Sexual Harassment in Science Today

APS Executive Director Scott Steen, CAE, FASAE, invited Sue Bodine, PhD, FAPS, professor of medicine at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, to a wide-ranging discussion around how women are doing in science, the progress they’ve made over the course of Bodine’s career—especially in regard to sexual harassment and workplace culture—and what needs to be done. Here’s an excerpt of their conversation:

STEEN: As a woman scientist, did you find the experience in academia different than the experience in industry? Was one more accommodating and able to harness your talent more? 
BODINE: I would say that they were similar. I think some of the challenges and barriers are similar in academia and industry for a woman. 

STEEN: I know this might be too personal, so feel free to not answer, but have you personally experienced harassment and gender discrimination? I would imagine, unfortunately, it’s fairly universal for established women scientists, right? 
BODINE: Yes, I have. There are many reports in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report that came out in 2018 that showed that the majority of women in the STEM field have experienced sexual harassment and gender discrimination in various levels. 

STEEN: That study said that between 20 and 50% of female students experience sexual harassment directed at them by faculty or staff. I think, in addition, women can also face a host of degrading or threatening treatment from male colleagues, and even worse, people in positions of authority. 
BODINE: Yeah. 

STEEN: Do you think we are making progress at all? I mean, 2018 was four years ago. 
BODINE: Yes and no. What I really liked about that National Academy of Sciences report was the illustration of [sexual harassment] as an iceberg. Most institutions have just concentrated on everything above the water, and that’s just a very small piece of it. 

STEEN: Which is the most blatant. 
BODINE: Right. Sexual harassment or coercion, and assaults, and physical assault. And to some extent, I think the 2018 report drew attention to that part above the water, and institutions have instituted policies, but I still think there’s a lot of harassment still going on. The reports that I read recently say little has changed. I think women are still sometimes reluctant to say anything because it’s a small community and there’s a fear of retaliation, or that nothing will be done, or they won’t be taken seriously. I think NIH and NSF started paying more attention to it, and men who have been accused of sexual harassment … have lost grants and lost membership in National Academy of Science and other things. That’s a positive outcome, but I still think what’s under the surface still hasn’t been addressed and is still a major problem. 

STEEN: And you’re not going to lose your job because you’re rude, or because of microaggressions … so you could be someone who still treated the women who were subordinate to you in a laboratory horribly, but not necessarily have any consequences to that. 
BODINE: And it’s this constant persistent environment that women find themselves in that ultimately [causes] many of them to leave. And it’s often at the department level; they decide they’ve had enough and they decide to leave science. I was reading a couple of reports where people have talked about women leaving at early stages, but it’s actually happening throughout their career. Women are leaving at all stages. Pipeline is not just leaky at the assistant level, where women are making tenure or having families; it’s occurring at all levels of their career, at full professors, associates. So, I think it’s still a persistent problem. Everybody talks about changing the climate, and it’s hard to describe it. It’s hard to come up with metrics to measure it if they claim it’s gotten better or not. But I think it’s something that needs more discussion and is still a persistent problem. 

STEEN: It feels like it’s structural, and I think there is a perception that academia and science generally are progressive institutions concerned with facts and with achievement and the best idea. And clearly, there are huge issues still regarding both sexual harassment and gender discrimination. 
BODINE: Yeah. 

STEEN: Why do you think it’s so prevalent in both academia and science? 
BODINE: Historically, it’s been a male-dominated field. It’s very hierarchal. … [In science,] you have a lab head and your trainees, your subordinate. There’s this power structure, so I think that’s part of it. … There’s not enough women in leadership positions to change this power structure, so the climate hasn’t changed and it just persists, and nobody calls attention to it or does anything to change it. I’ve often heard people say, “Well, when the older faculty retire, it’ll get better,” but that doesn’t happen because it gets passed down generation to generation because the younger people see what’s tolerated and that becomes the norm and nobody says anything. 

STEEN: Do you think institutions where there’re greater representation of women in leadership are doing better on the issue? Or do you think it’s just so baked into the system? 
BODINE: I think some areas of science where women are a majority, like psychology, are doing better than those that still have this imbalance. It’s been three decades, and if you look at the numbers, they haven’t changed that much as far as women at these higher ranks of department chairs, deans, presidents. So, what is holding women back? Because at first it was, “OK, it’s a numbers game. There’s just not that many women in the pipeline.” Well, now there are plenty of women in the pipeline, and at least 50% or more of graduate students in the biological sciences are women. So, what is hindering women from getting hired in tenure-track positions, making tenure or then getting appointed as department chairs, deans or chancellors? 

One of the things you see is people say, “Oh, well, look, we’ve hired a female chancellor.” OK, that’s one woman. And that’s at the head of the institution. There’s still a very small percentage of department chairs that are women, and it’s at the level of the department where I think that we need to change the climate, and if it changes there, it’ll permeate up. But that’s where it’s tolerated. And if it can change there, maybe we can change the climate to the better, but there needs to be a critical mass of women in the department also and a critical mass of senior women. 

This article was originally published in the March 2022 issue of The Physiologist Magazine.