On Being a Conference Quota

Posted on April 4, 2014 by soapboxscience

noprofileimageyetBy A Woman in Science

 

I attended an excellent specialist conference today, at which I was also a speaker. All speakers were invited. There were 24 of us. My invitation was somewhat clumsy. The organisers had noticed their first draft of speakers was a bit male biased (in fact it was 93% male!). They realised this was not great, and so sought out suggestions for suitable female speakers from colleagues. My (female) friend recommended me. A day later, I received an email inviting me to be speaker. I accepted, because the conference really interested me and I welcomed the excuse to put aside the hum-drum of daily life and learn something new.

I received a follow up email from the organisers, who apologised profusely for the way the invite had been issued. They guessed I had heard through my friend how the invitation came about. It certainly did look like I had been invited in a ‘wave of panic for equality’. They assured me that this was not the case, that this was not a ‘tokenistic invitation’, and that they were sure my name would have surfaced sooner, if they’d had noticed their blunder earlier. At the two-day conference, 5 speakers were female and 17 were male. So, they managed to steer their male bias from 93% to 71%, by luring in another 4 women somewhat late in the day.

I write this on my long commute home from the conference. I reflect on the day, as the sun reflects on the coming dusk. My talk appeared to be well received, I learned lots from the other talks and participants, I’ve even come away with some new ideas for a grant proposal. There is no doubt that today was a good use of my time.

But it is hard to not feel a little bit ‘tokenistic’. I have often joked about being a happy recipient of positive discrimination. But this is the first time I have knowingly ‘benefited’. I don’t regret the invite. But I do regret the knowledge I have about how (or why) I was invited. No scientist (man or woman) wants to be rewarded for their gender rather than the quality of their science.

Enough of such sentimental navel-gazing. Let’s turn our attention to understanding why conference organisers get themselves into a mess like this. Here is my ‘journalistic’ (i.e. subjective, unreplicated analysis) of the situation.

A plausible explanation for this situation is that this is not a ‘female-friendly’ branch of science, and there are simply not many women to choose from. For reasons explained below, this blog is anonymous, so I cant give away the discipline. From the list of 104 conference participants (including speakers), 46% were female. I can’t remember the last time I attended a conference with such an equal sex ratio. Clearly, women love this field of science, and clearly they have the funding to attend, which suggests they are successful, active scientists. Why weren’t more of them invited to speak?

The organisers were clearly targeting the more senior, established scientists as speakers (there we go – I’ve given it away: I’m no baby!). So, one could argue that it is not reasonable to expect the sex ratio of the speakers to reflect the sex ratio of the audience: there are fewer women in senior positions in science. Early career scientists appeared to be well represented in the audience demographic, and so this could be part of the problem (sadly, the ages of the participants were not provided – and I don’t have time to hunt down 104 CVs on the internet!)

A more plausible explanation, however, is the prevailing problem of the ‘lad culture’ in science. The organisers (both men) admitted to me that they’d largely drawn up their speaker list from their group of drinking buddies (either locally or from the crowds they hang out with at conferences). Five women were apparently invited: all but one declined (the reasons for this would be another whole blog…). Perhaps having a woman on the organising committee would have shifted the balance away from the pub crowd, to a gender-neutral choice.

So why is this Blog anonymous? Not for my own sake – I have no qualms about discussing this issue, and nor should anyone (male or female): the more we talk about it, the less these blunders will recur. This blog is anonymous for the sake of the conference organisers, who in every other way were brilliant and organised a top-notch, high quality meeting! They took great pains to explain and again apologise to me about the situation, and tied themselves up in knots in their efforts to assure me I was not a ‘token woman’. I hope they read this blog, realise it’s about them and use their experience to educate the scientific community. Meanwhile, i look forward to a world where checking the gender-bias in conference speakers is higher up on the list than booking the tea and biscuits.

Posted in Opinion piece | Leave a comment

Soapbox Science is coming to Swansea

Posted on February 20, 2014 by soapboxscience

By The Swansea Soapboxscience Team

 

Swansea University Logo 301Inspired by PVC Professor Hilary Lappin-Scott’s experience of talking about science from the soapbox in London 2013, Swansea University is hosting its first Soapbox Science event on Saturday 5th July 2014. Our soapboxes will be positioned overlooking the magnificent expanse of Swansea Bay next to the 360 Beach and Watersports centre and café. The Bay will be buzzing with cyclists, joggers, dog walkers, and families out for a walk – we aim to stop them in their tracks with amazing women talking about amazing science!

 

Swansea is a perfect location for a Soapbox Science event. The city has a rich industrial heritage and history of engineering and science with Swansea University at the forefront of science and technology innovation. Our mission is to raise the profile of women in STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) and to break down the myth that only men can become mathematicians and engineers.

 

Do you think you could inspire the public about your science? Could you motivate young women and girls to believe they could aspire to a career in science? We need you to get out of the lab and onto the seafront to bring your work to the public.

 

If you would like to be a Soapbox speaker please apply using the form (it’s short and easy to complete) on the Soapbox Science home page and send it to soapboxscienceswansea@gmail.com by 28th February.

You can also read about Professor Hilary Lappin-Scott’s adventures from the soapbox here!

 

Posted in Event promotion | Leave a comment

Where are the women like me in science?

Posted on November 26, 2013 by soapboxscience

brekkeDr Patricia Brekke is a research fellow at the Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London. Her research interests focus on the ecology, evolution and conservation of reintroduced species, particularly, the evolutionary and genetic consequences of reintroduction of wild bird populations. She routinely use pedigrees and molecular tools to understand the role of inbreeding, genetic diversity loss and a species’ life-history traits on their vulnerability to extinction. Here, Patricia talks about “the women like her”, and how she intends to do science – her way. 

“When I speak to female peers in my and other academic institutions, many express doubts about being able to remain in academia. Some, like me, are plagued by impostor’s syndrome – believing we have got to where we have by luck, not by merit. But many also say something that never fails to surprise me – ‘Women like me don’t make it to the top in academia’. What exactly does that mean? Women like me? Probing a little further I find ‘women like me’ are women that want a work-life balance, to have children sooner rather than later in life, who are not overly confident and finally (and what I find most interesting of all) who believe they are not aggressive enough to progress within the current academic structure.

