Why reforming science prizes can help tackle discrimination in physics
07 Tues 2022
Taken from the March 2022 issue of Physics World, under the title "We need to rethink science prizes."
Jess Wade and Maryam Zaringhalam argue that changing the awards process can help advocate for a more equitable future.
A scientific award reflects what the scientific community values. It can raise the profile of a scientist's work, create career advancement opportunities, and boost researchers' morale. Awards can motivate scientists to pursue high-risk, high-reward research, make breakthroughs, and change our understanding of the world. Awards can also strengthen ties with the scientific community and establish role models, as well as transform interest, investment, and engagement in a particular discipline.
But there's a problem. The nomination process for these awards is often broken, as is the way they are awarded. As a result, scientists from underrepresented social groups and those from smaller, less well-known institutions are less likely to receive the recognition they deserve.
The Nobel Prizes are a perfect example of these discrepancies. Women account for only four of the 219 Nobel Prizes in Physics, while no Black scientist has ever been recognized by the Nobel Scientific Committee. The Nobel Prizes also place too much emphasis on the contributions of individuals, perpetuating a flawed view that science advances through the "lone genius" rather than through collaboration and cooperation. By awarding only one person or a small number of them, the Nobel Prizes effectively eliminate the contributions of colleagues, who are often scientists in their early careers and arguably have more to gain from this recognition.
The Nobel Prizes are not the only ones. Most awards require nomination packages and references, which can be burdensome and intimidating to prepare. Unless careful and conscientious advocates are willing to research awards and draft statements to diversify the pool of candidates, the bias of nominators and institutions determines who is nominated.
The Matilda effect is the (un)conscious bias that attributes the contributions of female scientists to their male counterparts. It demonstrates how easily prize programs can deny recognition to women scientists and scientists from historically marginalized groups, effectively erasing them from history. And even if self-nomination is possible, it can favor overly confident scientists or those with the time to gather the necessary nomination materials. When women do nominate themselves, they are often accused of self-promotion.
Ultimately, however, it is the biases and interests of the jury members that determine who succeeds. Evaluators bring their own knowledge, experiences, and priorities to their judging role. If the jury is not diverse—and the names of the committee members are not made public—their more limited experiences and perspectives have been shown to lead to less diverse nominations. There is also the Matthew effect, which recognizes high-achieving scientists and fails to recognize those who have yet to make their mark. This effect explains why winners of early-career awards (which are usually given to scientists who had access to and chose the “right” supervisor, topic, or institution) are more likely to later receive more established awards.
A more equitable future
However, some reforms have been implemented to counteract these effects. The Institute of Physics (IOP), for example, now has a diversity and inclusion initiative, as well as the option for self-nomination for awards. Nevertheless, some of its awards still require the candidate's h-index, a citation metric that is inherently biased against people from certain disciplines, women, African Americans, people from low-resource countries, and those who do not prioritize publication. Furthermore, the IOP's Early Career Bronze Medals require two reviewers from outside the candidate's department, which can pose a challenge for researchers with fewer connections at the beginning of their careers.
So what more can be done? When the American Geophysical Union realized that women and minorities were underrepresented in its fellowships, it created a task force to review selection criteria, established survey groups, and trained selection committees on implicit bias. The Royal Society of Chemistry's awards now place more emphasis on the science as a whole, rather than on individual scientists. All members of scientific teams—from graduate students to technicians—are recognized, as is the work of educators in inspiring future chemists. Its awards also come with a set of expectations and can be revoked if these are not met.
While an independent review sends a strong signal that an awards program is serious about reform, there are steps that professional bodies, academic institutions, and scientific societies can take in the short term. Transparency brings fairness and accountability. We need to collect and share data on who is nominated and who is not, who wins, who serves on selection committees, and what strategies are in place to address imbalances. We need to train selection committees on unconscious bias, have consistent evaluation processes with clearly defined criteria, and encourage members to question their own stereotypes.
We also need to evaluate award requirements and clarify the rationale behind them. For example, is excellence best reflected by a metric like the h-index? Let's rethink the purpose of awards: Do they need to champion an individual, or could teamwork be recognized instead? And we should encourage people to nominate more diverse candidates. Once clear requirements are established and outreach efforts are underway, let's offer training programs on how to create compelling nomination packages and write effective statements of support.
The responsibility also lies with the scientific community. Take the time to nominate that phenomenal colleague, that extraordinary team leader, that inspiring speaker, or that remarkable technician. These awards are not only an opportunity to recognize the scientific advances that have brought us to where we are today, but also an opportunity to champion a vision of a more equitable future.
Jess Wade is a research fellow at Imperial College; email her at [email protected]@jesswade.
Maryam Zaringhalam is a biologist and lead producer at the non-profit organization Story Collider
