Headline: Women continue to suffer bias in science and related fields (“STEM”).
Truth behind the headline: Women were *overrepresented* as recipients of these high prestige grants in 3 of 4 categories.
This is the opposite of helpful. 1/5
…-sciencemag-org.ezproxy.princeton.edu/content/366/64…
Truth behind the headline: Women were *overrepresented* as recipients of these high prestige grants in 3 of 4 categories.
This is the opposite of helpful. 1/5
…-sciencemag-org.ezproxy.princeton.edu/content/366/64…
Women didn’t apply for “high risk high reward” NIH grants at the same rates as men.
And yet—the article acknowledges awkwardly—women have received more than 50% of PhDs in Biological Sciences since 2008.
And still the claim is systemic bias against women in STEM? 2/
And yet—the article acknowledges awkwardly—women have received more than 50% of PhDs in Biological Sciences since 2008.
And still the claim is systemic bias against women in STEM? 2/
Thank you, Dr. Corradin (@CorradinLab): 3/ 
@CorradinLab Does anyone really think that accomplished women scientists in America don’t know that they could be applying for grants? 4/
@CorradinLab Alt hypothesis: “high risk high reward” is an approach to science that is more likely to appeal to men. And that’s okay. We should encourage all activities that further human understanding & well-being, even when some groups may be disproportionately likely to excel at them. /end
