The Rosalind Franklin Young Investigator Award, funded by the Gruber Foundation and administered by the Genetics Society of America, supports women in the first one to three years of an independent faculty position doing genetics research in human and non-human mammals and in non-mammalian organisms. This award is only granted every three years; three women receive $75,000 each, over a three-year period ($25,000 per year). 

In 2022, three recipients were recognized for their scientific creativity, originality, and leadership in making new scientific discoveries: Aude Bernheim, PhD, of Pasteur Institute; Kara McKinley, PhD, of Harvard University; and Viviane Slon, PhD, of Tel Aviv University. We chatted with them to see how the award impacted their research journeys and careers and to hear about their experiences as women in science and why these types of awards are essential. 

Aude Bernheim

Aude is a geneticist interested in how bacteria fight off their viruses and how these immune mechanisms are conserved across domains of life. She leads a lab at the Pasteur Institute where she employs a wide range of disciplines mixing bioinformatics and experimental approaches including genomics, phylogenetics, bacterial genetics, phase biology, and more to research these topics. 

Having taken an unconventional path to becoming a biologist, studying not only the life sciences but economics and public policy, as described in the blog post published in 2022, Aude is no stranger to trying new things and taking chances. Her curiosity ultimately led her to heading a lab focused on exploring the diversity of anti-phage systems at different scales, from molecular mechanisms to large-scale evolutionary trends. Receiving the Rosalind Franklin Young Investigator Award gave her the resources, recognition, and confidence to continue this work. She found the award a great boost for her career—the international recognition underscored the quality of her work, which allowed her to obtain additional funding to support her lab’s research and to establish herself as an expert on a national and international scale. True to her curious nature and passion for learning, Aude explained, “The funding allowed me to start risky projects that turned into major lines of research in the lab.” The lab used the funds to support activities like lab retreats and conferences that brought them closer together, which was key for improving communication and building trust, essential to conducting interdisciplinary research. 

On being a woman in the field, Aude shared, “Women were in the past, and still are, less credited for their science than men.” She explained that this and other obstacles systematically exclude women from scientific areas of research like genetics, but made a case for increasing diversity in the field saying, “Diversity of scientists is a major driver of scientific progress, as it is an incredible source of creativity and innovation. As such, we urgently need to support women to promote diversity.” 

Kara McKinley

Kara is an Assistant Professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology at Harvard University and a Freeman Hrabowski Scholar of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Her lab studies the biology of menstruation. She is also the founder of Leading Edge, which looks to improve gender diversity in biomedical research faculty. 

During her time studying cell division processes using live-cell microscopy and genetics and biochemistry techniques at the Whitehead Institute and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Kara fell in love with microscopy. When she was able to start her own lab, she wanted to focus on that drive and was very excited, but also felt great uncertainty–Kara recalled, “During the first few years, I was constantly swinging between: ‘I get to pursue the science of my dreams!’ and ‘What if I can’t deliver?’” Like Aude, Kara wanted to take risks to do great research, and she feels this award allowed her to do so, “It gave me a boost to take risks and push forward bravely. Now we really are pursuing science beyond my wildest dreams!” 

Throughout her career, but especially since founding Leading Edge, Kara has spent time with many extraordinary scientists who are women and other marginalized genders. She said, “Scientific innovation and the scientific ecosystem are better with them in it.” while stressing the need to do all we can to build a scientific infrastructure and community that is worthy of these talented individuals who are currently rising through PhD and postdoc ranks. 

Viviane Slon

Viviane is the head of the Historical and Prehistorical Genetics Laboratory at the Dan David Center for Human Evolution and Biohistory in the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, at Tel Aviv University. 

In the 2022 profile, Viviane shared that her interest in prehistoric humans actually started in early childhood. Having a similar and essential quality to Aude—deep curiosity—and being born in a family of readers, Viviane felt the need to go “beyond books” and learn through hands-on experience, opting to conduct physical anthropology research and actively participating in excavations. Being awarded the Rosalind Franklin Young Investigator Award allowed her to become an independent researcher and do the type of research that she is truly passionate about. “The recognition and financial support provided gave me the confidence to pursue a research path that has been a longstanding passion of mine–retracing the genetic history of the southern Levant through ancient DNA,” she explained. Viviane added that this type of research is challenging due to the difficulty of preserving ancient DNA in warm climates, which requires methodological advancements and extensive fieldwork. For this, you need teamwork, and this award allowed her to assemble a dedicated research group and establish fruitful collaborations nationally and internationally. “This support has been instrumental in advancing our research efforts and laying the groundwork for future discoveries,” she said as she expressed her gratitude. 