There used to be a widely held stereotype of what we believed a successful female academic had to be – aggressive, intimidating, controlling and often unnecessarily harsh to women at lower rungs in the academic ladder. And maybe some do still exist that fit that mould. But on the whole, we are lucky that many of the women that went before us paved the way so that we do not have to become that stereotype to succeed. I have met female academics who have given me opportunities to progress and encouraged me to pursue my goals. Those are the women I should remember and emulate.

I think the demographic of ‘women in science’ and especially those at the top is rapidly changing, becoming more varied and this is because women themselves have been, and are, changing the process and the work structure. As a female scientist at the early-ish stages of her career, I am lucky to work in a department that has a pretty balanced, if not female-biased demographic. I am proud of the fact that we have a very nurturing environment for women as well as men. There is very little hierarchy and none of the massive egos that seem to plague a lot of academic establishments.

This is by no means the norm. I am not saying all is well and good. Only 29% of the world’s researchers are women, and senior positions (including my own institution) still tend to be filled by middle aged men. We still have a very long way to go. But we have to change it from within, and perhaps the best way to start is by not selling ourselves short.

There are a lot of hurdles, but if science is what you love, don’t let the lack of role models put you off. Become one. Become an ambassador for women like you, whatever that may be.”

 

 

Posted in Opinion piece | Leave a comment

Conciliating experimental psychology and family life

Posted on November 19, 2013 by soapboxscience

Angela RoweDr Angela Rowe is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol.  She completed her undergraduate degree in Applied Psychology at Cardiff University (1996) and stayed there to do a PhD in social cognitive psychology. She was awarded a doctorate in 2001, prior to which she joined the University of Bristol in 1999.  Her research focuses mainly on a) mental representations of attachment and how these bias perception, cognition and behaviour; b) hormonal influences on social and affiliative behaviour. Here, she gives some insights on her career path and her way of conciliating family life and career development

 

Angela, thank you so much for agreeing to be part of our blog series. To start with, can you summarise your research area and explain why it interests you, and why you believe it is important?

I have various lines of research that are all informed by (adult) attachment theory. Over the years I have researched how representations of our attachment styles influence social behaviour but also how they bias cognition in ways individuals are not aware of. This has been particularly interesting with regards to research we have done where we activate a sense of attachment security and observe the positive personal and interpersonal effects this can have on peoples’ self and other perceptions and sense of self. More recently I have also become interested in the hormone (and neuropeptide) oxytocin. Our research and that of others has shown that enhancing levels of oxytocin improves human social cognition in a number of ways, rendering individuals better at reading emotions in others, for example. The actions of oxytocin may also have potential clinical benefits that we are starting to explore. In fact, this is the focus of the grant I am currently writing.

The research I do is important because the quality of our social relationships is a) underpinned by our social cognitive skills and representations of attachment; and b) has big implications for wellbeing and psychological health. Understanding, therefore, environmental and psychological influences on social cognitive skills can lead to ways of enhancing these, and ultimately wellbeing.

 

Can you detail your career path?

I did my undergraduate degree and PhD at Cardiff University and came to Bristol while I was writing up the PhD to work with Professor Neil Macrae. I tried not to take it personally when the following year he left!  I have been here ever since and have held various roles as research assistant, temporary lecturer and finally was offered a lectureship in 2005. I have been a Senior Lecturer since 2008.

 

Why did you decide to come to Bristol University?

I came to Bristol primarily to work with Professor Neil Macrae, a social cognitive psychologist, but also because I was aware of the research strengths of the School and the potential for collaboration. Experimental Psychology at Bristol has a very good reputation but I must admit also to being very impressed by the School’s history. As a social psychologist I was rather in awe of the fact that giants in social psychology had done seminal work here. Henri Tajfel, the grandfather of prejudice and discrimination research – to name just one – was here in the 70s and 80s.

 

What made you go into science in the first place, and then academia?

In the third year of undergraduate study I did two courses that changed my life and convinced me that I needed to do a PhD. One of these courses was adult attachment, taught by the person who became my PhD supervisor, Dr Kathy Carnelley, and the other was in social cognition. It seemed logical to apply methods from one to the other. I wasn’t the first to have this idea but there seemed to be many avenues ripe for pursuing and I was bitten by the research bug. I also discovered I enjoyed teaching so academia seemed an obvious direction for me. There are a number of academics in my family so I understood the delights that doing research and teaching in a university environment can bring.

 

Has the fact that it’s a traditionally male-orientated field ever deterred you, and/or how have you overcome that?

No, not at all.

 

Were there any role models/mentors/key figures that inspired you, particularly any women?

My PhD supervisor, Dr Kathy Carnelley, has always been an inspiration to me. I have learned a lot from many other people also, including my students.

 

Can you detail any events, activities or occasions where you have been especially supported, as a “woman in science”?

My Head of School is very supportive of all the women in the School and has sent me on courses and mentored me over the years.

 

Have you encountered any obstacles in getting to where you are now, and if so how did you overcome them?

It was hard to get a foothold on the lectureship ladder but persistence paid off in the end.

 

What are the most enjoyable aspects of your role?

Having ideas and brainstorming with colleagues and students is a thrill. I guess the intellectual challenges are the most rewarding. It is also very exciting to see students blossom into budding researchers. I hate to admit it but I have also enjoyed some of my administrative roles as these have given me access to people across the university and insight into the workings of this enormous (and previously mysterious) machine that is the University of Bristol.

 

What are the most challenging?

Ensuring that I make time for writing has always been a bit of a struggle, not least as it feels like writing is the thing that can most easily be put off when times are busy. I am better at protecting time and organising myself these days.

 

As well as being a scientist, do you have any other major commitments, such as family, and if so, how do you achieve a balance between them?

