Women have traditionally been excluded from positions of power, specifically in the field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Believed to diminish the intellectual capabilities of scholars, women were historically barred from many opportunities. The first woman was not admitted to the forefront of scientific developments founded in 1666, the French Academy of Sciences until 1979. Over the past half a century, this situation has gradually improved with changes in the scientific landscape and an increased awareness of gender bias in science. More women are encouraged to pursue careers in science, and their interests in science are being cultivated. However, we have not yet reached equality. Where are we in 2019?

Data suggest that female scientists continue to face challenges and hurdles in their career advancement. As to be expected from the inequality of women in STEM, inequality for women also permeates the field of neuroscience. Equal percentages of males and females with college degrees in STEM fields proceed to PhDs (~10%). Similarly, there are equal percentages of males and female PhDs who receive assistant professor job offers (~35%). However, women only comprise one third or less of assistant professors in STEM fields and 7%–18% of full professors (Ceci, Ginther, Kahn, & Williams, 2014; Williams, 2017). In neuroscience, a survey in 2003 indicated that females accounted for 50% of neuroscience PhD students, but only 25% of tenure‐track faculty and 22% of tenured full professors (“Women in neuroscience: A numbers game,” 2006). In 2017–2018, females comprised of 53% of PhD matriculates, 30.8% of tenure‐track faculty but only 13.8% of tenured full professors in academic neurology and neuroscience fields (McDermott et al., 2018; SFN Reports, 2017).

As the data indicate, women make up at least 50% of the class at predoctoral and doctoral phases of their education. However, as women progress through their careers, a large number of women leave the field and the proportion of men in the field and in positions of power sharply increases. One reason for the drop in the proportion of women is the discrepancy in societal obligations between men and women. In addition to keeping up with the demands of the field, women are also expected by society to have and care for children. “At the end of the day you are fighting for a position and if your competitor didn't have to go over this maternity process, he is for sure in a better position that you are,” said Elisa Navarro, a current postdoctoral candidate of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

Interestingly, evidence suggests that instead of being denied job opportunities in academic science, female scientists tend to choose leaving the field in order to maintain work–life balance. A general belief in our society is that academic careers are not compatible with family life. A 2011 survey by colleagues in UC Berkeley indicated that the ratio of female postdocs who plan to start families or who already had children before taking the postdoctoral positions chose to opt out of academic career paths was much higher than men (Ceci et al., 2014). Balancing life and career is identified as a major hurdle for women scientists. A survey by The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2011 found that the primary reasons male scientists left academic careers were grants and funding, whereas for female scientists balancing life and career, having and rearing children and gender bias were placed before grants and funding (Baker, 2011).

A more insidious reason for the drop in the number of women especially in positions of power might be subtle biases and stereotypes against women scientists in the workplace. Saima Machlovi, a PhD student of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai commented, “This can be observed at seminars. Female presenters are frequently interrupted throughout their talks, and their findings are more easily questioned by others compared to their male colleagues. This may represent an internal bias that women are not capable of making remarkable discoveries however our history proves otherwise.” Examples of men in powerful roles asserting their beliefs that women are incapable of the same scientific work as men can be found throughout history. High school students everywhere learn the names of Watson and Crick, but few recognize the name of Rosalind Franklin. James Watson, one of the discoverers of DNA structures, was known for his racist, sexist, and homophobic beliefs. He not only undermined and belittled his female colleague Rosalind Franklin's contributions to the discovery of DNA structure but also suggested using knowledge of DNA to make all girls pretty. When commenting on the increase in women in science he said, “It would be more fun for the men, but they are probably less effective.” Thankfully, people like Ben Barres, a transgender neuroscientist, are fighting against these misbeliefs against women in science. A personal experience shared by Ben was another example of discrimination. Ben overheard a comment about his talk at a scientific symposium that he did better work than his sister, Barbara Barres, who was actually Ben before he transitioned.

