WOMEN IN SCIENCE A LISTENING SESSION

REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS

16 NOVEMBER 2017, NEW DELHI

U.S. National Science FoundationU.S. Department of State U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Embassy, New Delhi

In collaboration with the :

REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Dr. Shahid Jameel, CEO, Wellcome Trust / DBT India Alliance and Dr.

Preetha Rajaraman, Health Attaché India and Regional Representative for South Asia, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services for their guidance and support in making the

‘Women in Science: A Listening Session’ possible. Dr. Dinakar Salunke, Director and his staff

for graciously offering to host the event at the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and

Biotechnology, New Delhi, India and Mr. Stewart Davis from the U.S. Embassy for being the

official photographer for the event. Finally, we thank all the participants for their time and for the

vibrant and engaging discussions that shaped this report.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this report belong solely to the participants, and do not necessarily reflect

the official policy or position and may not be attributed partially or fully to their affiliated organizations. 3

SUMMARY

On November 16, 2017, the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance (the India Alliance) and the U.S. Embassy, New Delhi, India hosted a listening session for research scientists, Government of India representatives, and science communicators to discuss challenges and obstacles faced by women in pursuing a career in scientific research. Obstacles to the advancement of women in research, including age limits, hiring practices, and implicit bias were discussed. The discussions led to a series of recommendations, including: (1) adding five years to the age limit for hiring new faculty; (2) requiring training on implicit and overt bias; (3) providing training in laboratory management and leadership skills for women; (4) adjusting fellowship regulations to allow consideration of maternity leave; (5) establishing forums where women can network and speak freely; (6) creating virtual platforms to allow women to remain connected to research during maternity leave; (7) providing transportation, mothers’ room, daycare facilities and housing assistance; (8) developing avenues to facilitate the discussion with male colleagues, heads of institutions, and government representatives; and (9) increase the representation of women scientists in decision-making bodies both at an institutional and national level.

4

Background

Structure of the Listening Session

Research Careers in India

Observations from the Listening Session

Recommendations for Future Action

APPENDIX A - Institutions/Organisations of the Participants

APPENDIX B - Questions for Discussion

CONTENTS

06

06

07

08

12

13

14

5

Recent articles (1,2) published in the Indian Express noted that very few female scientists have received the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar award, India’s highest research award for young scientists (under the age of 45). The articles also note the dearth of women appointed to National Academies in India and globally, and the lack of women in leadership positions as heads of research institutes or on higher decision-making committees. These observations suggest that, despite recent efforts by the Government of India (GOI) and funding organisations like the India Alliance, women still face substantial challenges in gaining entry to and progressing in research careers. India and the U.S. agreed to cooperate on this important topic, including at the U.S-India Dialogue on Women in Science and Technology, as part of the Joint Committee Meeting (JCM) in September 2016. To further explore the underlying causes and possible solutions, the U.S. Department of State’s 2017 Embassy Science Fellow from the U.S National Science Foundation , the Office of Global Affairs from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at the U.S. Embassy, and the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance (an equally funded partnership between the Wellcome Trust, UK and the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India) organized a “Listening Session” for women scientists and science educators in India. The goal of the session was to help define the needs and objectives of women in the science workforce in India, and to help define strategies to maintain and expand the role of women in science.

The Listening Session was held on November 16, 2017 from 11:00 AM – 4:00 PM at the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), New Delhi. The India Alliance and the U.S. Embassy collaborated to provide program and logistical support. Prior to this, a series of discussions between India Alliance and U.S. Embassy collaborators resulted in drafting a set of questions to guide the listening

session. Forty-eight participants from various Indian institutions (Appendix A) confirmed their attendance prior to the session. These included scientists from academic and research institutions, faculty from teaching institutions, U.S. Embassy personnel, science journalists, and the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India. Discussion questions (Appendix B) were structured to progress from a “micro to macro” level, starting with experiences of junior faculty in finding employment and setting up their laboratories, progressing to issues at the institutional level, and concluding with challenges at the national policy level. Principal discussants for each of

the sections were selected from the participant list, and initial comments were solicited from them before opening general discussion on each of the levels. While recording the proceedings, the organizers ensured that the participant comments were treated in confidence and anonymized; these notes serve as the basis for observations made in this report.

