MeTooSTEM: A Mission to End Sexual Harassment in STEM

"I’ve been the victim of retaliation by my university and a member of the faculty who was "that guy" – the "harmless" one who "loved women”." – anonymous.

"I could only wear baggy sweatshirts and turtlenecks to lab because when I leaned over my bench, the men would try to look down my shirt." – anonymous.

"I have given up on the idea that anyone will listen to what is true and what is right. I now believe the institute is only interested in covering their ass and preventing a lawsuit.” – anonymous.

Challenges in a STEM career

Pursuing a career in any of the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines can be a real challenge, what with the daunting years of study typically required and, particularly in academia, the serious dearth of funding.

Across all STEM disciplines there is one common theme: innovation, and without individuals pursuing a career in STEM, this innovation comes to a halt. Sadly, in the wake of the "Me Too" (or #MeToo) movement, a spotlight has been cast on an additional obstacle that deters many individuals, particularly women, from working in STEM – the astonishingly high incidence of sexual harassment. 

2018 saw the publication of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report, "Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine", the most comprehensive study yet on the extent of sexual harassment across the STEM fields.

The research findings are, at the same time, shocking, saddening and infuriating:

• Women in STEM endure the highest rate of sexual harassment of any profession outside of the military.
  
  
• Nearly 50 percent of women in science, and 58 percent of women in academia, report experiencing sexual harassment, including 43 percent of female STEM graduate students.
  
  
• 90 percent of women who report sexual misconduct experience retaliation.
  
  
• Among men, 16 percent reported sexual harassment in 2018, compared with 12 percent in the previous report.¹

"Sexual harassment encompasses a spectrum of harmful actions that range from the more obvious realms of sexual assault--things like rape and physical coercion--to the more subtle gender harassment," comments Teresa Swanson, PhD, a leader of MeTooSTEM. Harassing behavior can be either direct in nature (targeted at an individual) or ambient (a general level of sexual harassment in an environment).

Why is sexual harassment a major problem in STEM?

Shockingly, when compared to all other professions (excluding the military), women are most vulnerable to sexual harassment if they pursue a career in STEM. But why? How does a field encompassing some of the world's brightest individuals become accustomed to accommodating such behavior?

STEM is a traditionally male-dominated field, and despite there being an increase in women entering STEM over the past 40 years, certain disciplines are still witnessing a gender gap. A 2018 article noted that "fields remain dominated by white men because the culture of the field is "masculinized" and excludes women.”² 

"The statistic didn't surprise me at all," says Folk. "STEM occupations often rely heavily on extensive training and research in academic settings, which are built on hierarchies and power dynamics that are ripe for harassment to go unchecked."

Furthermore, isolation is a common theme in STEM occupations. Gordon points out that even in standard biomedical or chemistry labs, the campuses are typically large, and trainees work so hard that they often aren't connected with the larger community. "People are really isolated, and that has several negative consequences," Gordon states. "One is that they may not recognize what a toxic environment looks like, and the second is that individuals don't have a large community of people to reach out to, so they may feel alone."

"Rosy had to go or be put in her place" – what effect does sexual harassment have on STEM?

Gordon eloquently discusses the impact of sexual harassment on the integrity of the STEM fields with an infamously controversial case study: the discovery of the DNA double helix.

It's no secret that Rosalind Franklin was mistreated by her colleagues. "In his book "The Double Helix" Watson writes "Clearly Rosy had to go or be put in her place". Then, in a public address in 2011, Nancy Hopkins said, "When I was an undergraduate at Harvard, I was sitting at my lab desk one day writing up notes when the door of the lab flew open, there stood a scientist I didn't know but recognized instantly before I could rise and shake hands, he had zoomed across the room stood behind me, put his hands on my breasts and said, "What are you working on?" - it was Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA.""

Gordon continues: "None of us would argue that the double helix discovery is incorrect, but if Watson and Crick hadn't made it, it would have arguably come out in subsequent years. It didn't rely on any unique property of theirs. In fact, they stole the data from Rosalind Franklin. So, how do we compare the short-term value of a discovery that they made before others would inevitably have made it, compared to the long-term harm that's done to science. Sexually harassing behavior harms science, in the long-run, in a way that just isn't worth it."

Swanson points out that women aren't leaving STEM careers because they don't enjoy the subjects or "find it too difficult" as one narrative might suggest. Quite the contrary – they are leaving STEM because it isn't worth being constantly sexualized, harassed and dismissed. The consequence of this? "STEM fields lose the creativity, ingenuity and perseverance of the women that leave, and those women lose their careers and dreams, at the very least." 

• Demonstrating accountability and transparency
  
  
• Clarifying expectations for institutions and investigators to ensure a safe workplace and inform the agency
  
  
• Providing clear channels of communication to NIH
  
  
• Listening to victims and survivors of sexual harassment and incorporating their perspectives into future actions

Thanks to McLaughlin's persistent efforts, the NIH revoked funding from approximately 12 researchers in 2018 for sexual misconduct. They have also promised increased action going forward, stating "We can do better. We must do better". 

Speaking out

Speaking out about the experience of sexual harassment is a deeply personal choice, and one that an individual cannot be influenced in making. Common fears surrounding the sharing of stories typically include not being believed, being judged and the adverse impact it could have on your career. It's an unfortunately sad reality that the process of reporting harassment is difficult. "Your fear is real and valid. It is understandable that you are scared, as this world does not treat survivors kindly. Are you safe? Find safety first. Do you have support? Find your people. Take care of yourself first,", Swanson advises.

However, Folk comments on the fact that speaking out can be a liberating experience that promotes healing, "Most of us are socialized to smile and act like nothing is wrong, not to speak out about how we have been violated. In many cases we are explicitly told by systems we cannot speak about what happens. I believe this silence can be toxic."

Organizations such as MeTooSTEM and Below the Waterline endeavor to break this silence: "People are now pushing for meaningful change, and so I am optimistic that we could be at a tipping point in which this starts to happen," concludes Gordon.

If you wish to talk to someone about your experience, or if you require general support around this subject, a number of resources are listed here. 

References:

1. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine | The National Academies Press. URL: https://www.nap.edu/download/24994 (accessed 5.17.19).

2. Baird, C. L. “Male-Dominated Stem Disciplines: How Do We Make Them More Attractive to Women?” IEEE Instrumentation Measurement Magazine 21, no. 3 (June 2018): 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIM.2018.8360911.