The bias can be manifested in publications as well. One study found that women had to publish 3 more papers in high‐profile journals, or 20 more in less impactful journals, to be considered as productive as their male colleagues when applying for postdoctoral positions (Hill, Corbett, & Rose, 2010). In a study that analyzed neuroscience journals from 2005 to 2017, women were underrepresented in many high‐profile journals, with only 29.8% of all authors being women, 33.1% of first authors being women, and 18.1% of last authors being women (Bendels, Muller, Brueggmann, & Groneberg, 2018; Shen et al., 2018). It was also noted that the number of female authors of a journal was negatively correlated with its impact factor in 5 years. The highest number of female last authors was in Neuropsychology Review (39.04%), and the lowest was in Nature (14.64%). The highest number of female first authors was in Neuropsychology Review (52.58%), and the lowest was in Nature (25.22%). The average rate of increase was less than 1% per year for first female authors and less than 0.5% per year for last female authors (Bendels et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2018).

Moreover, data suggest that women are still not treated as equals to men in many areas of science despite the vast strides that women have made in the last 50 years. For example, a study by Academic Medicine showed a substantial salary difference between male and female scientists by about $20,000 (Girod et al., 2016; Valantine, 2016). Studies by MIT in 1999 showed that female faculty tended to have less space and fewer resources than their male colleagues with similar academic achievements. It was estimated that female scientists got 40% less start‐up money on average than male scientists (Girod et al., 2016; Valantine, 2016). Of the Research Publication Grants awarded, only 33% are awarded to women. Additionally, only 26% of the Research Center Grants are awarded to women. Not only are fewer grants awarded to women but the value of the grants awarded to women are smaller, with the average award being $505,271 for women compared to $579,673 for men (Pohlhaus, Jiang, Wagner, Schaffer, & Pinn, 2011). Studies also show that Asian and African‐American women scientists had a lower chance of receiving funding support, suggesting a double discrimination for women scientists of color (Girod et al., 2016; Valantine, 2016).

Besides gender bias, sexual harassment, a form of sex discrimination, is being increasingly reported by women in science. Sexual harassment can be blatant or can take the form of microaggressions. Microaggressions have been defined as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial sights and insults toward any group, particularly culturally marginalized groups” (Sue et al., 2007). The accumulation of microaggressions over time is believed to lead to lower self‐confidence, which can cause mental health problems and possibly associate with women's leaving science field.

With challenges mentioned above like difficulties in maintaining work–life balances, less control of work environment with a lower likelihood of promotion into leadership positions, confronting biases and stereotypes, as well as experiencing higher rates of sexual harassment, women in science and healthcare professionals have a higher risk of developing burnout. For example, surveys have found a much higher percentage of female physicians’ self‐reported burn out symptoms and dissatisfaction with work–life integration than male physicians (Tawfik et al., 2018; West, Dyrbye, & Shanafelt, 2018). While many factors contributing to burnout among male and female scientists and healthcare professionals are comparable, it is important to recognize certain gender‐based differences in contributing factors of burnout and thereby tailor preventive and interventional strategies to mitigate burnout symptoms and increase retention rate among women scientists (Templeton et al., 2019).

Despite increasing numbers of women in science in decades, the proportion of female scientists in leadership positions remains low. The lack of appropriate representation, compensation, and recognition of women in STEM is appalling, which results in a loss of talent and idea, leading to research from a male perspective. For example, the disparate representation of women in science has led to a prolonged lack of understanding, such as assuming the egg plays a passive role in fertilization (Martin, 1991), and physical harm, such as introducing drugs into the market that have adverse effects for women since they were tested only in men (Zakiniaeiz, Cosgrove, Potenza, & Mazure, 2016). Compelling data have shown that diverse groups including women and people of color generate more creative ideas and improve scientific outcomes than homogenous groups do. For example, papers with more diverse backgrounds of authors received more citations (Jang, 2017).

What can we do better? It is critical to identify barriers that prevent female scientists from career advancement. It is clear that bias and discrimination against women in science has not been adequately addressed. Changes in institutional and departmental structure and culture to develop female faculty value system are important steps to prevent the “leaky pipeline” and improve retention of women in science (Carr et al., 2019). We need mechanisms in place to make success as a woman in science more feasible. When asked about what would make being a woman in science easier, Kathryn Bowles a postdoctoral fellow at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai commented, “I think the increased inclusion of women and minorities on committees, panels and leadership positions will help resolve some of the biases against women.”