Further expounding on the importance of collaboration and championing women in science, like Kara, Viviane added that “supporting the development of women scientists in genetics is crucial because in addition to challenges inherent to an academic career, women often face additional societal pressures and obstacles.” Programs and awards like this one are key to building the confidence young women need to navigate the field and advance their careers. Over the past years, Viviane has felt incredibly fortunate to work with impressive and driven women scientists at all levels of their careers, as mentors, colleagues, and students. “The strength of women supporting, encouraging, and driving each other forward through challenges is a powerful force and, in my opinion, essential to nurture this network to ensure that future generations of women scientists can thrive,” she concluded. 

These three inspirational women in science used the Rosalind Franklin Young Investigator Award to take risks in their careers, knowing that trying new things and innovating is what often produces groundbreaking discoveries. They also used the award to build a culture of inclusivity, to stress the importance of supporting brilliant and creative women in science, and to build each other up to continue paving the way for other women scientists to do the same. 

Becoming the president of a world-class university isn’t something that typically happens “by accident,” but that’s exactly how Shirley Tilghman describes it. “I did not intend to be a university president,” Tilghman says. “I probably had the steepest learning curve of any university president ever.”

In 2000, Tilghman was serving as founding director of the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics at Princeton University. When Princeton’s then-president, Harold Shapiro, announced his departure, Tilghman joined the search committee to ensure that the next president would support the new genomics initiative. “I was going to protect my turf,” she says.

“I was on that committee for about six months. At one point, I left the committee early to teach, and when I came to the next meeting, the chair said, ‘The committee would like you to step down and to become a candidate.’ I thought they were out of their minds,” she recalls. “I think I said to them, ‘I can’t leave you people alone for a minute!’”

Still, Tilghman gave the idea careful consideration. “I decided I had probably done the best science I was going to do by that point,” she recalls. Considering a possible next chapter, she began to get excited about “the opportunity to make an institution that [she] adored—Princeton—better.” In June 2001, she was sworn in as Princeton’s first female president.

Tilghman’s body of research had, indeed, already secured her place in genetics textbooks. In addition, she served as a key advisor to the Human Genome Project, helping to steer the initiative through the capricious winds of government funding and forever transforming the field of genetics. For her outstanding contributions, Tilghman has been awarded the 2022 George W. Beadle Award from the Genetics Society of America, which recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the community of genetics researchers beyond an exemplary research career.

Genomic imprinting

As a postdoc, Tilghman helped develop a method of cloning mammalian genes. She went on to characterize the mouse beta-globin gene, uncovering a great deal about gene structure and “intervening sequences,” now called introns, that interrupt coding regions. As a faculty member at Princeton in the early 1990s, Tilghman and members of her lab studied a gene called H19, which was very highly expressed in the mouse embryo. The first odd thing they discovered was that the gene contained no open reading frame, indicating it could not encode a protein. “There was no other long noncoding RNA at the time, this was the first,” Tilghman recalls. “At that point, I was given very good advice from many colleagues who said [to] drop it like a hot potato.”

However, tantalized by the high expression levels in the embryo, Tilghman couldn’t let H19 go. Work by Marisa Bartolomei, a postdoc in the lab at the time, showed that H19 was only expressed from the maternal chromosome. “That’s when the floodgates opened,” Tilghman recalls.

H19 was located next to another imprinted gene, IGF2, which was only expressed from the paternal chromosome. This pair of genes provided the first evidence of imprinted gene clusters. Tilghman’s lab produced a number of papers characterizing the promoters and enhancers that lay between the two genes and describing the molecular mechanisms involved in imprinting, including chromatin organization and methylation as a key regulator of expression. Bartolomei, who now heads her own lab at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, recalls that era of rapid discovery. “It was insanely exciting,” she says. “Shirley is definitely one of the more creative people who worked in the imprinting field.”

Human Genome Project and beyond

As one of the founding members of the National Advisory Council of the Human Genome Project, Tilghman helped define the public effort in sequencing the human genome. She advocated for sequencing the genomes of various model organisms in addition to the human genome, a move that conferred two key advantages. First, it allowed for small, incremental victories to maintain high enthusiasm for the project and keep funding flowing over the long timeframe required. Second, it expanded interest in the project and the perception of benefit to a wider range of scientists beyond just the handful studying human genetics. “A genome enthusiast,” she once said, “is a genome critic who just got a hit in their organism’s sequence database.”