STRUCTURE OF THE LISTENING SESSION

BACKGROUND

6

The typical research career pathway in India (for both men and women) is completion of Masters and Ph.D. degrees, post-doctoral training (often outside of India, as there are limited opportunities for such training within India), and appointment as a faculty member. Fellowships, which support new entrants or existing faculty are competitively awarded by a number of entities, including India Alliance and DBT. These fellowships typically provide 5 years of support while investigators set up a laboratory and begin their research careers in India. Fellowships are awarded to individuals, but these individuals work at institutions that typically provide office and laboratory space as well as logistical support for administering the fellowship. Once fellowships are completed, the expectation is that those Indian scientists who held the fellowships will be appointed as permanent faculty members, either at the institution that hosted the fellowship or at another institution. Indian institutions solicit prospective faculty members with excellent credentials and training but also impose age limits for applicants, with entry-level positions capped at 35 years of age. Faculty appointments at Indian institutions are typically expected to be permanent, with applicants rising through the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor at the same institution; lateral transfer between institutions at higher levels (associate professor and above) is difficult. All institutions have a probation period and some also have a 5 to 7 year duration to achieve tenure. Department heads and other academic administrators of government-funded institutions are usually chosen from the ranks of the institution, and institutional leadership positions (such as Directors of institutes and Vice Chancellors of universities) are appointed by the government.

RESEARCH CAREERS IN INDIA

7

Dr. Shahid Jameel (CEO, India Alliance) and Dr. Preetha Rajaraman (HHS Health Attaché at the U.S. Embassy) provided the opening remarks for the Listening Session. Dr. Jameel elaborated on the genesis of the Listening Session, noting “we need to do more listening” and committing India Alliance to engage in this issue for at least the coming year. Dr. Rajaraman noted the dearth of female leadership in STEM in both U.S. and India, and observed that the “leaky pipeline” is an issue that should be addressed at local and national levels.

Listening session participants indicated that generally the early stages of the career pathway were not problematic, with Ph.D. training readily available to women, and postdoctoral opportunities available to those who sought them out. However, once women reached higher levels in their careers, a number of obstacles presented themselves.

OBSERVATIONS FROM THE LISTENING SESSION

8

1. Age and ageism

Participants were universal in noting that age limits impose barriers to women at many steps of their careers, and that there are age restrictions on several steps in the career pathway. Certain fellowships and some prestigious awards from the Government of India are not available to individuals above a certain age (typically 45-55) and institutional hiring practices set an upper age limit (typically 35) for hiring into entry-level positions. Opinion among the session participants was nearly unanimous that the age limits are unfair, particularly to women, as maternity leave and family or childcare responsibilities often push women beyond age 35 when they apply for their first faculty job. One participant recommended; “Smash the age limit to bits”.

2. Entry/re-entry

There are numerous points at which women enter and re-enter the research workforce. These include fellowship appointments, transitioning from fellowships to permanent employment, taking and returning after maternity or family leave, and negotiating the “two-body” problem (when both husband and wife are working). Fellowships were noted as helpful for establishing one’s career in India, especially after returning from postdoctoral training outside of India, and there was some discussion of whether there should be fellowships reserved specifically for women. Although there was some disagreement, many participants felt that set-aside fellowships for women were not desirable, as they establish informal “quota systems” for women. Participants also noted that there should be more diversity on fellowship selection committees (see section v on bias).

Participants noted that government-mandated maternity leaves were welcome as a way to integrate work responsibilities with the desire to have families, but that taking these leaves and re-entering the workforce at the completion of the leave could work against women. Although leaves are formally mandated by law, practices by institutions and fellowship-granting organizations suggest that maternity leaves are not always respected as breaks. Participants recounted incidents of having poor performance evaluations by a fellowship review committee due to presenting only 18 months of work in a two-year period in which a maternity leave was taken. Other participants noted institutional policies that allow skipping a review, if it happens to fall during or shortly after a leave is taken, which could alleviate this issue. Although some fellowships (such as India Alliance Fellowships) allow extensions for maternity leaves, others do not, and this can work against women in successfully completing their fellowships. Participants also noted that it would be helpful to have some contact with the laboratory or institution during maternity leave, so that the work doesn’t just stop. This could take the form of work that could be done from home (e.g. data analysis on the computer) or creating virtual platforms to stay in touch during maternity leave.

