Ian Pearson - Women in science

Good morning, it's a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about such an important subject.

I'd like to begin by thanking UKRC for their work to promote equality practices by employers, increase the number of women in rewarding STEM careers and encourage positive representations of women in STEM in the media.

Women have always been an important part of scientific achievements, despite being excluded from universities in the United Kingdom until the end of the 19th Century.

The first female medic in both the US and UK - Elisabeth Blackwell - was born in Bristol. Her family emigrated to Cincinnati in her teens and although she applied to more than 20 U.S. medical schools in 1847, none granted her admission. The widely-held belief was that "No woman of true delicacy," would want to study medicine. Fortunately for Blackwell, the students at Geneva Medical College, in upstate New York - playing along with what they thought a professorial joke - voted to let her in. They were fairly shocked when she actually turned up to study. In 1851, Elisabeth Blackwell found work at St Bartholomew's in the City of London but after her departure, conservatism prevailed once more - it would be almost a century (1947) until they admitted another female.

Today, women are still under-represented in science, technology and engineering. That's unacceptable. We need to unlock the potential of every child and young person and help them make most of their talents for the future.If we fail to remedy this, we will lose out as a society, as an economy and as a civilisation.

Of course, it is not only women who tend to be under-represented in the so called 'STEM' subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths. I want - as I'm sure you all want - science to become more inclusive, relevant and rewarding to all sections of society.

It's easy to oversimplify the facts on female participation in the sciences. In fact, there are many scientific subjects where women undergraduates and postgraduates are in the majority:

In medicine and dentistry, there are almost 30% more women than men.

In subjects allied to medicine, there are five times more women than men.

In veterinary science, there are three times more women than men.

In agricultural sciences, there are over 25% more women than men.

And in the biological sciences, there are over 40% more women than men.

It follows that what we mean when we talk about a gender gap often comes down to two subject areas only. At the last count, there were about 11,000 more men than women studying the physical sciences. That looks like a big gap, but 8,000 of the 11,000 difference are attributable to a single subject - physics. And in a few of the physical sciences - like forensic science - there are actually more women than men.

In engineering and technology there is also a shortfall of female students - only 15% of university students are women, although here, too, there are individual subjects where women predominate.

It's hard to draw firm conclusions from these facts, but I'll try.

The first, on which I'm sure we all agree, is that if women miss out on opportunities to study science, then that squanders their talent.

The second is that participation patterns in higher education are determined - to a very large extent - by the choices of GCSE and A levels people make at 14 and 16. Physics has been the least popular science A level for girls for at least a decade. In 2006, only one in five physics A level entrants was female. That, in turn, reflects the position at GCSE.

But once they have their physics A level, girls are equally likely to take a physical science at university.

If we view the gender gap in subjects like physics as a problem, then we need to start solving it before girls - and indeed all pupils - make their GCSE choices.

I believe that if a girl or a young woman prefers to do English rather than physics or chemistry just because she likes it better, then that's her choice and that of her parents. We have no right to interfere. But if, on the other hand, she likes physics or chemistry and has an aptitude for them, but is deterred from taking them further by other factors, then it's our duty to do something to prevent talent and enthusiasm from going to waste. As the Prime Minister has said - 'every child has a talent, every child can learn and so we must nurture and fulfill the potential of all'.

So what can we do to ensure that?

Well, for a start we can try to do something about subjects that are seen as male preserves. That means getting more women physical science teachers into schools - an area in which we've made significant progress since 2000 - in order to show girls and indeed boys, too, that science can be for everyone.

We also need to recognise and challenge the sad fact that some scientific and technological areas are male bastions because that's the way the men who are currently in them like it.

We need more women at the top of science, setting an example for younger women to follow. Even in the biological sciences, where most students are women, only about one in nine holders of chairs at UK universities is female. Mind you, not much more than a decade ago, it was one in 20. There should be much more progress in the future.

Of the 18,000 Science and Engineering Ambassadors who currently go into schools - that is real scientists with jobs in relevant industries - a large proportion - 40% - are women. I'm sure they will be great role models for a generation of school children.

