Quick reflections on the white coat

Earlier today was my white coat ceremony marking the beginning of medical school. The head administrators spoke the usual congratulatory speeches before a concert hall of first-year students and their families. One speaker, however, addressed the conflict of the white coat ceremony. He spoke that the white coat is a barrier between physicians and patients. It is a symbol of authority that has been abused. It's not just women have been unfairly treated (or left untreated) or intentionally mistreated by physicians but many vulnerable populations too. Usually at these ceremonies it's all warm and fuzzy but I appreciated this sobering moment because this is a profession that is all too unwilling to acknowledge its faults.

First day of med school is less than 10 hours away!

A beginning

I'm a first year student at a medical school in the Midwest. (I can use the present tense now? This thought is sinking in daily.) Medical school already has my life even though classes don't start until next Monday. It's only orientation week. We have events all day and no homework. When classes start, we have class all day and then go home to study all night.

Before this, I received dual degrees in Human Biology and Comparative Cultures and Politics, where I met the co-authors of this blog. Outside academics, I was extensively involved in the campus feminist organization and Students for Choice.

During my undergrad years, I developed a few interests that I hope to integrate into my career and personal life: healthy policy, health disparities, women in healthcare, public health, and women's health.

It's been a week of introductions among first-year students, reciting the names of our undergraduate degrees. I don't want to repeat too much here. I'm anxious to get started in school and on this blog.

Other likes: 
Thai tea, cats, girls with short hair and glasses, classical music, art history, the people I met in Denmark, and my personal blog.

A Formal Introduction: Jessieroo

My story is still in the making. 

Like Ecomarci, I am a graduate of Lyman Briggs at Michigan State University with a degree in Human Biology, and a specialization in Bioethics, Humanities, and Society.  I conducted four years of undergraduate research in a Pharmacology & Toxicology Department laboratory studying vascular biology and being exposed to the trials and tribulations of academic science.  I also was a teaching assistant in the undergraduate biology labs in Lyman Briggs--having the privilege of working with some truly gifted scholars, and feeling the heartbreak of student apathy.  Uniquely, my collegiate years gave me a solid foundation for scientific learning as well as an appreciation/passion for the contextual side of scientific thought and discovery. 

Throughout my academic endeavors, I too have had the honor of working with/under some tremendously talented lady scientists (actually, Marci, I quite like this term) and mentors.  Women who, in addition to professional successes, are able to balance family life and personal gratification.  Women who can walk into a predominantly-male conference room in a red dress and present compelling scientific data.  It is with the strength of these women behind me that I proceed forward, building strength of my own.  As part of this, I think it's important to be cognizant of the gender in/and science--because even when the media is portraying a perfectly egalitarian world the department I work in has only one tenure-track female professor (in about twenty-five, total).   

Today, I am just over a year into a PhD in Physiology at the Medical College of Wisconsin doing research on molecular mechanisms behind salt-induced vascular dysfunction (or, simply, how arteries are negatively affected by dietary salt intake).  I remain truly interested in the humanitarian and societal implications of both my science and the science that goes on around me--and one outlet for this energy is through blogging. 

Sexy Beasts

Because it was recommended by a mysterious anonymous commenter, and because it was a link to the Seed Magazine site, and because I continuously grapple with the teachings of evolutionary psychology/biology, I was interested in Eric Michael Johnson's review of the book "Sex at Dawn." 

I have not read the book in question, but the overarching hypothesis seems to be that current human sexuality (essentially, the time and effort human beings devote to sex, while also separating sex from procreation a majority of the time) is the evolutionary result of ancestral "multimale-multifemale mating groups."  It is with this evolutionary sexual foundation, we have (perhaps erroneously) built societies which often stress monogamous, male-female sexual relationships and the avoidance of an amalgam of sexual taboos.  Social constructs dictate with whom, and when, and where, and how we should be having sex--and as Mr. Johnson's review points out with monogamy as a key example such directives are not well followed in today's culture.  I don't think these ideas are so very new, but I'm sure the authors have amply defended and exemplified them.

This is by no means the first time that I've read about or discussed the evolutionary contexts for human sexuality.  I still can't get passed two *little* hang-ups though.  

