APRIL 28 MARKED A DECADE SINCE THE European Union Women and Science Conference in Brussels, which generated several initiatives that have been serving EU women in science well. One initiative (1) set a goal to seek at least 40% representation (on average) for women in Marie Curie scholarships, advisory groups, and assessment/ monitoring panels throughout the EU Fifth Framework Programme; when the EU initiative began in 1999, representative participation of women was 23% in evaluation panels, 23% in monitoring panels, 29% in advisory groups, and 21% in program committees (2). The EU Commission’s report, “Women and science: Mobilizing women to enrich European research,” was passed into legislation by the European Parliament on 3 February 2000 (3).Subsequent EU reports on the representation of women in these positions chronicle progress toward the 40% goal. By 2001, the representation of women had increased to 27% in EU evaluation panels, 35% in monitoring panels, 28% in advisory groups, and 22% in program committees (2). In the United States, there are few comparable data, but in 2001, we determined the percentage
of underrepresented groups among American Chemical Society (ACS) publication editors (13.6% women, 94.3% white) and their advisory boards (13.3% women, 88.6% white) (4). Now in 2008, we have found (5) that representation of women in these ACS positions has increased (editors are 14.5% women; advisory boards are 17.5% women), but not to the EU levels given above. The EU legislation also had an effect on Marie Curie scholarships. For example, during 1994 to 1998, the success rate of female students was 83% that of male students; in 1999, it rose to 92% of male students (6). The EU 40% legislation has been described as part of a “top-down” approach, with the goal to increase the participation of women at all levels in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In contrast, most U.S. programs and efforts seem focused on increasing underrepresented groups at the lowest rather than highest levels of the academic pipeline. Perhaps we should add the EU “topdown” approach to our repertoire of existing programs in the United States. Although the representation of women among award recipients cannot be legislated, their representation among committee members selecting award recipients can be. The representation of minorities among committee members could be addressed simultaneously.
An additional benefit of such a program is that young women and minorities, whom we want to attract to STEM, would see more of their role models in leadership positions. It is
illogical to expect members of a group to be inspired into science and engineering if senior
members of that group are seen not to share equally in the fruits of the profession.

DONNA J. NELSON AND
CHRISTOPHER N. BRAMMER

Department of Chemistry, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, OK 73019, USA.
E-mail: djnelson@ou.edu

Source:www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 320 30 MAY 2008