Mentoring and strong leadership to support and promote women's work and sense of voice have been among the most important factors in retaining women scientists in the field. Female role models are particularly critical for recruiting young women scientists and rising stars into the science field and keeping them there. Lack of appropriate role models often leads to feelings of exclusion. Programs such as Maximizing Access to Research Careers, ENDURE Undergraduate Education, and Minority Biomedical Research Support match students with mentors and support a range of activities to increase student involvement and engagement in science. In addition to programs that help students from underrepresented groups, having a mentor is beneficial for all students and especially for students who are underrepresented in a field. Students with mentors perform better academically than students without mentors and women in particular rate the importance of mentorship more highly than men (Fisher, Fried, Goodman, & Germano, 2009). Margaret Zhong, an undergraduate neuroscience major at Barnard College of Columbia University, finds herself in a situation that proves such. “I work in a behavior lab at the Columbia University Medical Center. The entire lab is male, except for the graduate student I work with. Watching her navigate the neuroscience field inspires me to continue on my own path in neuroscience.”

For junior faculty in science, mentorship should focus not only on academic research progresses and grantsmanship training but also on career coaching of leadership skills, effective laboratory management, and conflict resolution, as well as techniques of coping and stress management. The NIH sponsored early career training programs as well as several PI training programs available in academic institutes are good examples. Every female scientist may have a story to tell. Dongming Cai, an Associate Professor of Neurology in Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, recalled how she wound up a neuroscientist, crediting her parents who nurtured her belief that women can do everything men can, and her science mentors Marie T. Filbin and Paul Greengard were particularly influential, as they encouraged and guided her during her career development while providing supportive environments where women in laboratories were not treated any differently from men.

It is critical to develop transparent mechanisms which allow women scientists to provide feedback that may increase job satisfaction and improve retention of women in science. For example, movements like “MeToo” are bringing awareness to the prevalence of sexual harassment, and are drawing attention to the unequal power dynamic between men and women. Efforts like this are beginning to influence academia, and will eventually lead to more women being in positions of power. In addition, changes at institutional and departmental levels to address concerns and issues about work–life balance and compensation equity among women scientists are important for recruitment and retention of top talent and increased job satisfaction. Examples such as onsite child and elder care, part‐time tenure tracks, and extension of clock for tenure track clock, as well as inclusion of workplace responsibilities like committees and teaching into consideration of promotion processes have been suggested as best practices in this regard (Carr et al., 2019). Other efforts could be beneficial such as offering retention and mentorship grant support by academic institutes and departments in addition to the funding mechanisms provided by federal agencies such as NIH and NSF or institutions like Association for Women in Science. It is also important to recognize that women tend not to ask for salary raises, promotion, or recognition for good work they do. Educating women scientists with better negotiation skills is one way, but more important is to implement a more user‐friendly system to monitor career advancement and job satisfaction of women scientists particularly at early career development stage when most vulnerable to opt out. Establishing a supporting network of women scientists at different academic ranks within the same institute or from different academic institutes to share experiences and provide feedback could be helpful as well.

We need to recognize that even though progress toward increasing women in neuroscience is being made, more still needs to be done. Having a family and furthering a career should not be mutually exclusive. Programs that make maternity leave more accessible or also encourage paternity leave alleviate certain factors that drive women to leave their careers. Additionally, more needs to be done to fight the bias that remains in science. For example, articles submitted for publications or grant applications could be de‐identified for review to better eliminate the possibility of bias. The field of neuroscience is uniquely situated to lead the push for women's equality because of the high numbers of initial interest. We need to work as a team and take steps to foster, encourage, and nurture future women in neuroscience. We should be leaders in the women's fight for equality.

