BIOETHICS

The Bioethics Imperative XXXV
Gender Discrimination Cases from NSF

“Mokita”: The truth we all know and agree not to talk about. Papua New Guinea

In TBI XXXIII and XXXIV we dealt with several sexual harassment cases from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the last of which was egregious. Here, I discuss two gender discrimination cases from the case closeout documents I received under the auspices of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from NSF. After the cases are described in italics, the comments follow describing the outcome of each case based on information in the closeout documents. Before we look at the cases, let’s examine what sets the stage for gender discrimination.

Math, science, and engineering, the so-called MSE group, have traditionally been male dominated. The bias remains in favor of men even now, despite the fact that young women have equal if not better aptitude for these fields. Why do women fail to persist in MSE? In a study of 80 undergraduates, Park et al. (1) used a computer test, the Implicit Association Test (IAT), to measure “identification with MSE, gender stereotypes regarding MSE, and attitudes toward MSE on an implicit, nonconscious level.” They found that women identified less strongly with MSE (“men more strongly identified MSE with themselves than did women”) and that there was a persistent attitude that the MSE fields were “male” fields. Men bought into the gender stereotype more strongly than did women. In a second study from the Greenwald group (2), Nosek et al. found that men identified with math but that women identified with their selves, hence the catchy title to their article: “Math = Male, Me = Female, Therefore Math ? Me.” This phenomenon made it hard for the women in the study to identify themselves as mathematically competent or as mathematicians.

This then sets the stage for gender discrimination in science. The prevalence of men in MSE and the implicit attitudes of both sexes make cases of gender discrimination understandable, albeit undesirable. Let’s look at the two cases that NSF dealt with from 1989 to 2000.

Case M94070026. (p. 108/109). Agency X concluded that complaints brought by three complainants “raised issues of gender discrimination that fell within its jurisdiction. Induced among the allegation X addressed as gender discrimination were allegations that the subject had discriminated in allocating access to research equipment and had destroyed data belonging to another scientist.” After further investigation, “X and the institute agreed on a settlement stipulating that the institute would improve its procedures for handling complaints of gender discrimination, remove the subject from his position as director of the facilities for three months, take steps to protect the interests of women whom the subject had allegedly harmed, and promise that neither the Institute nor its employees would retaliate against the people who raised complaints to X. The outlines of the settlement were reported in the science press.” Complainant #1 was not happy with this outcome and asked if NSF and Agency X “could do anything to protect women like” the three complainants.

NSF decided that since another government agency had ruled on this matter, it would be unfair to rule on the same matter twice. “OIG, with the consent of complainant #1, notified the program director that complainant #1 was concerned about the possible future restrictions on her access to data at the Institute that would adversely affect her ability to perform her work under her NSF awards. OIG informed the program director that he was free to take appropriate action that, in his judgment, would help complainant #1 get appropriate access to the facility’s data and facilitate achievement of the goals of NSF’s award. OIG also reminded the program director that he should refer any allegation of misconduct in science arising out of this situation to OIG.”

Case M94120042. (p. 53). A “complainant alleged that, because she was a woman and because she complained of gender discrimination, the grantee university engaged in ‘a widespread program of persistent retaliation and harassment’ against her. As instances of this program, she cited the university’s actions to “deprive her of the office and research materials at the museum …, deprive her of laboratory space of her own at the department …, delay authorizing necessary grant-related expenditures, and transfer grant funds to the PI’s employer after the complainant was laid off from her university job.”

The OIG concluded that the alleged gender discrimination would be “appropriately considered” by a state government agency specializing in gender discrimination to which the complainant had already appealed. “NSF’s regulation on misconduct in science and engineering includes ‘retaliation of any kind against a person who reported or provided information about suspected or alleged misconduct and who has not acted in bad faith’ as part of the definition of misconduct. Because the grantee institution’s alleged retaliation was allegedly occasioned by a complaint of gender discrimination, and did not raise issues of misconduct in science, it does not fall within the definition.” In other words, this case was not pursued because (a) generally speaking, discrimination allegations do not fall under the purview of the Inspector General, and (b) the retaliation complaint was not a direct result of reporting an allegation of research misconduct and therefore could not be investigated under the jurisdiction of the agency’s research misconduct regulation.

To ferret out the truth in such a situation, it would be important to know if and in what context other women in the department had experienced gender discrimination and to have documentation that supported those statements.

So we see that for technical reasons, NSF did not play any role in settling the claims of gender discrimination in either of these two cases. Indeed, the implication of the last case is that because NSF/OIG focuses primarily on allegations of scientific misconduct and civil/criminal cases, it will rarely help to investigate in alleged gender discrimination. In both cases, the university or a state government authority intervened. If you find yourself in a situation of gender discrimination, your first line of defense is with your local institution’s equal employment office and possibly the state equal employment office. The key with any discrimination case is documentation. Without it, cases are often reduced to “he said, she said,” which are difficult at best to investigate adequately.

Dina Mandoli
dina.mandoli@gmail.com

Next Time: The close of TBI

References

1. Park, Lora E., Kathleen E. Cook, and Anthony G. Greenwald. 2001. Implicit indicators of women’s persistence in math, science and engineering. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 6:145–152.
2. Nosek, Brian, A. Mahzarin, R. Banaji, and Anthony G. Greenwald. 2002. Math = Male, Me = Female, Therefore Math ? Me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1):44–59.