I had my daughter in the gap between A levels and university and my son just after my first year exams so they have always been around. In a certain sense it meant I was more focused on university work than fellow students with fewer commitments and that can’t be a bad thing. It’s not like I could go partying with my fellow students when I felt like it! At points it was hard to achieve a work-life balance I must say though. I am married to a lawyer and in the early days he had to record every six minutes of his day so it was just easier for me to take the major role with the kids, being the dropper-offer and picker-upper and the one the school called when they were ill. But they are both grown-up now and I can work late whenever I fancy!

 

Aside from science, what are your interests?

I love the theatre. It was my first love and had I had any talent in play writing or acting life may have been very different. I go to every good production I can and travelling down to London to see a play on a Saturday night is a great treat. I have a very healthy and enjoyable social life and I love getting away. I am a complete Italophile and am not happy unless I get to Italy at least once every year.

 

What advice would you give to young, aspiring scientists today, particularly women?

If you want to be a scientist then identify the way to get there and follow that path. Persistence is the key. Don’t expect anyone to open the doors for you – that’s your job.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Conciliating experimental psychology and family life

When is a Person Not a Person?

Posted on September 11, 2013 by soapboxscience

Mill's_logic_1867Prior to 1929 women were not eligible to sit in the House of Lords, to be elected to County Councils, to be judges or jurors or to work as solicitors. As Evershed MR said in one case, De Souza v Cobden: “women are not in general deemed capable of exercising public functions”. Even the passage of an Act of 1850, which deemed that legislation referring to a man was to include a woman unless the contrary was expressly provided, did not prevent a court in Chorlton v Ling from deciding that an Act giving the right to vote to “every man” excluded women. The issue surfaced this century in the Privy Council case of Edwards v Canada [1930] AC 124. Under the British North America Act of 1867 only qualified “persons” were eligible to stand for senate. In 1928 the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Emily Murphy, an early advocate of women’s rights, and three other women were not “persons” for the purpose of the Act, and so could not stand for parliament. They appealed to the Privy Council, which for the first time decided that the word “person” was ambiguous and could include both sexes. As Lord Sankey put it “and to those who ask why the word should include females, the obvious answer is why it should not?”. The women won their appeal – they were now, legally, “persons” – one small step in legal reasoning but a big step for womankind…

 

Michael Ford QC is a barrister specialising in labour law, discrimination law and human rights. He recently did a biology degree to prove anyone can do science!

Posted in Opinion piece | Leave a comment

Getting a research career established with small babies

Posted on July 12, 2013 by soapboxscience

noprofileimageyetSoapbox Science posts blogs about women in science. Often, women are uncomfortable with speaking out about the challenges and problems they face in their careers. Speaking out or asking questions about balancing work and family life may signify lack of commitment to the job. The following blog has been sent to us for publication: it is taken verbaitum from an email by a female academic with two children to a colleague, just after that colleague announced she was pregnant and wrote asking for advice about combining babies with the early stages of establishing an independent research career. 

 

“After hearing your wonderful news this morning (congratulations again!) I have been reflecting on the challenges of establishing an academic career while having babies and young children. Firstly some caveats. This is not advice. Everyone’s experience of motherhood is different. What works depends on what the baby is like, your partner’s job, what support family can provide, your financial circumstances and most of all….what feels right. Writing this I am struck by just how lucky I have been with how much help our families have been able to give us and I also am so blessed by having a partner who has been as involved in raising our children as I have. Of course not everyone has this. Finally I am really aware that this reads as if everything was simple and straightforward and I knew it was all going to work out for career and family. This isn’t true.

I think it is vital to be honest-taking a big chunk away from research while having kids can certainly knock back an academic career (& can even knock it totally off track). You hear advice from people (usually not academics) saying you have to protect your maternity leave and not do any work when you are on leave. Maybe that works for other careers but I honestly believe that it isn’t always possible or desirable for someone wanting a career leading their own research. I am not suggesting you work work work while the baby is small (the number 1 priority must be relishing this amazing time together) but for many of us there will be certain opportunities which you have to grab when they come along. I heard I had got through the 1st round of a grant a couple of weeks after my 2nd child was born and had 6 weeks to submit the full proposal. There were certainly challenges (e.g. my university finance department wouldn’t communicate with me as I was on maternity leave!) but I got the grant written and it was funded. This meant I came back from maternity leave to a fully funded research project with a post-doc and I lived off data collected from that grant pretty much until he started school. If I had not made that investment while on maternity leave I would have wasted all earlier preparation I had put into that project and would have needed to start designing new projects and collaborations when I got back from maternity leave (much more stressful than just getting stuck into a funded project). Having said that I hope it is possible to take a step back from research for a few years while the children are small and then slot back in. This isn’t the approach I took though so I can only speak from my experience.

Maybe I have an odd view on this but I view my teaching, running courses etc as something I do ‘for the university’ (though many of these aspects of my job I do enjoy in many ways as much as research). My research I do for me (though of course it also benefits the university). As academics we are our own brand. To get the next grant, get papers published, get invited to act as editor, onto grant panels etc etc your reputation is vital. The good thing is academia is pretty meritocratic, BUT the bad thing is no one thinks ‘ahh she is actually quite productive given the maternity leave and the part time status etc etc’. Outside your own university (where HR should make sure these things are properly accounted for) you are judged on your productivity per se, not your productivity pro rata. This might not be the way it should be but to some extent it is.

BUT there are many positive things about combining academia and motherhood. Firstly there has been a huge amount of attention given to the issue of why women don’t progress in academia which has resulted in many universities bending over backwards to support those returning from maternity leave (as it sounds like yours have done-6 months of no teaching after maternity leave is great!). You could almost say things are easier for a new mother in academia than a new father. You get time off teaching (maternity leave) so any energy you have can be given to your research AND promotion panels/ref submissions etc can take into account an expected drop in productivity. A fully involved new father is often just as tired but there are no special measures to help him when his research productivity drops.

Another positive thing is academia is entirely output focused. No one cares how long you spend working, where you work (with some limitations-field work is obviously an extra challenge) etc etc. What matters is what you produce. This is really positive and helpful.