女性历来被排除在权力职位之外，特别是在科学、技术、工程和数学 (STEM) 领域。人们认为女性会削弱学者的智力，历史上女性被禁止获得许多机会。直到 1979 年，法国科学院成立于 1666 年，第一位女性才被承认进入科学发展的前沿。在过去的半个世纪里，随着科学格局的变化和对性别偏见意识的提高，这种情况逐渐得到改善。科学。鼓励更多女性从事科学事业，培养她们对科学的兴趣。然而，我们还没有达到平等。2019年我们在哪里？

数据表明，女科学家在职业发展中继续面临挑战和障碍。正如 STEM 中女性的不平等所预期的那样，女性的不平等也渗透到神经科学领域。在 STEM 领域获得大学学位的男性和女性获得博士学位的比例相等（约 10%）。同样，获得助理教授工作机会的男性和女性博士的​​比例相同（约 35%）。然而，女性仅占 STEM 领域助理教授的三分之一或更少，占正教授的 7%–18%（Ceci、Ginther、Kahn 和 Williams，2014 年；Williams，2017 年））。在神经科学领域，2003 年的一项调查表明，女性占神经科学博士生的 50%，但仅占终身教职员工的 25% 和终身教授的 22%（“神经科学领域的女性：数字游戏”，2006 年）。2017-2018 年，女性占博士预科生的 53%、终身教职员工的 30.8%，但仅占学术神经病学和神经科学领域的终身正教授的 13.8%（McDermott 等人，2018 年；SFN 报告，2017 年）。

数据表明，在博士前和博士阶段，女性至少占班级的 50%。然而，随着女性职业生涯的进步，大量女性离开该领域，男性在该领域和担任权力职位的比例急剧增加。女性比例下降的原因之一是男女社会义务的差异。除了跟上这个领域的需求，社会还期望女性拥有和照顾孩子。“归根结底，你是在为一个职位而战，如果你的竞争对手不必经历这个生育过程，他肯定会比你处于更好的位置，”现任博士后候选人 Elisa Navarro 说。西奈山伊坎医学院。

有趣的是，有证据表明，女科学家并没有在学术科学领域被剥夺工作机会，而是倾向于选择离开该领域以保持工作与生活的平衡。我们社会的普遍信念是，学术生涯与家庭生活不相容。加州大学伯克利分校的同事 2011 年的一项调查表明，计划开始家庭或在担任博士后职位之前已经有孩子的女性博士后选择退出学术职业道路的比例远高于男性（Ceci 等人，2014 年））。平衡生活和事业被认为是女科学家的主要障碍。美国科学促进会 (AAAS) 2011 年的一项调查发现，男性科学家离开学术生涯的主要原因是资助和资助，而对于平衡生活和事业的女科学家来说，生育和抚养孩子以及性别偏见被放在首位。赠款和资金（贝克，2011 年）。

女性人数下降的一个更阴险的原因，尤其是在权力职位上，可能是对工作场所女科学家的微妙偏见和刻板印象。西奈山伊坎医学院的博士生 Saima Machlovi 评论说：“这可以在研讨会上观察到。女性演讲者在整个演讲过程中经常被打断，与男性同事相比，她们的发现更容易受到其他人的质疑。这可能代表了一种内部偏见，即女性无法做出非凡的发现，但我们的历史证明并非如此。” 在整个历史中都可以找到担任重要角色的男性声称女性无法与男性从事相同的科学工作的例子。各地的高中生都知道沃森和克里克的名字，但很少有人认识罗莎琳德富兰克林的名字。詹姆斯·沃森 (James Watson) 是 DNA 结构的发现者之一，以其种族主义、性别歧视和恐同信仰而闻名。他不仅诋毁和贬低他的女同事罗莎琳德·富兰克林对发现 DNA 结构的贡献，还建议利用 DNA 知识让所有女孩都漂亮。在评论女性从事科学工作的人数增加时，他说：“这对男性来说会更有趣，但他们可能效率较低。” 值得庆幸的是，像跨性别神经科学家本·巴雷斯这样的人正在与科学界对女性的这些错误信念作斗争。Ben 分享的个人经历是另一个歧视的例子。Ben 在一次科学研讨会上无意中听到了一个评论，说他比他的妹妹 Barbara Barres 做得更好，

