When I teach genetics, I like to pull a little trick on my students. About the time I teach them about analyzing pedigrees and about sex linkage, I show them this pedigree and ask them to figure out what kind of trait it is.
It's a bit of a stumper. There's the problem of variability in its expression, whatever it is, which makes interpretation a little fuzzy — that's a good lesson in itself, that genetics isn't always a matter of rigid absolutes. They usually think, though, that it must be some Y-linked trait, since only males (the squares in the diagram) have it at all, and no females (the circles) are ever affected.
Then I show them the labeled version, and there's a moment of "Hey, wait a minute…" that ripples through the class. Keep in mind that even the science classes at my university contain typically 60% or more women.
It's a truly horrible pedigree. Not only is it trying to reduce a very complex trait like "scientific ability" to a discrete character, but its assessment is entirely subjective — a point that is really brought home by pointing out that the pedigree was drawn by Francis Galton, who judged himself brilliant, and that he was evaluating his own family.
The silent tragedy here, though, is all those women judged as lacking in the characters of brilliance and scientific ability. They are rendered as nullities by the prejudices of the time — even if they had shown the spark of genius, they probably would not have been recognized by Galton — and by a culture that wouldn't have trained or encouraged girls to do more than master needlework and laundry and household management, and would have brought them up to value the fruitfulness of their ovaries over the product of their minds.
Look at all those empty circles. I'm sure some of them had the capacity to be an entrepreneur like Josiah Wedgwood, or an eclectic philosopher like Erasmus Darwin, or a deep and meticulous scientist like Charles Darwin, or even just a successful doctor like Robert Darwin (II-4; not someone I would have characterized as brilliant, and also an indicator of the variety of abilities Galton was lumping together in his arbitrary judgments). Half the scientific potential in that pedigree was thrown away by restrictive social conventions.
That's the kind of blind bias we have to end, and I think this Letters to our Daughters project is a wonderful idea. Stop pretending the circles are empty, and ask them to speak; color in those circles with talent. If you are a female scientist, or you know a female scientist, write in and set an example, and show the next generation of our daughters that they have a history, too.
You can read the first letter in the project now. I think it needs a few thousand more.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/daughters_need_letters.phpThe Letters to Our Daughters Project
Dearest Readers,
First, let me say "thank you" for how supportive you've been of my online activities. I think the internet is a tool with tremendous opportunity to allow us to connect as a scientific community, to exchange ideas, to support each other, and to promote initiatives. Touched by how supportive people have been with the funding of the 8th David Bruce Award for excellence in undergraduate research at this year's Experimental Biology, I have continued to think of new ways to use this blog as a platform to support scientists in training.
It's not a secret that the largest attrition among female scientists happens in the transition between trainee and faculty. I also think that, for better or worse, there are things that are unique to being a female scientist that affect the ability/willingness of women to pursue careers in science. I know from my time at ScienceBlogs that there is a large group of women who are eager for the perspectives of successful women scientists as they consider their own careers in science.
When I was a graduate student, I took a physiology class in which I was given the assignment to recreate my scientific family tree. When I did, I found that my family tree is composed some brilliant scientists. But, my family tree is also composed entirely of men, plus me. The same is true of the tree from my postdoc. I have scientific fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers, but no aunts, grandmothers, or mothers. As I considered my career path in science, I found myself wanting and needing the perspective of more senior women scientists.
The inspiration for my Letters to Our Daughters Project comes from my hope that we can recreate our family tree here, creating a forum where the mothers and aunts in our fields (which I hope to not limit to physiology, but that's where I'll start because that's who I know) can share their wisdom with us. I think there is a wealth of information among these successful women and I hope to use this forum to share it with young scientists who are yearning for that knowledge.
I have written to a number of successful and well-known female scientists and asked them to write letters to you, their scientific daughters. A number of them have agreed and I will be collecting and sharing their letters as they come in. I'll share the first with you within the next day. I have offered these women no guidance, except to say that they have an open forum to tell you whatever important thing they think you should know. The first letters have exceeded my expectations.
Thank you, dear readers, for the continued opportunity to write to you and for allowing me to host a place where these women can share their thoughts with you. I think this is going to be fun.
All my best,
Isis the Scientist
http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/2009/04/the_letters_to_our_daughters_p.php
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