A third positive is that many babies do also sleep quite a lot (though not always when you need them to!). Maternity leave with my second child (and the teaching free time I was so blessed to get after coming back) was in fact one of the most academically productive times I have had. The total break from teaching and course admin was brilliant. I didn’t work many hours (certainly not traditional ‘work’ in front of a computer). But I found long walks with a baby in a sling were a great chance to really think.

Some tips (though see caveats above about not wanting to give advice!):
1) Never over-explain. No one needs to know why you are not able to read a draft of a paper/PhD chapter/grant proposal at that moment. Colleagues don’t care that your baby is teething (OK so this is a bit harsh but it is a good assumption to make-you can talk about these things with friends and family). Rather than sending a long email explaining why you haven’t done x, y or z, just don’t answer the email for an extra day or so (the chances are they won’t notice) and then get it done.
2) Prioritise getting the best possible and most flexible child-care possible. Great child-care that you trust will make working so much more possible. I got my 1st job in academia a few weeks before giving birth the 1st time. I didn’t get formal maternity leave as started work at 32 weeks (and the legal aspects were not relevant to me anyway; trust had been placed in me by an academic I greatly respected, the opportunity was amazing and I loved the work). The challenge was then how to get the work done with a tiny baby. Our solution was that a mother from the village with a baby a similar age came over for a couple of days a week with her baby and she looked after both babies together in my home while I worked upstairs. She could call me if the baby needed a feed. This worked brilliantly for both of us-she earned a bit of money while looking after her own baby, while I was able to get work done while being close to my baby. As kids grow the ‘get the best and most flexible child care you can afford’ rule has stayed really important. When our 2nd was born and I was on maternity leave it would have been financially best to take our older one out of nursery. However she loved it there, was settled and her life was disrupted enough by having a new baby in her life. ALSO if she was still in nursery I could sleep when the baby slept or (when I had the energy) work on the grant I was writing. It was financially inefficient in the short run, but the best possible solution for us as a family.
3) Make full use of any help family and friends are offering. When my 1st was born I had just started a project in a university far away. I needed to make the most of this by actually being there quite a bit (the work has led to a whole bunch of interesting papers and really made a difference to the development of my career, if I hadn’t gone I wouldn’t have those papers). My wonderful mother travelled across the whole country to care for the baby during my trips. She would go for walks around the campus and pop in to see me whenever the baby needed a feed. It worked for her as she wanted to see her grandchild and it wasn’t actually that much further to travel to see me there than at home. It worked for me (obviously!). The only downside was cost (luckily my mother was able and willing to very kindly pay the costs of her travel, accommodation etc).  Thinking back now I am realising just how much my mother has done making it possible for me to take up these vital career development opportunities. In addition my parents in law have come over one day a week every week since the kids were born (truly heroic as they live more than an hour away). I can’t say how valuable this has been and fully recognise not everyone has this.

4) My final (and most important) tip is: ‘Take everything a parent says whose kids are more than 3 months older than yours with a large pinch of salt’. WE HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT IT IS REALLY LIKE!”

 

This contribution has been written by an academic working in ecology at a UK University, who would like to remain anonymous.

Posted in Opinion piece | Leave a comment

The beauty of computer science

Posted on July 4, 2013 by soapboxscience

MariaV.jpgMaria studied Philosophy and Mathematics at the University of Turin, Italy. After moving to London, she pursued an MSc at Imperial College London and remained there for her PhD. During her PhD she worked in the field of theoretical computer science, establishing limits of distributed computation. Maria has worked in the field of semantics of programming languages where formal techniques are developed in order to build bug-free software or for discovering bugs and security weaknesses in software. Maria has also worked in the field of queuing theory, which helps in establishing the performance of complicated systems. Over the last few years, Maria has studied product-form solutions for stochastic processes and developed some very novel and deep results in that area. Product-form solutions have the great advantage of expressing stationary distributions in high-dimension stochastic correlated processes as product of the accordingly modified stationary distributions of each stochastic process component. These results are obtained by describing the state space of the stochastic processes using formal rigorous techniques derived from the field of semantics of programming languages. Maria tells Seirian Sumner, Soapbox Science co-founder and co-organizer, her inspirational story about how she discovered her aptitude for mathematics, and juggled a young family with her PhD work to realize her dream of being a computer scientist.

 

SS: Hi Maria, what made you decide to become a computer scientist?

MV: When I was a child I always admired scientists, not only because they seemed intelligent and could improve the state of world and increase our knowledge, but I also admired them for their moral stamina. In some cases, like Galileo, scientific discoveries come at a great personal cost. As a child, I admired that quality of believing in the evidence as opposed to following “fashionable beliefs”. Having said that, my perception was that only “clever people” could become scientists, not me. Coming from a working-class background, I had no idea how people ended up working as “scientists,” I just admired them, and read about their discoveries. At university, I started to study philosophy because I wanted to understand the world around us, and I never thought of myself as “scientific person.” I do not know why I had this prejudice about myself, because I always liked science and mathematics; after a couple of years, I realized that my own fear was preventing me from studying something that I really liked. So I started to study mathematics as well, and I completed my first degree with a final year project on second order logic. Logic and computer science are very much related, so during my degree I took a few courses in computing. This led me to start an MSc at Imperial College London, and there the opportunity to pursue a PhD arose. I grabbed that opportunity with both hands; it was a dream which  has become true.

 

SS: You already had two children under the age of three when you started your PhD. How did this effect your studies?

MV: in all honesty I never thought that this was a problem. On the contrary, my children helped me to keep sight of what was important. It did require a great amount of discipline, and a lot of support from my wonderful husband. In fact, I feel that it is wrong to say that my husband “supported me”, as if his rolewas minor in our family life. We are equals partners in every sense, and I have always trusted him as he trusts me. During my career I have travelled a lot, occasionally I have been away for months for research visits. I have never had to worry about home, in the same sense that when my husband travels he does not worry about home. Nonetheless, I have always missed home during my travels. I think this experience gave my children a clear idea that their parents have an equal role in their upbringing. I truly loved working on my PhD as I believe every PhD student does, with all its ups and downs, but at the end, I would only change one thing: a bigger PhD bursary, which would have helped a lot to cover the costs of childcare. Other than that, I feel I have realized a dream.