这种偏见也可以在出版物中体现出来。一项研究发现，在申请博士后职位时，女性必须在知名期刊上多发表 3 篇论文，或在影响力较小的期刊上多发表 20 篇论文，才能被认为与男性同事一样富有成效（Hill、Corbett 和 Rose，2010 年）。在一项对 2005 年至 2017 年神经科学期刊进行分析的研究中，女性在许多知名期刊中的代表性不足，只有 29.8% 的作者是女性，33.1% 的第一作者是女性，18.1% 的最后作者是女性（Bendels , Muller、Brueggmann 和 Groneberg，2018 年；Shen 等人，2018 年）。还有人注意到，一个期刊的女性作者数量与其影响因子在 5 年内呈负相关。Neuropsychology Review（39.04%）的女性最后作者数量最多，Nature（14.64%）最低。Neuropsychology Review（52.58%）的女性第一作者数量最多，Nature（25.22%）最低。第一位女性作者的平均增长率低于每年 1%，最后一位女性作者的平均增长率低于 0.5%（Bendels 等人，2018 年；Shen 等人，2018 年）。

此外，数据表明，尽管女性在过去 50 年中取得了巨大进步，但在许多科学领域，女性仍然没有得到与男性平等的对待。例如，Academic Medicine 的一项研究表明，男性和女性科学家之间的薪水相差约 20,000 美元（Girod 等人，2016 年；Valantine，2016 年）。麻省理工学院 1999 年的研究表明，与学术成就相似的男性同事相比，女性教师往往拥有更少的空间和更少的资源。据估计，女性科学家获得的启动资金平均比男性科学家少 40%（Girod 等人，2016 年；Valantine，2016 年））。在授予的研究出版资助中，只有 33% 授予女性。此外，只有 26% 的研究中心拨款授予女性。不仅授予女性的赠款更少，而且授予女性的赠款价值更小，女性的平均奖励为 505,271 美元，而男性的平均奖励为 579,673 美元（Pohlhaus、Jiang、Wagner、Schaffer 和 Pinn，2011 年）。研究还表明，亚裔和非裔美国女科学家获得资助的机会较低，这表明对有色人种女科学家的双重歧视（Girod 等，2016 年；Valantine，2016 年）。

除了性别偏见，科学界女性越来越多地报道性骚扰，这是一种性别歧视。性骚扰可以是公然的，也可以是微攻击的形式。微攻击被定义为“简短而常见的日常言语、行为或环境侮辱，无论是有意还是无意，向任何群体，尤其是文化边缘群体传达敌意、贬损或负面偏见和侮辱”（Sue 等人，2007 年）。随着时间的推移，微攻击的积累被认为会导致自信心下降，这可能导致心理健康问题，并可能与女性离开科学领域有关。

面对上述挑战，例如难以保持工作与生活的平衡、对工作环境的控制较少、晋升领导职位的可能性较低、面临偏见和刻板印象，以及性骚扰发生率较高，科学和医疗保健专业人员中的女性有产生倦怠的风险更高。例如，调查发现女医生自我报告的倦怠症状和对工作与生活融合的不满的比例要高于男医生（Tawfik 等，2018 年；West、Dyrbye 和 Shanafelt，2018 年））。虽然导致男性和女性科学家和医疗保健专业人员职业倦怠的许多因素具有可比性，但重要的是要认识到职业倦怠影响因素的某些基于性别的差异，从而制定预防和干预策略以减轻职业倦怠症状并提高女科学家的保留率（坦普尔顿等人，2019 年）。

尽管几十年来从事科学工作的女性人数不断增加，但担任领导职务的女性科学家的比例仍然很低。在 STEM 中缺乏对女性的适当代表、补偿和认可令人震惊，这导致人才和想法的流失，导致从男性角度进行研究。例如，女性在科学中的不同代表性导致长期缺乏理解，例如假设卵子在受精中发挥被动作用（Martin，1991）和身体伤害，例如将具有不利影响的药物引入市场。对女性的影响，因为它们仅在男性中进行了测试（Zakiniaeiz、Cosgrove、Potenza 和 Mazure，2016 年）。令人信服的数据表明，与同质群体相比，包括女性和有色人种在内的不同群体能够产生更多的创意并改善科学成果。例如，作者背景更加多样化的论文获得了更多的引用（Jang，2017）。

