversity of thought. If we hire someone who looks the same as everyone else, more than likely their ideas are the same as everyone else’s. Innovative thinking comes from the edges, the intersections of experience and knowledge, and the openness to new ideas and the different people they come from. When we have a world that is free of bias and celebrates diversity, equity and inclusion, everyone benefits and everyone thrives.

 

For additional reading and information:

The author also suggests these resources and organizations among many others working for gender parity and inclusiveness:

References

  1. 1. Belle D, Tartarilla AB, Wapman M, Schlieber M & Mercurio AE. “I can’t operate, that boy is my son!”: Gender schemas and a classic riddle. Sex Roles, 85, 161–171 (2021).
  2.  American Community Survey Briefs. Same-sex couple households: 2019. (2019); https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/acs/acsbr-005.pdf
  3. The New York Times. This is how everyday sexism could stop you from getting that promotion; https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/14/opinion/gender-bias.html
  4. Bain L, Leslie SJ & Cimpian A. Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389–391 (2017).
  5. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/
  6. Smithsonian Magazine. No Nobel prizes in science went to women this year, widening the awards’ gender gap. (2021); https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-nobel-gender-gap-widens-as-no-women-awarded-science-prizes-180978835/
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_Nobel_laureates
  8. Lunnemann P, Jensen MH & Jauffred L. Gender bias in Nobel prizes. Palgrave Communications, 46 (2019).
  9. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ & Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS, 109(41), 16474–16479 (2012).
  10. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210712-paternity-leave-the-hidden-barriers-keeping-men-at-work
  11. Hendenstierna-Jonson C, Kjellstrom A, Zachrisson T et al. A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics. Am J Phys Anthropol. 164, 853–860 (2017).
  12. Haines CD, Rose EM, Odom KJ & Omland KE. The role of diversity in science: a case study of women advancing female birdsong research. Animal Behaviour, 168, 19–25 (2020).
  13. Biotechnology Innovation Organization. Measuring Diversity in the Biotech Industry: Advancing Equity and Inclusion. Second Annual Report; https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/BIO_Measuring_Diversity_Survey.pdf
  14.  International Women’s Day – can you solve the riddle? (2020); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kFC7669quE
  15. AAUW_SimpleTruth_2021_-fall_update.pdf
  16. https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2021/digest. For the full report see https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf
  17.  https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210518-the-hidden-load-how-thinking-of-everything-holds-mums-back. There are a large number of very good links in this article that I encourage the reader to explore.
  18. Women, work, and families: recovering from the pandemic-induced recession. (2021); https://www.brookings.edu/research/women-work-and-families-recovering-from-the-pandemic-induced-recession/
  19. https://www.pictureascientist.com/.
  20. Nine out of 10 men and women around the world hold some sort of bias against women. https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/03/1058731
  21. https://www.internationalwomensday.com/Theme
  22. https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news/2021/september/lego-ready-for-girls-campaign
  23. https://phrma.org/Equity
  24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_on_corporate_boards_of_directors

Disclosure

The author has no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of her employer, Horizon Therapeutics or Future Science Group.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Newlands Press Ltd.