 

SS: It’s a real inspiration to young women, to know that it is possible to be a mum and a scientist, especially in the early career staged.  Is your dream still alive?

MV: Yes, I still feel I live my dream, and I am thankful to Great Britain and Imperial College London for having allowed me carry out research for so long.  After my PhD I changed area of research and I started to work in the field of performance evaluation and queuing theory. It was like starting a new PhD, but I loved it as well. Because I have expertise in various fields of Computer Science, I have been able to carry out rather novel research by using techniques of various fields in different ways.

I love my job; it is hard sometimes, but when I succeed in solving a big problem, the satisfaction simply cannot be described. I lived the first twenty years of my life in a council flat, not really believing that the life of research was for me, and now being at my desk, spending time thinking about hard problems in security, or on social media, or in fundamental problems in computer science, and teaching very interesting and bright students, or meeting other scientists to discuss problems, it is simply unbelievable.

 

SS: Maths and computing is one of the most challenging topics to explain to the public. Tell us why you wanted to take part in Soapbox Science.

MV: I have always enjoyed talking to the general public about computing. It helps me to gains a fresh perspective in the field, and to fall in love with computer science again. When I work on an article or a problem, the details are very important, and sometimes I lose the sense of the global picture.

I fully support the Soapbox initiative as I think that more women could be in science. Women sometimes feel they don’t belong in academia, despite their abilities. In particular in computer science,  women are deeply missed. I want to show women that computing is not about programming and games, or being a nerd,  it is about understanding how to reasoning about  problems with algorithms – rigorously following a procedure to obtain a result. It is rather baffling that many women do study mathematics, but only a few take a degree in computer science. I have been giving talks in secondary schools about what it really means to embark on the journey  of studying computer science.  I hope to use Soapbox Science to help the public discover the “beauty of computing”.

 

Be seduced by the beauty of computing with Dr Maria Vigliotti on 5th July 2013, Gabriel’s Wharf SouthBank, London, where she will be talking about: “Be aware! Computing is everywhere!” Maria’s participation in Soapbox Science is made possible thanks to sponsorship from L’Oreal For Women in Science and the Zoological Society of London. 

Posted in 2013 speakers blog | Leave a comment

Science, and all that jazz….

Posted on July 4, 2013 by soapboxscience

jassel.jpgJassel has studied theoretical physics, music and materials science in Scotland, USA and now London. She is currently pursuing a PhD at Imperial College in hydrogen embrittlement in nuclear reactors – a hot topic in both politics and science. Her ‘spare’ time is focussed on projects in science communication, which include public science events, and training researchers in communication techniques.

Jassel is also a jazz musician; she explains to Seirian Sumner, Soapbox Science co-founder and co-organiser, how her love of arts inspires her science, rather than slowing her down.

 

SS: Hi Jassel, at what point did you decide to pursue physics for your career and why?JM: When it came to picking a science – well – I didn’t quite get chemistry, and biology was slimy – so physics was all that was left… really, that was it. I took the approach of bridging the science-arts divide for as long as possible, before making the decision to follow physics. To be honest, I think I’m still doing it. I kept up music all the way through school and university, really got into literature, and took up maths and physics too.

The moment I knew physics was for me was when I finally understood how a pendulum worked, and actually related it to the mathematics in one of the most elegant ways possible. This is called simple harmonic motion, and it is wonderful. If you take the bottom most point of the swing and trace out the distance the pendulum travels – and plot it on a graph of distance against time – you get a sine wave. If you plotted the how the velocity changes – noticing it’s fastest at the bottom most point – you get a cosine wave. Velocity is the change in distance over time – or a derivative of distance, and cosine is the derivative of sine. The same approach can be taken to obtain the acceleration and therefore the restoring force. The mathematics represents the real world behaviour of this simple system perfectly. The rest is just building on principles like that.

Of course none of this would have happened when it did without the help of a rather good physics teacher. My physics teacher really sold the science, and acknowledged that it wasn’t easy, and encouraged me a hell of a lot to push on. I think that the lack of good and inspiring physics teachers is one of the main reasons why there are so few students, particularly girls, going into the physical sciences. My advice would be, if your physics teacher isn’t selling it very well, or being particularly inspiring – go to Richard Feynman as your back up. Trust me.

 

SS: As well as being passionate about your science, you also enjoy music. Tell us about your music life, and how it fits in with your work life.

JM: The main thing I love about physics, and the sciences, is that it thrives on creativity. You don’t get a Nobel Prize for doing the same thing as everyone else. It pays to be kooky, think outside the box, and really get creative. I’m a jazz musician as well as a scientist, and I think the two complement each other.

Following, my degree in theoretical physics from the University of St Andrews, I went on to Emory University on the Robert T. Jones scholarship to study “anything I wanted” – literally. So I used my time to focus more on the arts side of my life – jazz music. Having played the sax for nearly 10 years, I wanted to nail down some skills I really didn’t have time to work on during my degree. I also took the opportunity to travel through the USA, covering 27 states and playing music in many of them.

Science is not unlike jazz music. Anyone who has ever tried to learn a musical instrument can tell you that you won’t play like John Coltrane, or Miles Davis straight away. For both of these guys it took years of work. Jazz music in particular, is about trying to fully convey what you mean, express your emotions, and get the audience to go on a journey with you. You can’t do any of this, and you certainly can’t improvise, without knowing the language of Jazz first. You have to learn all your scales, backwards and forwards and sideways and lengthways, day in, day out, for years. You struggle, and it’s hard, and you want to give up. How is everyone else making it look so easy? Then you learn a few licks – borrow them off your favourite musicians. And then one day, it clicks, and you manage to hit people right in the heart with a solo.

The same goes for the sciences. All the work that goes into learning the basic principles and getting your head around the mathematics; it’s all worth it when one day you come up with an idea that no one else has had. Even Richard Feynman talked about the joy of finding things out, but that it took a whole bunch of work to learn the language first.

