From ScienceWriters: Tackling gender bias and sexual harassment

By Cristine Russell

Science writers take a “show me the numbers” approach when tackling a tough topic. So, organizers of Solutions Summit 2014: Women in Science Writing came armed with their own data to back up recent concerns that gender bias, inequity, and sexual harassment are still holding women back.

Funded by an NASW Idea grant and held at MIT in June, the overarching message of this first-of-its-kind summit was the need for a new wave of consciousness-raising among employers and science writers about gender bias and sexual harassment, as well as an action agenda targeted at current obstacles.

A Freelance Writer Bill of Rights, relevant not just to women but to freelancers in general, was the most concrete measure to emerge. Other practical strategies under consideration include: an online clearinghouse for sexual harassment policies, sexual harassment workshops, mentoring networks, updated codes of conduct, and partnering with other journalism organizations. “Clearly we would love to do more to build on this momentum,” said incoming NASW president Robin Marantz Henig, a freelance science journalist and author who attended the MIT conference. “Science writing is becoming a much more female-heavy profession. But we should not just think of this as a women’s issue. If we don’t get men on board as sensitized to this, it’s not going to go anywhere.”

“We need to take concrete steps to advance beyond awareness to construct new norms and a functional culture of gender equity,” said Tom Levenson, director of MIT’s graduate program in science writing, which hosted the summit. The conference provided strong evidence that far more needs to be done, said Levenson, who added he was initially “surprised” to learn how widespread bias and harassment problems appear to be among female science writers of all ages.

“This is a subject we will revisit again and again at NASW,” said Slate’s science and health editor Laura Helmuth, NASW’s incoming vice-president and a summit speaker. She plans to review the MIT conference at the upcoming board meeting and expects NASW to continue addressing gender bias and harassment on several fronts.

Helmuth was impressed by a new survey, commissioned for the conference, showing that female science writers reported far more negative professional experiences linked to their gender than male science writers, including work-related harassment. “It’s the best data we have and gives a good sense of the problem. We hope to spread the word that our community won’t stand for it. One thing that the discussion has done is to let people who are new to the field know they have our support. It’s safe to expose people who are abusing their power,” said Helmuth. Based on her 15 years as a science editor, Helmuth feels that sexism is still pervasive.

“There’s a byline and management gap, and I’ve definitely seen editors preferring to work with male writers for certain stories or more impressed with pitches from men over women.”

The latest round of gender worries arises at a time when far more women are going into science, environment, and medical writing, but there is a dearth of decent-paying staff jobs. Many more science writers freelance for a living and are subject to the whims of assigning editors when pitching assignments or negotiating for pay (nearly 40 percent of NASW members say they get more than half their income from freelancing). Add gender bias to the mix, and the situation gets more precarious, particularly for early career women freelancers. More trained scientists are also turning to science writing, bringing with them ongoing concerns about gender bias in science itself.

In addition, some feel that the Internet-fueled growth of blogging, personal branding, and social media can favor a more macho style and lend a certain snarkiness that makes it more difficult for women on the web. The summit, however, also highlighted the importance of using social media to help build community, share stories, and quickly spread greater awareness of gender bias and sexual harassment.

“Our intent is to be forward-looking and use this conference as a starting point for solving some of these problems,” said science writer Emily Willingham, one of the summit’s main organizers and a newly elected NASW board member. The 90 or so participants at the conference were predominantly woman science writers from around the country at various stages in their careers, from graduate students to senior editors and writers. The conference immediately had greater visibility from live tweets (#SciWriSum14) and Storifys by blogger and author Maryn McKenna, as well as other summit participants.

Willingham said the new survey findings suggested that inappropriate professional behavior toward female science writers may be more widespread than expected. The survey produced 422 responses from American science writers, mostly NASW members, as well as members of the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) and Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ). Three-fourths of respondents were women, with an average of nearly 20 years experience. Nearly 45 percent were freelancers.

More than half of the female respondents (54 percent) felt that overt or unconscious gender bias exists in science writing and journalism, compared to 44 percent of male respondents. And women reported far more negative gender-related professional encounters than men. They were much more likely to say they were “not taken seriously” or “not credited for their ideas” and that they had suffered missed career opportunities or delayed advancement. They were also far more likely to report flirtatious or sexual verbal or written remarks, as well as uninvited physical contact. More than 70 percent of men reported “none of the above,” compared to less than 20 percent of women respondents. One in three women reported being harassed in professional settings.

Willingham noted that while the survey respondents were self-selected, “it’s the first quantification of what’s been anecdotal sharing up to now.” Popular Science executive editor Jennifer Bogo, SEJ’s new vice-president, agreed: “It’s a fair assessment of a real problem. There’s a tangible downside to being a woman in journalism.”

“I’ve been working in science-writing since 1982. I assumed that by the second decade of the 21st century there would be a much more level playing field for women. We’ve accomplished a lot but not as much as we need to. We need to remind people we’re not done,” said Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist Deborah Blum, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor.

