>To: womenbio at net.bio.net>From: junekk at aol.com (JuneKK)
>Subject: Activity in Women In...: Stigma?
>Date: 14 Oct 1997 12:48:59 GMT
>>Would anyone like to comment why it seems on many occasions, that to
>comment
> about the need for organizations like AWIS (or "worse" to be active in
>one),
> seems to infer to so many people (including many women scientists)
>that then
> you must NOT be necessarily so committed to SCIENCE itself??
>>Why the stigma?
>If it's any comfort, one of the comments at the national meeting of the
Society for Practical and Professional Ethics was that unlike law and
business, where belonging to an ethics society was often a plus,in
science there was some kind of stigma involved in being involved in
ethics. Someone pointed out that it was like belonging to AWIS 10 years
ago-you are looked on with suspicion as not dedicated. I make it a
point to put both these memberships on my CV, along with my science
society memberships-I think they are part of what makes me a good
scientist. I care about more than just the data at my bench.
But, my PI thinks I should never mention the ethics work, as he sees it
as irrelevant and occasionally harmful depending on the attitude of the
person reading the CV. I think this is sad, but I also don't want to
work for someone who thinks a good scientist is not interested in equal
opportunity or ethical standards. Is there anyone out there who's sat
on a search committee or been part of a tenure decision where this came
up, who can shed some insight? Or is this, like some of the other
obstacles we're talked about, so subtle it's hard to point to?