People will often mistake something requiring creativity as the same as being easy/coming naturally to people. As we saw with Miles and John, that is not true! But hard is good, and easy is often not worthwhile. JFK put it well when he challenged a nation to do the impossible – land a man on the Moon. 

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other things… not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

 

SS: It’s great to hear how the arts can inspire and help science. Was it difficult to get back into science after your creative break?

JM: After my year of jazz, I returned to the sciences when I started my MSc in the Theory and Simulation of Materials at Imperial College London, in a new Centre for Doctoral Training. Here, I moved away from the traditional theoretical physics I was so comfortable with, and embarked on a new journey into the physics of materials. The amazing thing about materials is that they bring together quantum mechanics, and chemistry and all the different topics within the physical sciences. From here I continued onto the PhD programme and now research the mechanisms by which metals in nuclear reactors might fracture – specifically – hydrogen embrittlement. As valuable to human life as hydrogen might be, it’s a bit of a pain inside many metals. It does lots of different things to cause them to break apart. I study the way hydrogen diffuses through a metal, to cracks on the surface, and I develop computer simulations based on all of the physics involved in that process.

It might not sound like a big change, but physics is vast, and so it was quite a leap to go from traditional theoretical physics like superconductivity, into the science of materials within nuclear reactors.

I have been told that my chance of becoming a great physicist would be jeopardized if I carried on doing other things. Yes, someone actually said that to me. He said that he used to play the flute and gave it all up to be a great scientist. I’ll tell you this – I would rather be half good and do all of what I love, than be brilliant and do only one thing with my time.

 

SS: Physics suffers the most in not being able to attract and retain women scientist. But clearly, you are a woman who is totally hooked on physics. Why do you think there is this problem with attracting girls into physics?

JM:  There is this awful image of girls not being cut out for the “hard” sciences, like physics to battle with. The issue appears to be with society as a whole – not just the men. Society has a stereotype of what the role a woman and a man should be in the world. Whether we like it or not, everyone, especially the young and impressionable, are not immune to these stereotypes, however subtly they may be implied!  It could be as simple as being given a different toy to your baby brother, or being told in maths class that it’s ok that you didn’t solve the quadratic equation, or at a later stage – being told that women just have lower thresholds for the politics and stress that comes with a career in academia. Whether the intention of these actions are honourable or not, they are a result of an unconscious gender stereotype, and only help to perpetuate them further in the future.

Soapbox Science, in my opinion, is taking a real step forward in reminding the world – and especially young people – that women can do science and are brilliant scientists. This is in spite of gender stereotypes, and on top of juggling all the other roles a woman may have, be it managing her family or also her research group. The point is that it is possible, and the reason we do it is because we love it. Finally, pushing the topic of gender aside, Soapbox Science is here to show the world that science is simply worth doing, by anyone.

 

Join Jassel Majevadia on 5th July 2013, Gabriel’s Wharf SouthBank, London, where she will be talking about: “Crack! Why hydrogen is a menace inside metals” Jassel’s participation in Soapbox Science is made possible thanks to sponsorship from L’Oreal For Women in Science and the Zoological Society of London. Tweet her @jazzmajevadia

Posted in 2013 speakers blog | Leave a comment

Embracing the international aspects of a life scientific

Posted on July 3, 2013 by soapboxscience

Maria picture514b32cfda338.jpgDr. Maria Ocampo-Hafalla’s scientific career has been devoted to studying the two major types of genetic changes that are observed in tumors. During her MSc and PhD in New York, she studied single base-pair mutations. She went on to study chromosomal instability as the topic of her USA National Science Foundation Research Fellowship and Marie Curie Fellowship, held at Cancer Research UK’s London Research Institute. She is now a Principal Scientific Officer in the Chromosome Segregation Lab, where she is investigating the mechanisms that regulate chromosomal stability, with the aim of providing crucial insights into the processes that impact healthy cellular growth and proliferation. Maria tells Seirian Sumner, Soapbox Science co-founder and co-organiser,  how she juggles a vibrant work and family life, without the support network of a family near by. Her story tells us how a bit of courage, persistence and passion for science helps overcome the challenges facing mums in science.

 

SS: Hi Maria, science is an international business these days. Translocating around the world appears to be a crucial boost for securing a permanent position in science these days. You’ve moved around a lot during your career, and you now live far from your family. How has this international life helped get you to where you are now?

MOH: I was born in the Philippines, but raised in California. I received my PhD in New York, before moving to London for my first postdoc. Education opened doors for me, and in many ways, I’ve benefited from scientific mobility. Even as an undergraduate student, I held research internships at other universities during the summer breaks. There were the pre- and post-doctoral fellowships that funded my early research, the opportunities to live in amazing cities and the chance to train and work in world-class institutes. I’m grateful for so much.

Two years ago, I accepted a position as a scientific officer at Cancer Research UK. It was a permanent, full-time position that offered me flexibility and the chance to continue with an independent research project, while developing management skills. It’s a juggling act still, and sometimes I doubt myself, my decision. After all, I’ve been working in a research lab and dreaming of becoming a lab head since I was a teenager. My undergraduate degree was from a women’s college in an NIH-funded training program and lab. I had good mentors, good role models, a funding history, and decent publications. But this role as a scientific officer is my way of staying in science with my particular circumstances now. I’m trying not to disappear.

There have been many sacrifices and challenges. At the start of my postdoc, I was one of NatureJobs’ Postdoc Journal Keepers, and for one year, I wrote a monthly article about my experiences, ranging from moving to another country to do my postdoc (http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7127-564c), to coping with challenges I faced in the lab. I was quite candid, and always approached my misadventures with a dose of good humour. Now, some years later, I find that the stakes are higher, and the consequences more sobering. Looking back to when I was a student or a postdoc imagining my future, I’m not sure I have what I wanted then. But, perhaps the biggest difference is, I want what I have now.

 

SS: You are a great role model: we’d like to see more amazing women like you, not ‘disappear’ from science. You now have a fabulous position at a world-class science institution. Do you still find challenges in balancing work and family life?