First: while evolution provides and interesting and often explanatory framework for these discussions, the fact remains that these are theories and cannot be proven.  

Second, even if they could be proven, what has happened in the past has little bearing on what is happening now or will happen in the future: we continue to evolve, and some past adaptations are now obsolete.  I'm not necessarily arguing that our sexual evolutions are obsolete, but human beings have changed in a number of social ways.  For example: although our ancestors scavenged and ate raw meat, society now mandates that we cook our meat before consumption (with a few exceptions).  We used to run around quite naked and hairy.  Now clothes are a "must" and body hair is taboo (to a certain extent, and especially for women).  Evolution is not normative: it does not determine how human beings should or should not behave.  

Finally, I always end up feeling like evolutionary psychology is used as an excused for failing to adhere to cultural norms.  I know that not all cultural standards regarding behavior are defensible.  Nevertheless, I can't condone a pseudo-scientific justification for infidelity.  If infidelity, swinging (as the article mentions) or whatever, is your thing then those expectations should be laid out at the beginning of a potential relationship.  The problem with infidelity is not unfaithfulness in itself, but breaking the spoken or unspoken agreement between two people for exclusivity.  The problem is not that we may be evolutionarily programmed for multiple sexual partners, it is that we continue to willingly enter into monogamous relationships and then find ourselves unable to control whatever primal urges exist for extra-marital/relationship affairs.  Evolutionary background or not, we must remember that being a human being uniquely gives us more control over our biology than any other species. 

The Science Gender Gap

I'll take a bit of time to introduce myself after my biostats assignment has been completed...until then, some fuel from my other blog:

Although the article is almost a month old, I thought it worth bookmarking for later discussion.  John Tierney of the New York Times reported "Legislation Won't Close Gender Gap in Sciences."  The headline almost makes it seem like fact, but I found the article more opinion, and quickly digresses from the briefly mentioned legislation into the now cliched argument that rather than gender biases and discrimination, the desire for a family coupled with personal preferences are the reasons behind any gender disparities in science.  

I have a hard time with this argument for a few reasons.  

First, it's important to recognize that gender bias/discrimination isn't necessarily an overtly sexist comment, or grant rejection based on gender.  Institutional/structural gender bias can occur through the establishment of workplaces which fail to cater to family-oriented professionals (male and female, but the fact of the matter remains that home work remains unevenly distributed as well) create, perhaps unintentionally, an atmosphere which begets inequality.   Family-friendly practices are, of course, not the only institutional change which could occur, but tends to be the discussion point of choice within these types of discussions.  Here, I agree with Mr. Tierney's points on, rather than legislation which focuses on “activities that increase the awareness of the existence of gender bias," perhaps legislation would be better served by creating more accomodating workplaces.  Recalling some points from my previous post, workplaces become more egalitarian not just by changes to maternity leave and work-week attitudes, but also by men (managers?) taking paternity, leaving work at family-friendly hours, etc.  I believe that shifts in such "corporate" (I'm talking about science, though) attitudes are what any "awareness" activities could usefully be directed towards.

Similarly, nursing schools don't look at applications and dismiss those from men, and a prevalence of male physicans indicate that men are just as interested in careers in health care as women.  Instead of overt sexual discrimination, there exists a history of nursing being a "woman's job."  I would argue that any legislation truly committed to gender equality might also include ways to make nursing and teaching more accessible to men. 

The difficult reality remains: success in science is demonstrated by a continuous record of publications, grants, and participation in various committees/boards.  All of these activities require considerable amounts of time and focus.  Although there are admirable women (and men) who continue to succeed through this workaholic culture, it's not difficult to see how a pregnancy, maternity leave, and subsequent child-rearing may put a damper on scientific productivity.  It seems a formidable environment to change--particularly when some institutions remain entrenched in an "old boys club" attitude.  (For reference, I work in a department where the male:female professor ratio is 22:3, while the student ratio is 7:17.  Either there is a major shift in the works, or all of these female PhDs are getting sucked into a black hole.)

Second, the "personal preference" argument is entirely too subjective to be used as a serious gauge in discussions of gender in science.  More women are graduating from college with science degrees.  More women are going to graduate school, not just in psychology and medicine.  The argument makes little sense to me, even when I consider my own distaste for math and physics.  