Participants raised concerns that at the completion of the fellowships, there were no guarantee of permanent employment. Participants noted that there was little institutional loyalty to individuals who held fellowships at an institution, and that the chances of being offered a permanent job at the institution where they held their fellowship is unpredictable. This creates stress, particularly for those women who are approaching the institutional age limit for hiring. One participant noted, “it is hard to just take another fellowship if you do not become faculty.

The following six themes emerged from the discussion as particularly problematic for women in research careers:

9

The economic disparity between both positions is jarring. You cannot support yourself.” More senior participants, particularly those who served as heads of departments or institutions note that the quality of fellows is variable, so an institutional guarantee of a faculty appointment at the completion of a fellowship should not be expected. One participant noted “It cannot be a requirement of the institution to take the fellows as faculty.”

Participants noted that it was difficult for married couples to both obtain jobs at the same institution (the “two-body problem”), or even in the same city. One noted, “if your spouse is faculty at [Institution X], then you cannot get a job there.” Lateral mobility, or the ability to enter an institution at a level above a starting position, is also an issue for two-career couples – if one member of the couple gets a job offer at an institution, the other member has difficulty making a lateral move if they already have a job.

3. Mentoring, networking, and leadership training

Participants noted that males appear to have stronger peer networks than women, although one participant noted that she felt included in these networks until she had her own laboratory. Participants also noted that males appeared to be groomed and mentored to take leadership positions to a greater extent than women. Participants suggested that having a strong network would also promote mentoring, as women would have a safe and supportive space in which to ask for advice about how to navigate their careers. Both introductory comments and participants noted the dearth of women in leadership positions and there was much discussion about the need for women in leadership positions to advocate for women’s issues and serve as role models for future generations.

Participants noted that leadership training, through formal or informal programs, would be helpful to women in developing the skillset necessary to become leaders. There was some discussion about whether and how women are groomed for leadership roles, with participants noting that women often appeared more reluctant than men to volunteer for leadership roles. Participants noted that women often appeared reluctant to volunteer for administrative or management roles, more so than males. Participants attributed this to women more carefully considering whether they are qualified for these roles, whereas males were viewed as more likely to volunteer even if they lacked the necessary expertise. Participants also noted that women were not mentored or coached into higher roles at the same rates as men. Participants noted that training in management skills would help in this arena.

4. Institutional support

Participants noted varying degrees of support at the institutions they represented. Some institutions appeared very supportive of women’s issues, with regular faculty meetings set aside to discuss these issues, while others appeared less cognizant of policies which may impede or discriminate against women. Participants noted that institutions should develop policies on scheduling, housing, diversity and hiring. Participants noted that hiring practices could be more transparent, and that they could benefit from considering diversity in their hiring practices. Participants also noted that some institutions exhibit a lack of gender sensitization at all levels.

Participants noted that it could be difficult to get institutional staff (such as janitors, secretaries, etc.) to respond to requests made by women and suggested that training is needed to make sure all staff are aware that they should respond to both men and women equally (see section v on bias). Participants advocated for institutional flexibility for many things, including scheduling, transportation to and from their laboratories, and housing policies. Some institutions appear to have strong policies in place to support work-life balance, and childcare and family needs. These policies include flexible scheduling, some ability to work virtually at least part of the time, safe

10

transportation and housing options, and the availability of childcare facilities and “mothers’ rooms” at the institute. However, other institutes lack these types of accommodations, although participants noted that these support mechanisms would be helpful at all institutions. Participants also noted that institutions often have rules and regulations in place that prohibit discrimination and harassment, but that implementation of these rules is uneven and sometimes ineffective.

5. Bias and discrimination

Many participants noted that a quota system, for fellowship consideration or for hiring, is inherently unfair, but also noted that selection and hiring practices should be more transparent. This was evident in comments describing selection committees as “skewed”, and in comments suggesting that selection committees should have some training in recognizing and overcoming implicit bias. Although most participants noted policies at their institutions that prohibit overt discrimination, examples of unconscious bias were presented, such as considering applicants with nearly equivalent CVs as “independent” if they were male, but “hard-working” if they were female. Anecdotes relating to questions asked by search committees to women (such as about marital status or family responsibilities) were defended as “being friendly” by members of the search committees, although similar questions were not asked of male candidates.