MOH: We chose to wait five years to start a family, partly because we were in a dual-science career home and because we were so far from most of our family and friends. Then my husband’s international collaborations required more of his time, ironically just after our child was born. At times it’s hard for me to be the one left behind with our child, but it’s also hard for him to be the one to go away. We do our best to hang on, together, apart. But science also offers flexibility and promotes creativity, and although our hours can be unconventional, we can both be there for milestones, like our daughter’s first day of school, first school play and first ballet recital.

 

SS: Raising a family is a challenge for anyone, working or not working! But you have a demanding job, and no family support nearby. How have you managed this?

MOH: Yes, it has been tough. One of the lowest points for me was sitting in a hospital room in urine-soaked trousers in the middle of the night with my feverish toddler, who had just been admitted to hospital. There was a mishap when collecting her urine sample, and I didn’t have a spare set of clothes. We have no family in London, and my husband, also a scientist, was out of the country, working with his collaborators. On another occasion, when she was only one-and-a-half, our daughter was rushed to hospital by ambulance from her nursery. She was having difficulty breathing; she was turning blue; the paramedics didn’t want to wait for us; we would have to meet her in the hospital. Fortunately my husband had been in the country, and we both headed to the hospital from our respective labs, one by taxi, another by tube. Moments like that stay with you. Two days later, I presented an institute-wide seminar, and my husband submitted a grant application. Sometimes, just taking care of your everyday responsibilities – be it for yourself, your partner, your family or your work – is in itself a heroic act.

Our little girl will turn four this summer, and she is thriving. As for myself, I’m enjoying my outreach activities, including teaching about DNA at my daughter’s school. I’m presenting a talk at a conference next month and preparing a manuscript for submission. I’ve just been promoted, and I’ve just celebrated my 10th wedding anniversary with the boy I fell in love with at graduate school. This job has allowed me to support him too, and scientific mobility is a topic we’re discussing again. There’s a lot to be grateful for, and we count our blessings.

 

SS: If there was one thing you could change about the scientific culture, what would it be?

MOH: I would make science outreach a mandatory component of grant applications. For example, for every year that a scientist received funding, s/he would have to contribute to or carry out one science education activity. (We already place importance on proven track records for high-impact publications and funding.) In this way, we would emphasize the inherent value of teaching, mentoring, and communicating, and we would reward those skills. At the same time, the local communities, e.g. schools, would benefit from the infusion of scientific expertise.

 

SS: We are really excited to have you as one of our Speakers at Soapbox Science 2013. Can you tell us what attracted you to apply to be a Soapbox Scientist?

MOH: I was interested in the opportunity to engage with the public in an unconventional way. I’m used to delivering science education/outreach programmes in classrooms or labs, but to try to grab the attention of people who perhaps weren’t expecting to be thinking about science seemed like a good challenge. I believe that for science to be understood and valued, then we as scientists must be fluent in discussing our work with the general public. I thought it would be a good learning experience for me, but also an opportunity to reach out to the local community.

 

SS: Cancer will affect the lives of almost everyone, directly or indirectly. It therefore is no surprise that your science attracts a lot of public attention, and that you have invested considerable effort in sharing your research with the public. How does Soapbox Science differ from what you have done before?

MOH: Aside from conducting world-class research, Cancer Research UK is committed to reliably informing and actively engaging with the public. I chose to work here for very personal as well as professional reasons. At the LRI, I’ve had various opportunities to communicate our work, ranging from international conferences with other scientists, to in-class sessions with students, to lab tours and hands-on experience stations for our supporters. However, standing on a soapbox, talking to all sorts of passers by is certainly outside my comfort zone! I know it’ll be a challenge for me, but I also hope to use my time on the soapbox to challenge the audience’s views about science and scientists. I’ll have to be brave. That soapbox is just a few centimeters off the ground, but that’s a long way for the painfully shy child that I once was. I’ve been fortunate to have mentors, such as Ms. Lynne Hasz, Sr./Dr. Annette Bower, and Dr. Joel Oppenheim, who encouraged me to pursue science as my vocation. Without their example and their encouragement, I wouldn’t be here today. It’s one of the reasons I will stand up there. I’ll share my story, which is also theirs, and hope that it resonates with someone in the audience. I hope they won’t hear the nervousness, but rather the determination, the curiosity, the enthusiasm, the sense of wonder, the hope, and the joy. Once, I thought a PhD wasn’t for someone like me. I hope that by seeing me up there, someone else will see that science is for everyone.

 

 

Join Dr. Maria Ocampo-Hafalla on 5th July 2013, Gabriel’s Wharf SouthBank, London, where she will be talking about: “Lord of the cohesin rings: protecting the blueprint for life” Maria’s participation in Soapbox Science is made possible thanks to sponsorship from Francis Crick Institute, L’Oreal For Women in Science and the Zoological Society of London.

Posted in 2013 speakers blog | Leave a comment

Making the international scientist ticket work in your favour

Posted on July 1, 2013 by soapboxscience

Zoe.jpgZoe Schnepp is a Lecturer in the School of Chemistry at the University of Birmingham. She is from the UK but has worked in the US, Germany and Japan. She is passionate about Green Chemistry and designs new materials for water treatment and solar energy capture using simple resources such as seaweed or sawdust. Zoe’s story is an inspiration to young scientists who may be worrying about the challenges and value of working abroad.

 

Seirian Sumner (SS), Soapbox Science co-founder and co-organiser: Hi Zoe, you are at an early stage in your science career, and you’re certainly on an upward trajectory! What have been the main stumbling blocks for you along the way, and how did you overcome them?

ZS: One of the challenging things about science is the culture of ‘big name professors’. It is really tough to get your work recognized as a young scientist, both male and female. One of the biggest problems I think is in publishing. When you submit a paper for publishing it has your name on it and I think it’s difficult for journal editors and referees to be completely objective about the quality of the science if they recognize the name of the author. I’ve certainly found it a lot harder to publish in the big journals since starting out on my own. My PhD and first postdoc positions were both with really famous professors and publishing seemed relatively easy back then!

