Why does this matter? Because, to stay competitive in the world economy, America needs more scientists and engineers—and evidence shows that diversity may lead to better science.
Evidence suggests that diverse teams encourage more innovation and creativity, and may lead to better science. A 2014 article in Scientific American on “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter” notes that “simply interacting with individuals who are different forces group members to prepare better, to anticipate alternative viewpoints, and to expect that reaching consensus will take effort.”
And yet, the lack of data on LGBTQ+ careers in science leads to a silence that is discouraging from those same groups we are trying to incorporate.
Everyone I know is leaving academia. It started a few years ago with great postdocs taking alternative academic positions (head of an NSF institute, lead of a nature preserve, etc.), and has now progressed into most of my friends moving to industry (data science, start ups and biology industry).
So it’s really refreshing to read a post about someone who flat out loves their job. Maybe there is still hope?
Over at Vox, Eve Forster, a female neuroscience PhD student, conducted an experiment. For one week on Twitter, she changed her avatar to a male avatar to determine if she would be treated differently as a man. She kept everything else the same, and is very hesitant with her preliminary results (as a good scientist, she recognizes that this is largely anecdotal) but her experience is none-the-less fascinating.
In the biological sciences, authorship of scientific, peer-reviewed articles is perhaps the single biggest determinant of career success, recognition and grant funding. However, merely being one author out of, say 5, on an article is not enough, where you are on that list matters too.
Steven Burgess has proposed a radical idea on how to do away with this problem:
:) the idea is to do away completely with author hierarchy – just state what each person contributed
“The unasked question that this all comes down to is: Do publisher-owned rights matter more than the sharing of research for whatever benefit?” says Jon Tennant, communications director of professional research network ScienceOpen (also an STM member) in Berlin. “There’s a chance that ResearchGate will fail to recover from this, unless they fight back, and crumble as a business.”
Although physicists have been posting preprints for nearly 3 decades, many biologists have only just begun to widely share their unreviewed papers. The shift has been catalyzed, in part, by endorsements of preprint publishing from high-profile scientists, as well as the 2013 launch of the nonprofit bioRxiv by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) in New York; bioRxiv now holds more than 15,000 papers. But in contrast to physics, where preprints took off without much fanfare or controversy, the leap into preprints is stirring strong passions in the hyper-competitive world of the life sciences.
accelerate the pace of science—and improve its quality—by publicizing findings long before they reach journals,
helping researchers get rapid feedback on their work
giving a leg up to young researchers who don’t yet have many publications
little difference between posting a preprint and presenting unpublished findings at a meeting, except that the preprint audience can be far larger
competitors may steal their data or ideas, and rush to publish similar work.
preprint servers will become a time sink, as scientists spend hours trying to sift through an immense mishmash of papers of various quality
easy, rapid publication could foster preprint wars—in which the findings in one preprint are quickly attacked in another, sometimes within hours. Such online squabbles could leave the public bewildered and erode trust in scientists.