Participants noted that bias against women begins early, often in the home or in early school settings. Participants felt that changing this mindset, though difficult, would result in better outcomes for women overall. One participant noted that we should “teach our young boys to respect mothers, sisters and all women.” In particular, participants noted that women are generally not risk-takers, which may be due to the propensity of families and schools to shelter females from risks beginning at an early age. One participant noted, “adolescent girls have an aversion to take risk. They “play safe” likely because we place so many limitations on girls when they are young. The problem is empowering girls at a young age, encouraging them to look for opportunities and not wait for them to come to them.”

6. Social issues

Participants noted that Indian cultural norms play a great role in how women are perceived. Participants noted that women are “guilted left, right, and center” about their choices to work, and to have priorities outside of their family life. Family pressure was noted as a factor in the decision to take extended childcare leaves, leading to the re-entry problems described above. Social norms also contribute to the early establishment of mindset that doesn’t regard women as risk-takers, and as less able than males to participate in the workforce. Addressing bias and discrimination in family life, in schools, in social settings, and in institutional settings can help to raise awareness of these issues, and may help to better the lot of women in the research workforce.

11

Participants made a number of concrete suggestions for programs and policies that would help to alleviate some of the challenges to advancement of women in the research workforce. The following suggestions resulted from discussion at the listening session:

1) “Smash the age limit”. As a concrete first step, participants advocated adding five years to the age limit for hiring and also certain awards and fellowships.

2) Institutional training in implicit and overt bias at all levels – for staff at institutions, hiring committees, and fellowship review committees.

3) Provide training in laboratory management and leadership skills for women.

4) Adjust fellowship regulations to allow consideration of maternity leave as a true break, either by providing extensions to the fellowships to accommodate the leave, or adjusting the progress review process to fairly consider the leave.

5) Establish forums locally and at national level to allow women to speak freely with each other, and to support the formation of networks for mentoring and leadership development.

6) Establish virtual platforms to allow women to maintain contact with their research during maternity and family leave.

7) Provide transportation, mothers’ room, daycare facilities and housing assistance to make sure that women can feel safe while working the necessary hours to be successful in research.

8) Provide avenues to facilitate the discussion of women’s issues and include additional groups, such as male colleagues, heads of institutions, and government representatives.

9) Increase the representation of women scientists in important decision-making bodies both at the institutional and national level.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION

References

(1) Last decade, over half of Shanti Swarup winners from three institutions, just seven women amongst awardees. Indian Express. October 2, 2017

(2) Women of Science. Indian Express. October 9, 2017

(3) Ageism in academic jobs in India. Nature Jobs. July 19, 2017

Report by:

Ellen M. Carpenter, Ph.D.

National Science Foundation & Embassy Science Fellow, U.S. Embassy, New Delhi

With inputs from:

Andrea E Robles-Olson & Vid Nukala, Ph.D.

U.S. Embassy, New Delhi

Sarah Iqbal, Ph.D., Bela Desai, Ph.D. & Garima Singh, Ph.D.

Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance

12

1 Acharya Narendra Dev College, Delhi University

2 Aligarh Muslim University

3 Bio-Sciences R&D at Tata Consultancy Services, Pune

4 Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (IGIB), New Delhi

5 BioCare, Department of Biotechnology, Government of India

6 University of Delhi

7 International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), New Delhi

8 Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore

9 Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur

10 Miranda House, Delhi University

11 National Science Foundation, USA

13 Nature India

14 Open Source Pharma, Bangalore

15 Regional Centre for Biotechnology (RCB), Faridabad

16 School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi

17 School of Life Sciences Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi

18 Science and Engineering Research Board, Government of India

19 Science for Equity Empowerment and Development, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India

20 Senior Adviser, Department of Biotechnology

21 Shiv Nadar University, Greater Noida

22 South Asian University, Delhi

23 Sri Venkateswara College, Delhi University

24 Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai

25 The Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (inStem), Bangalore

26 The Life of Science

28 Translational Health Science and Technology Institute (THSTI), Faridabad

29 University College London, UK

30 Vigyan Prasar

APPENDIX A - Institutions/Organisations of the Participants

13

LABORATORY

a. What were your experiences in setting up your laboratory? Were there differences in resources and support provided to women space in setting up laboratories? What suggestions would you make to improve this experience? What advice would you give to a new investigator just setting up her laboratory today?