我们可以做什么更好？找出阻碍女科学家职业发展的障碍至关重要。很明显，科学领域对女性的偏见和歧视并未得到充分解决。为发展女性教师价值体系而改变机构和部门结构和文化是防止“管道泄漏”和提高女性在科学领域的保留率的重要步骤（Carr 等人，2019）。我们需要建立机制，使女性在科学领域取得成功变得更加可行。当被问及如何让女性在科学界变得更容易时，西奈山伊坎医学院的博士后凯瑟琳·鲍尔斯评论道：“我认为，越来越多地将女性和少数族裔纳入委员会、小组和领导职位将有助于解决一些问题。对女性的偏见。”

支持和促进女性工作的指导和强有力的领导，以及她们的发言权，是在该领域留住女科学家的最重要因素之一。女性榜样对于招募年轻女科学家和后起之秀进入科学领域并让她们留在那里尤为重要。缺乏适当的榜样往往会导致被排斥的感觉。诸如最大限度地获得研究职业、ENDURE 本科教育和少数民族生物医学研究支持等计划将学生与导师配对，并支持一系列活动，以增加学生对科学的参与和参与。除了帮助来自代表性不足群体的学生的计划外，拥有导师对所有学生都有好处，尤其是对于在某个领域代表性不足的学生。2009 年）。哥伦比亚大学巴纳德学院神经科学专业本科生玛格丽特·钟 (Margaret Zhong) 发现自己的处境证明了这一点。“我在哥伦比亚大学医学中心的行为实验室工作。整个实验室都是男性，除了和我一起工作的研究生。看着她在神经科学领域航行，激励我继续走自己的神经科学道路。”

对于初级科学教师，指导不仅应关注学术研究进展和资助培训，还应关注领导技能的职业指导、有效的实验室管理和冲突解决，以及应对和压力管理的技巧。NIH 赞助的早期职业培训计划以及学术机构提供的几个 PI 培训计划就是很好的例子。每个女科学家可能都有一个故事要讲。西奈山伊坎医学院神经病学副教授蔡东明回忆起她是如何成为一名神经科学家的，她的父母让她相信女人可以做男人可以做的一切，以及她的科学导师玛丽·T·菲尔宾和保罗格林加德特别有影响力，

制定透明机制至关重要，让女科学家能够提供反馈，从而提高工作满意度并提高女性在科学领域的保留率。例如，像“MeToo”这样的运动正在提高人们对性骚扰普遍性的认识，并引起人们对男女之间不平等权力动态的关注。像这样的努力开始影响学术界，最终将导致更多的女性担任权力职位。此外，在机构和部门层面进行变革，以解决有关女科学家工作与生活平衡和薪酬公平的担忧和问题，这对于招聘和留住顶尖人才以及提高工作满意度非常重要。例如现场儿童和老人护理、兼职任期轨道和延长任期轨道时钟的时钟，2019年）。除了 NIH 和 NSF 等联邦机构或科学女性协会等机构提供的资助机制之外，其他努力也可能是有益的，例如由学术机构和部门提供保留和指导补助金支持。同样重要的是要认识到，女性往往不会要求加薪、晋升或对她们所做的出色工作给予认可。教育女科学家具有更好的谈判技巧是一种方法，但更重要的是实施一个更加用户友好的系统来监测女科学家的职业发展和工作满意度，特别是在最容易选择退出的早期职业发展阶段。

我们需要认识到，尽管在神经科学领域增加女性方面取得了进展，但仍有更多工作要做。拥有家庭和发展事业不应相互排斥。使产假更容易获得或还鼓励陪产假的计划减轻了驱使女性离开职业的某些因素。此外，还需要做更多的工作来对抗科学中仍然存在的偏见。例如，可以对提交的出版物或资助申请的文章进行去识别化以更好地消除偏见的可能性。由于最初的大量关注，神经科学领域处于独特的位置，可以引领女性平等。我们需要团队合作，采取措施培养、鼓励和培养神经科学领域的未来女性。