Blum recruited science writing graduate students Karen Hess and Aparna Vidyasagar to conduct the survey and assemble journalism and science writing statistics for the summit. Among the striking findings:

Men are much more likely to report on technology and general science than women, according to the Women’s Media Center. Women produced only 35 percent of tech and 38 percent of science stories in a study of coverage by major news organizations in late 2013. Health reporting is fairly equal among men and women.
In annual popular science writing anthologies, both contributors and guest editors skew strongly toward men. Over the past five years, about 75 percent of contributors and 70 percent of guest editors of The Best American Science and Nature Writing were men. (Blum, 2014 guest editor, noted that the volume she edited features equal numbers of contributions from women and men.)
A sampling of New York Times stories in January through February 2013 showed gender imbalances in sources cited: science stories cited 21 men, five women; tech stories 70 men, 11 women; and health stories cited 65 men, 40 women. (Political, business, and foreign coverage was even more heavily skewed toward men.)
A list of the top 10 most influential popular science books by New Scientist magazine included nine men and one woman author.

The three-day summit was an outgrowth of a provocative session at the ScienceWriters2013 meeting in Gainesville, Fla., organized by Blum and others. It was originally scheduled as a “XX Question” workshop centered on general concerns about gender bias and inequity in pay and assignments, as well as sexual harassment. However, shortly before the meeting, a social media frenzy drew widespread attention to a case involving sexual harassment accusations by several young female bloggers against an influential male blogs editor at Scientific American. With the added prominence of the problem, the workshop turned into a late afternoon plenary that drew flocks of female and male attendees.

Many of the organizers and speakers at the 2013 NASW session spearheaded the MIT conference. The summit organizing committee included Blum, Willingham, McKenna, Christie Aschwanden, and Kathleen Raven, as well as MIT’s Levenson and Seth Mnookin. Blum, a former NASW president, praised the association for its support of both efforts: “I think we’re a leader among national journalism organizations by pushing this issue over the last year.” She noted that the recent efforts had created “a ripple effect” that magnified the conversation across the science writing community and led people to ask “how can we do better? I want that level playing field, particularly for young women coming into the field.”

The MIT summit attracted leaders of science writing programs at New York University, University of Georgia, Boston University, Wisconsin, and MIT. Many said they needed to do more to prepare their students, now largely female (at least three out of four), for the changing work environment. “It’s not remotely enough simply to teach craft,” said MIT’s Levenson. “New vulnerabilities to harassment and bias exist, particularly for freelancers.”

Members of professional science writing organizations are also increasing female. Numbers compiled for this article, based on NASW, SEJ, and AHCJ membership data, show that science and health writers are now roughly 2 to 1, women to men, with women a bare majority among environment writers. Men have long held a strong leadership edge. A sign that things may be changing is reflected in the boards of SEJ and AHCJ, as well as the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing — now evenly divided between women and men. NASW’s newly elected 15-member board is nine women and six men; all four officers are women.

“I’ve never seen such smart, well-prepared women coming into the workplace,” said Paula Apsell, longtime head of the PBS NOVA science documentary series and an attendee at the MIT summit. “But I think we are losing ground. I’m very depressed about it. I look at younger women, and many don’t have the same feminist attitudes we did.”

One of NOVA’s summer interns was Eleanor Nelsen, a young Ph.D. chemist who plans to go into science journalism. Interviewed as the conference started, Nelson said she was concerned about gender inequality but “hesitant to identify as a feminist.” As it ended, she changed her tune: “I think I’m ready to call myself a feminist,” she tweeted. Nelsen said she found the conference “really encouraging. If enough people want things to change, I’m optimistic they will change. It seems like collective action is needed.”

Cristine Russell is a freelance science journalist and senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. She is a former president of NASW and CASW. This article is updated and adapted from a June 18 article that appeared in Columbia Journalism Review.

Additional resources

Freelance Writer Bill of Rights

We commit to providing equal opportunities for journalists without regard to age, gender, race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and disability status.
Our employees commit to exhibiting high standards of personal ethics and behavior in the conduct of their responsibilities, and we expect persons representing our publication on assignment to do likewise.
We commit to extending our company’s protection policies regarding personal conduct, discrimination, and harassment to all writers working on assignment for the publication.
We will designate a person or persons for the writer to contact if concerns arise with regard to inappropriate or problematic situations with the assigning editor or with other editors or personnel involved in editing the piece.
Any person who in good faith reports a violation of those policies shall not suffer harassment, retaliation, or adverse employment consequence.
Editors encourage writers to bring problematic situations encountered while reporting a story, including harassment, to their attention, and editors will intervene as appropriate.
We commit to providing fair compensation and paying for assignments in a timely manner.
We commit to providing a clear explanation when a story is killed or reassigned.