b. Did you have a mentor as you set up your laboratory? Should mentoring be required for new investigators? Are there any differences in how women are mentored versus men? How could mentoring be improved at your institution?

c. Did your institution provide resources such as travel support for you, or startup money for your laboratory to enable you to buy equipment or to support students or technical staff? Were the resources provided to women different from the resources provided to men?

d. Did your institution provide assistance with childcare or family obligations, such as assistance in finding affordable and high quality childcare?

e. Did institutional age limits play a role in what support was provided to you, or in your ability to compete for your job? Looking back on your experiences, what institutional support would have been helpful as you established your laboratory?

f. What kind of compromises did you make with respect to your workspace, lab facilities, etc.? Did you feel that you had to make more compromises compared to your male colleagues of similar seniority?

INSTITUTION

a. How are administrators selected for your department, program, or institution? Are there any women in the senior administrative structure (department heads, deans, presidents, chief executives, etc.) of your program or institution? What steps should be taken to make sure women are equitably considered for administrative positions?

b. What is the procedure for promotion at your institution? Do you know what is expected from

APPENDIX B - QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSIONDiscussion at the listening session will traverse three levels – laboratory, institution, and nation. At each level, a series of questions will be posed to guide the discussion. Participants should be prepared to identify challenges at each level, and to provide suggestions for improvement and further deliberation or action.

14

you when you are advanced for promotion, such as publications, presentations, grant support, patents, product development, etc.? Do promotion decisions include input from researchers and faculty members or are they made entirely at an administrative level? Do you see any disparity in how women and men are treated in the promotion process? What information or support do you think you need in order to be successfully promoted at your institution?

c. What are your institutional polities with regard to family and life balance, such as maternity leave and family leave? Are the policies applied equally to both men and women? What institutional policies do you think should be implemented to assist researchers who have child-rearing or family responsibilities?

d. There have been many discussions about the “leaky pipeline” in science, particularly as it applies to women. What steps in the pipeline do you think are particularly problematic for women at your institution? Can you help us understand where the leaks are in your institution?

e. Do you know what the sexual harassment policy is at your institution? Do the policies provide protection for both the accuser and the accused, for example anonymity? Have you ever been harassed in your professional career?

f. Does your institution have an ombudsman or neutral party with whom you can discuss differences and disputes? Have you ever had to reach out to the ombudsman? Was the experience positive or negative, and was your concern resolved in a fair and timely manner?

NATION

a. Are there adequate and appropriate avenues to obtain funding for your research? Are there differences in how research is funded for men and women? Does your institution require that you obtain extramural funding to support your research? If you experience a gap in your funding, are there policies in place by either your institution or your funding agency to help you bridge the gap? Do you have any suggestions for your funding agencies about how to improve the funding process, especially for women?

b. How do institutions look for or recruit candidates for open positions? Are there any efforts to consider gender diversity in hiring practices? Is diversity tracking and reporting important for hiring in your field? Do you think a consideration of gender diversity should be an important criterion for hiring?

c. What are more senior investigators, policy makers or administrators doing to think about how to continue or advance your field, and particularly, how to include women in your field? Should there be a planning process to increase the role of women in your field?

15

The Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance (the India Alliance) Hyderabad officeH.No. 8-2-684/3/K/19, 1st Floor, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana, India 500 034Tel : +91-40-4018 9445 / 6 / 7 Fax : +91-40-4018 9449

Delhi office1110, DLF Tower B, Jasola District Centre, Behind Apollo Hospital, New Delhi – 110025Tel : +91-11-4100 8403

The Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance is a registered charity in India.

www.wellcomedbt.org

Embassy of the United States of AmericaShantipath, ChanakyapuriNew Delhi – 110021, DL, INDIATel: +91-11-2419 8000 | Web: in.usembassy.govFB: India.usembassy/ | Twitter: @USAndIndia