Tanner can tell you from firsthand experience that the science field has not always been easy for women. Attending college and graduate school in the 80s, Tanner found herself ignored by her male counterparts.

While studying neurobiology at graduate school, Tanner realized that out of the 25-30 seminar speakers that visited her school, only one would be a woman.

Susan Lau

“There were no role models for me!” Tanner said. “But I understood that no one was excluding women; people were just inviting old colleagues from several decades ago when men mostly dominated the science field.”

After Tanner brought the absence of female speakers to the attention of the seminar committee members, they planned a more diverse seminar series for the next year. Tanner is not alone in facing gender discrimination in the sciences. Women throughout modern history have found it difficult to score scientific careers, according to medical volunteer and breast cancer advocate Barbara Holtz.

Once they do, they often face a continuous struggle. “I've been fortunate to work for many women scientists, and it seems that many of them had to really fight to be taken seriously as scientists,” said Melissa Woodrow, a member of the Association for Women in Science.

Before the mid 20th century, however, few women were able to fight the stereotype of being the “weaker vessel” and make valuable contributions. Women like Marie Curie (1867-1934), who discovered radium and polonium, and Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958), who created X-ray crystallography, were notable exceptions.

“Society wanted women to do what they were expected to do: stay at home and take care of families,” Tanner said.

Scientific fields include the eight classifications of the National Science Foundation and the National Research Council: physical, mathematical, computer, environmental, life and engineering, as well as the psychological and social sciences, according to Mary Fox, professor and co-director of the Center for Study of Women, Science and Technology at Georgia Institute of Technology.

In her 2004 Workshop on Women’s Advancement, Fox said the number of women receiving doctoral degrees in scientific fields has increased over the past three decades. Among doctoral recipients, the percentage of women in scientific fields increased from 8 to 15 between the 1960s and 1970s, to 26 percent in the 1980s and to 30 in the 1990s.

However, a 2006 MIT study of the school’s science department revealed a chilling trend, according to Woodrow. After a group of women complained about the low number of female faculty members, MIT found that although the numbers had improved from 1996 to 2000, they fell from 2000 to 2004. The decreases are due to female faculty members leaving after failing to win tenure or for other reasons. In general, the percentage of female faculty in the School of Science has not increased for at least a decade. As of 1994, the faculty was made up of 22 women and 252 men.

Within the scientific fields, women with advanced degrees tend to be concentrated in specific fields. In the 1990’s, women received 77 percent of their doctoral degrees in psychological, social and life sciences, according to Fox.

“In terms of whether there are more men than women or vice versa, it really depends on what field you're talking about and what stage of career,” said Melissa Woodrow, a member of the Association for Women in Science. “I think there are many reasons for this, from lack of opportunity, to lack of support (at home and in the science itself), to plain old chauvinism.”

Another reason why men continue to dominate the science fields may be a lack of academic role models. In 1973, women made up 4 percent of the professors across scientific fields; in 1987, they made up 7 percent; in 1993, 10 percent and in 1997, 11 percent. However, between 1973 and 2003, the academic employment of women with science and engineering doctorates increased from 10,700 to 78,500. In 2003, women constituted 18 percent of full professors in the sciences, 31 percent of associate professors and 40 percent of junior faculty. While the numbers are increasing, they are still uneven.

Disparities may also result from gender differentiation in social behaviors. According to Fox, women are less likely to report that faculty respect them and take them seriously. They are also less likely to request help from advisors in areas such as learning to design research, writing grant proposals, coauthoring publications and organizing people.

Tanner also believes that women have different styles. Women are seen as modest, passive and less aggressive than men, settling for whatever salary an employer offers them, according to Tanner.

“In the sciences it’s important to really promote yourself, talk about your accomplishments and claim important things that you’ve done,” Tanner said. “And that’s not something that women are trained to do.”

Holtz explained, however, that women who actually do promote themselves and their accomplishments face a different set of problems. “In my view, the ‘issue’ is that the public often dislikes the image of an aggressive woman because she is to reflect her stereotype: be acquiescent, more submissive than dominant, more part of the home or family unit rather than to stand out on her own,” she said. “So when a woman really shows her individuality and strength, many people are upset with her.”

But society cannot be completely blamed for the continuing equities in the science field; many women perceive that science isn’t “family friendly,” according to Tanner, who has seen many of her colleagues opt out because they didn’t want to sacrifice having a family.

“Women have this mindset that you can’t be successful unless you are in the lab every single day so they just select out,” Tanner said. “It is unfortunate because there are many types of jobs in the science field that are not all demanding.” Tanner, who has an 11-year-old and a six-year-old, learned to balance her life out.

Matters of gender, social context and participation are crucial because science is a social process — a system of communication, interaction and exchange. If women are not reaching their full potential in science communities, it is a loss for the field, according to Woodrow.

But the situation improves each decade, according to Holtz.

“It seems to me that women really needed to prove themselves decades ago, but far less so these days,” Holtz said. “I say this because more women are enrolled in colleges, universities, even medical and law school than ever before.”

Women make up a considerable percentage of the professional workforce, so encouraging their participation in the sciences is often viewed as a social priority.

“It only makes sense that society would want to take advantage of the skills of 50 percent of the population!” Woodrow said.