I haven't talked much about engineering subjects so far, but it seems to me that this is a field with the classic problem of a sexist image.

I am reminded of the film The Full Monty, where the would-be male strippers watch Flashdance in the hope of getting a few tips. Instead they end up laughing at Jennifer Beals' efforts at welding.

The scene was funny, but all too credible. I wonder how many potential women welders it put off?

Now, look at the pattern of NVQ awards in construction. Over 50 times more of them go to men than to women. In engineering and manufacturing technology, it's 10 times as many. The loss of talent implicit in those facts shocks me.

All that has just got to change.

We should strive to make teaching of science at all levels - but especially at school - more interesting, stimulating and creative. That's something we should be doing even if there were no gender gap.

National Science and Engineering Week aims to remind teachers and pupils alike that science education can be creative and fun.

This year Dr Laura Grant has been leading National Science and Engineering Week's 'Big Experiment' showing how exciting physics can be. Her experiments include things like calculating how many giant helium balloons it would take to lift a classmate up to a 40ft high platform (then doing just that) and testing Kevlar by driving over it in a tank. I hear that all the pupils involved were absolutely thrilled with the experiments and went away excited about physics. Dr Laura Grant is a good role model for young women and teachers alike. Though I would imagine Jenny Kitzinger - who we'll be hearing from later - might have something to say about the way that the media has chosen to portray her last week. They described her as both the 'Femme Fatale of Physics' (in the Times) and 'The Nigella of Science' (Times and on News24).

Of course, it's easy for politicians like me to talk about how committed we are to creating a fairer society. But, as those who have suffered inequality in every age and country could tell you, words are cheap unless they're backed up by action.

And Government is taking action:

From September this year, every child with an aptitude for science will have the opportunity to study individual science GCSEs.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) have just launched a three-year campaign in schools, to improve STEM careers advice. The campaign will lead on raising awareness of how studying science, maths or engineering can open up a world of career opportunities. For adults, we'll do more to promote careers in science, technology and engineering to women and men alike. Our new Adult Careers and Advancement Service will help in this.

We will continue our support for the UK Resource Centre for Women in SET. As well as all the positive things they do for women in science, engineering and technology, they make education providers and employers uncomfortable about the fact that inequality persists.

We will also continue to listen to the Expert Group for Women in STEM. Their main objective is to monitor, review, advise and support the progress of the Government's strategy for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We will continue to act to break down the barriers of perception that exist - that science is boring, or that it's men's work, or that it's not relevant to every single one of us.

We'll shortly be publishing a consultation paper on our science and society strategy - I'm glad that UKRC and members of our STEM women's expert group among others have already been involved in our strategy workshops and I hope other members of the audience will feed their views into this consultation, when it's published.

And finally, we'll take steps to ensure that the evidence base - on which our policies for STEM are drawn - is strengthened, so that we can monitor and benchmark progress more effectively.

Let me end by talking about the kinds of evidence I want to see. The kinds of evidence that would convince me that we are moving forward:

I want to see evidence that STEM employers, including research and professional bodies, value women and men equally.

I want to see employers offering the sort of flexible working arrangements that many women with families need in order to pursue their careers equally with men.

I want to see more women coming into STEM careers and their numbers growing as a proportion of the total STEM workforce.

I want to see retention and return rates to STEM employment by women improving; and wastage falling perceptibly.

I want to see those businesses that haven't already done so adopting equality and diversity as performance indicators.

And I want to see them including data on gender and diversity in their annual or Corporate Social Responsibility reports.

But the thing I want to see above all else, the thing that will convince me that we're getting to where we ought to be, is more women in science and engineering at every level.

From GCSE entrants to the holders of university chairs. From construction sites to boardrooms of our top companies.

That's where the important work of the UKRC, including the research it has commissioned, which is being reported and discussed today, comes in.

Women's contribution to 21st century science, technology and engineering - at the highest levels - will be crucial. We must strive to create a country with no cap on ambition and no limit to where your talent and potential will take you. So we need to work together to make sure that women are better included, rewarded, and acclaimed in science. Events like today help in that process. Thank you.