And, in the end, although the piece makes some valid points, I can't help but feeling combative towards the dismissive attitude of if all.  Writes Tierney, "Now that women are earning a majority of all undergraduate and graduate degrees, it’s odd to assume they’re the gender that needs special help on campus. If more women prefer to study psychology and medicine than physics and engineering, why is that a problem for Washington to fix?" 

It's easy to claim that the quest for gender equality is finished, that we live in a gender- and color-blind nation.  But, then again, today I found new news on the gender pay gap.   Neither Michigan, nor Wisconsin fare well (women in both states earn under eighty cents for every dollar earned by men).

Herstory of Science: Marci

My story is that I am a recent graduate from Michigan State University in Biochemistry & Molecular Biology. I've worked in and taught biology labs for the past 3 or 4 years, thoroughly exposing me to the inner depths of science- at least enough to blog about it without sounding like an idiot. In a very short time I will be attending Arizona State University for a PhD program in Biology and Society, where I may focus on the History and Philosophy of Science (my undergraduate college also exposed me to HPS). Science aside, I'm also an environmental organizer (hence "ecomarci") as well as a cyclist.

I've been inspired by many lady scientists, which may not be the most politically correct term but I'm using it anyway, and this is part of my desire to start this blog. Elizabeth Blackwell, Rachel Carson, Ellen Swallow Richards, along with the few female professors and mentors that I had throughout undergrad have all played a unique role in my development. As a special tribute to a lady scientists contemporary, the pseudonymous lady-scientist-blogger Dr. Isis may be single-handedly responsible for my decision to stay in the field of biology.

So there are a lot of "issues" to deal with (you know us ladies, always dealing with issues…) regarding women in science and women's history of science. From overlooked heroes such as Rosalind Franklin (party to the famous "Project Hey Girl, Lemme Hold That Data for a Minute" aka discovering the structure of DNA); to commentary on current topics in feminism, women in science, and gender and science; to our own personal stories about our own coming of age as lady scientists. I hope this blog can host some of these stories, from the past, present, and future of science.

Feminist Science and Pink Ribbons

I have spent my entire undergraduate career as a biochemistry major and most of it as a feminist, yet somehow I never really put the two together. Until recently I had assumed they were mutually exclusive of each other, and to some extent have lived a double life between my lives as a scientist and feminist.

Scientists tend to see science as an objective pursuit of truth, yet personal biases can affect any research. A clear example of how sexism pervades even “objective” science is that the male’s sperm was seen as being active and the female’s egg as passive during fertilization. This was engrained in biology textbooks as truth until it was recently disproved. Another example is that early primatologists assumed that male baboons were the center of social troops; however, this has been clearly replaced with the model of a matriarchal baboon society. A change like this is called a “paradigm shift,” another of which has recently occurred in cancer research.

The dominant model of cancer as a disease is that genetic mutations lead to malfunctioning proteins, which can disrupt natural cell division and cause it to multiply, eventually forming a tumor. This is most likely true in some cases, but this genetic basis of cancer only accounts for a fraction of cases. There has also been a disproportionate focus on “lifestyle” choices that lead to guilt but are only rarely associated with causing cancer. Still, research on this disease model of cancer is the most funded and taught because of its relative simplicity. More problematic is the link between synthetic chemicals and disruption of the cell environment leading to cancer, specifically breast cancer. This model has been repressed as a minority view both in the laboratory and outside, as environmental activists have promoted this as a plausible cause of “cancer clusters” in urban and industrial areas. It has been primarily female scientists and environmental activists who have supported this view, which has only recently emerged to the mainstream and can be classified as a true “paradigm shift” in cancer research.

Feminism is a lens through which I view much of the world around me. Yet for so long I ignored what was right in front of me: my scientific education. No longer can I view science as the objective truth, but instead as an institution with a patriarchal history. Fortunately, cases like this show that even this glass ceiling is crumbling. Bringing feminist perspectives to science means promoting alternative viewpoints, democratization, and multiculturalism. Links between feminism and environmentalism run deep, but feminist perspectives must be incorporated into mainstream institutions such as scientific research.