I think we do quite well in the UK. It may be harder to publish but I think that it is easier here to build a distinct identity than in some other countries. I really like the culture in many UK Chemistry departments where you have multiple small groups. So as a junior lecturer you can take on a PhD student and really build your independence from quite an early stage. It’s hard, definitely really hard, but much better in the long term than being part of a large group run by a big name. When I joined the Max Planck Institute in Germany I was initially really envious of the people who’d got group leadership positions there. But now I much prefer my UK lectureship. The danger with the Max Planck system is separating your ideas from those of the director. Some of my friends who have had questions on grant panels about ‘which of these ideas are yours and which are the director’s?’

More generally, I’d like to see a general shift in attitudes to what a scientist is. There seems to be an expectation that people are either artists or scientists. But to be a good scientist you have to be creative and artistic! To be a good academic researcher you also have to be an enthusiastic teacher, you have to be able to write well and you also have to be really good at selling yourself and your research! It’s a shame that we have such strong stereotypes about scientists.

 

SS: Your CV is very international, having worked in 4 different countries. Tell us why you chose to work abroad, the challenges you faced. How important was postdoc-ing abroad in securing your lectureship at Birmingham?

I actually think that the chance to work abroad is one of the best things about an academic career. There aren’t many careers where you can do a 1 or 2 year project anywhere you want in the world!  So for me, going overseas was a really positive thing. Rather strangely, it was also a much easier way for my husband and I to stay together since he is also a researcher! When we both finished our PhDs at Bristol, it was much easier for us to find postdoc positions in the same place if we had the whole world to choose from. Many countries welcome foreign scientists and there are lots of fellowships for international postdoc positions. Japan for example is really keen to build links with Western countries. So we had no problems getting positions in the same institute first in Germany and then in Japan.

So the foreign work was really easy, the problem was in coming home! While I really like the UK academic system it is just so hard to get your foot in the door. My husband and I had 8 months living on opposite sides of the world. The most difficult thing was the uncertainty; not knowing how long it would continue. Since I already had a position it meant that my husband was really restricted in the places he could apply to. I think actually we’ve been really lucky. My husband now has a lectureship in Keele and while it’s a long commute it does mean we can live together. I know many academic couples who have lived apart for much longer, or who have settled with only seeing each other at weekends. It certainly doesn’t make it easy if you want to have a family.

Having said that though, I think again we are fairly lucky in the UK since people here tend to finish their PhDs earlier than in other countries. I do think you have to be really focused though. The best advice I can think of to give people who were considering going overseas for postdoc is to always think about the next step. Even when you just start a postdoc make sure you are planning where you want to go next. It’s hard work, especially when you are trying to focus on the postdoc research. But a lot of fellowships only run annually, so you have to be really organized about getting applications in, otherwise you might find yourself having to wait another year.

I just want to say finally though that working abroad, first as an intern in the US and then for my postdoc positions, has been the most incredible experience. It was initially quite scary, and I thought I’d only go to Germany for 6 months, then come home and settle down. But in the end, the years have flown by and I wouldn’t change it for the world. You learn so much from working in a different culture and if you go to a big institute you work in a truly international environment. This means that when you do eventually come home, you have a network of friends and colleagues all over the world. As well as being so much fun and enjoyable, it’s wonderful for your career to have this global network of scientists that you can call on if you are looking for help with something.

 

SS: Health and safety (yawn!) aside, we are itching to see how you take a creative approach to bringing chemistry to the public, from your Soapbox! But tell us what attracted you to be a Soapbox Scientist?

ZS: I love talking about science.  That might seem fairly obvious, but compared to all the different ways you can communicate science and research, directly interacting with people is my favourite. It’s so rewarding since you are getting continuous feedback from facial expressions and you can change the way you approach things based on how people are responding.  It’s brilliant to get the ‘wow’ expression on someone’s face when you are describing something! The idea I really like about soapbox science is getting talking to completely random strangers, rather than people who have made a choice to come to a science outreach event. Soapbox Science sounded like a lot of fun, and really different to any outreach event I’ve been involved in before.

Actually, on the health and safety side, one thing I am really passionate about is public perception of chemicals. Say the word ‘chemical’ and most people instantly conjure up images of toxic waste, or insidious and harmful materials. But the reality is that everything around us is made of chemicals. Our bodies make some of the most advanced and complex chemicals on the planet in the form of enzymes or proteins! Another thing that worries me is the concept of ‘natural being better’. A lot of products you can buy, things like foods or cosmetics, have labels saying ‘free-from’ or ‘contains 100% natural ingredients’. Just because something has been made in the chemical industry doesn’t make it bad! Chemists have spent years creating really innovative materials to help prevent our foods going bad and stop shampoos from going slimy. ‘Chemicals’ are normally made to solve a consumer problem, not to cause harm.  And on the other side of the coin, some of the most potent toxins known to man come from plants and animals!

Having said all that, there are some genuine problems in the chemical industry. The tradition in the past was to focus entirely on making a chemical to solve a consumer problem. People didn’t really consider that some of these new chemicals might have unwanted side-effects. Even if they did, the thought that anything man-made could really affect the whole planet seemed unthinkable. Of course, now we know differently. We know that chlorofluorocarbons affect the ozone layer and we know that some chemicals do bioaccumulate (build up gradually in certain species). We are even starting to discover that some compounds can affect biological systems even if they are present in vanishingly small amounts. To address this, there is now a really big movement in both research and industry towards ‘Green Chemistry’. The aim is to make products and processes safer and more sustainable. For industry, it has been shown many times now to make processes cheaper, so there is a real incentive and it’s something that has really taken off.

For my research (and something I want to really get across from my Soapbox!) we are really focusing on making high performance materials using some really simple chemistry. It’s all based on water and some really abundant precursors. Of course this has the added bonus that it’s easy for people to join in and have a go at some of the chemistry themselves!

 

Come for some explosive fun with DR Zoe Schnepp on 5th July 2013, Gabriel’s Wharf SouthBank, London, where she will be talking about: “Superconducting seaweed (an adventure in green nanotechnology)”. Zoe’s participation in Soapbox Science is made possible thanks to sponsorship from L’Oreal For Women in Science and the Zoological Society of London. 

Posted in 2013 speakers blog | Leave a comment