Absolutely, I think I would have to agree with you Steven. Science as a career is risky and when trying to balance it with family it is definitely a matter of competing priorities. I have seen many men subordinate family priorities in favour of their research careers, some going through several marriages because of it. They can also have children at an older age, I have sen many academics father children after the age of forty.

I don't think women have the same luxury of time in regard to having families.
To add the element of risk, 'discovery' science is inherently risky and competitive, where researchers are constantly competing for research grant dollars and in many cases their jobs depend on them getting those dollars. which further compounds to the risks involved in maintaining a stable family. No wonder women are less represented than men.

Dear Steven,

I attempted to answer your question,' Where are the
women in science?' - because you did ask.
You in turn said that I was
suggesting discrimination against women in science.
You asked for "hard facts.'

I referred you to several websites. One of which
described, and I quote:

"Presidents, chancellors, provosts and 25 women
professors of nine top research universities, met all
day Monday at MIT in an unprecedented dialogue on equitable
treatment of women faculty in science and engineering.

Institutions of higher education have an obligation,
both for themselves and for the nation, to fully
develop and utilize all the creative talent
available," the leaders said in a unanimous statement.

"We recognize that barriers STILL exist for women faculty."

The 184-word statement was approved by university
Presidents from - California Institute of Technology,
MIT, University of Michingan, Princeton University,
Stanford University, Yale University, University of
California at Berkeley, Harvard University, the
University of Pennsylvania...

The problem does exist.

Professor Hopkins, who initiated the study which resulted
in senior women science professors getting greater
recognition, equity increases in compensation and more
lab space, said,

"The fact that this topic was discussed today by these
participants was almost a historic event, not just
another meeting. I thought it was a milestone that
never could happen in my lifetime."

In an interview after the workshop a male professor said
that in years past, "there were those of us
who idealistically thought that if we built the
undergraduate base (of female students), it was
going to define dthe future" in terms of women
moving up the academic ladder to professorships, "But
you can see that is really not happening."

"Data has to go together with individual women
experiences. Sometimes that's not easy for people
to hear, and sometimes that's not believed the
first time around.

At a future meeting we will gather again to report what
further things we have learned and collectively assess
'best practices."

Howard Georgi, the Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics
at Harvard said the problems were similar everywhere.

"Problems at Harvard...are no less severe...the
marginalization is there..."

There is no single reason why there are still far less female than male-scientists, however Foxy, Bugsy, Steven and Shadow-Minister have listed many good reasons.

And what a shame there are not more scientists (male or female) like Fiona Wood:

“Clinical Professor Fiona Wood is a mother of six, Head of Royal Perth Hospital's Burns Unit and Director of the Western Australia Burns Service. She is also co-founder of Clinical Cell Culture, a private company recognised in medical circles for its translational research in the treatment of burns.

In addition, Fiona Wood is also a Clinical Professor with the School of Paediatrics and Child Health at the University of Western Australia and Chair of the McComb Research Foundation.

She has become world renowned for her patented invention of spray on skin cells for burns victims, a treatment which is continually developing. Where previous techniques of skin culturing required 21 days to produce enough cells to cover major burns, Fiona and her team has reduced that period to five days.

Via her research, Fiona found that scarring is greatly reduced if replacement skin could be provided within 10 days. As a burns specialist the holy grail for Fiona Wood is scarless healing'.

A graduate of St Thomas's Hospital Medical School in London, Fiona worked at a major British hospital before marrying Western Australian born surgeon and migrating to Perth with their first two children in 1987. She completed her training in plastic surgery between having four more children. “

http://www.claxtonspeakers.com.au/speakers_profile/750

Fiona must have had fantastic support from her partner – six children AND a scientific genius.

The following link provides a list, by-no-means-complete, of significant Australian-women-scientists.

http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/guides/puzzles/women_facts2.htm

Part of our lack of awareness of female scientists has much to do with media simply not paying attention, which is an issue that faces all scientists: the lack of publicity. If you are a sports-star you are guaranteed more publicity than you could reasonably want, but scientists just don't rate the same.

I prefer to remain positive; that eventually work and family life will become a balanced mix giving everyone a fair go.

Certainly the career interruptus syndrome would play a part - the same is the case in teaching where the number of male principals is much higher than women in proportion to male/female rations in the profession (in Australia anyway).

The example cited may not necessarily indicate discrimination but there is no doubt that discrimination occurs on many levels including gender. Who can really say for sure in this particular case.

Out of interest, wha would constitute HARD evidence? Would strong rhetorical or experiential evidence be enough to open a line of discussion with regard to discrimination in this particular case?

Fractelle, Fiona Woods shows that women certainly get plenty
of publicity, when they stand out from the crowd, as with male
scientists.

There is another issue here of course, which does in fact come
back to biology. Yes, men in general are perhaps more career
focussed then women, for very good reasons.

It might be more about circumstantial evidence, but in some
of the long, in depth conversations that I have had with women,
many have conceded that when choosing their partner, the fact
that he was a good provider, played an important role in their
choice of a mate to marry.

I have never had a man tell me that, althought plenty have
conceded that they married their partner as she was cute and
turned them on.

The way that I interpret all this is that indeed, biology plays
a role. For men, sexual attraction matters greatly, for women,
having resources to feed the offspring is of vital importance.
Better providers in general will do better in the marriage stakes,
so men have more incentive to have successfull careers, if they
don't want to land up with the ugly duckling so to speak.

Pelican:

"Out of interest, wha would constitute HARD evidence? Would strong rhetorical or experiential evidence be enough to open a line of discussion with regard to discrimination in this particular case?"

Arjay demonstrated that narrow views of what constitutes male and female abilities, aptitudes and characteristics are still held widely, despite evidence to the contrary. Of course that is purely anecdotal, on the larger, more influential, stage we have people like George Pell:

"Abortion is a bigger problem than the molestation of children by priests"

Or Sam Newman?

"Women on AFL boards are just there to placate the bleating majority who are liars and hypocrites"

And sexism against women isn't confined to males either, think of the many women who campaign against reproductive rights for other women.

While we like to believe that the above mentioned are too extreme to be taken seriously, there remains silent segment of the population (male and female) that agrees with the above.