Tilghman was influential in setting a precedent for data accessibility, starting with the mouse genome, says Tamara Caspary of Emory University, who was a graduate student in Tilghman’s lab. “It was really important to her that those data be publicly available,” Caspary says. “She very clearly highlighted that it needed to be community-driven, in terms of selecting what strains to be sequenced.” By actively involving the genetics community, Tilghman helped sustain a wide enthusiasm for the genome sequencing efforts that carried the project to its ultimate successes. Similarly, as a trustee of the Jackson Laboratory, she strongly supported establishing the Mouse Genome Informatics database. “It’s tremendous,” Caspary says. “The well just gets deeper with the data you can mine out of that website. She made that data accessible worldwide.”

Tilghman has been equally influential on the personal side of science, advocating for reform in the biomedical research pipeline. As ever-increasing numbers of trainees vie for limited resources, it becomes harder for science students and postdocs to envision a viable path to a research career. Tilghman has worked to address what she sees as systemic flaws in the process, including perverse incentives in research funding, problems with the peer review system and obstacles to new investigators obtaining federal grants.

Through all these accomplishments, Tilghman has served as an important role model for a generation of women in science. “She was incredibly fearless in going from one thing to another,” Bartolomei says. “She led by example. The key is that not only is she smart, she’s creative, she gives great talks—she’s the complete package. She taught me how to be a woman in science.”

The George W. Beadle Award honors individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the community of genetics researchers. GSA established the award in 1999 in honor of an outstanding scientist and a respected academic, administrator, and public servant—George W. Beadle (1903-1989).

Increasing support for parents in science means making conferences more child-friendly.

Guest post by Elisabeth Marnik and Julie Claycomb, members of the GSA Conference Childcare Committee.

The scientific community works on the cutting edge. We implement new techniques and methods as soon as we can with the understanding that—though there may be challenges along the way—the end result is worth it. We hope that this mindset will also hold true with regard to scientists implementing important changes in relation to parenthood and attendance at scientific meetings. In a 2018 PNAS article, Rebecca Calisi and a Working Group of Mothers in Science outlined the “childcare–conference conundrum”:

“Primary caretakers of dependent children face inequitable hurdles to fully attending and participating in conference activities because of responsibilities related to pregnancy, breastfeeding, and caretaking. It’s a serious problem because it creates a culture of inequity for parents, with mothers generally experiencing greater disadvantages than fathers because of biological, prejudicial, and often socially driven childcare demands.” 

The article suggests changes that need to happen within the scientific community to help alleviate this unfair “baby penalty.” Based on the recommendations from Calisi et al. and the results of our survey earlier this year, the GSA Conference Childcare Committee is working to implement new policies and offer new resources for TAGC 2020. As is true of any new change, there will likely be some bumps in the road, but expanding our support for parents in science is an important step on the path to making things more equal. Ultimately, lowering barriers to participation will contribute to a more diverse community and benefit scientific progress overall as smart minds—belonging to those who happen to be parents—are encouraged to fully engage and remain in their field. 

The following resources will be available at TAGC 2020:

1. On-site childcare (at a cost)
2. Nursing/pumping rooms
3. Grants to help offset the costs of childcare associated with attending the meeting (applications due December 5!)
4. Reserved seating at the back of large meeting rooms to allow parents easy access in and out of sessions
5. Badges to allow additional caregivers access to meeting spaces for drop-off/pick-up

These are important steps in making conference attendance more inclusive, but a big part of the equation is a needed shift in conference culture that tells parents, “You’re wanted and welcome here!” That’s why we’re saying, loud and clear, that infants and children are welcome at TAGC 2020 and allowed in plenary and poster sessions. To make this work, we need parents and non–parents to come together and adapt. The shift might not be easy at first, but as highlighted in Calisi et al.: “Minor interruptions are a small price to pay for this step toward inclusion, which benefits mothers [parents] in science and, by extension, the academic enterprise.” In hopes of making this a better experience for all involved, we offer the following suggestions and tips to attendees bringing children and those who aren’t:

For those bringing children:

• Bring along another caregiver to help or utilize on-site childcare options when possible.
• Take advantage of childcare grants to help provide for childcare at home or at the meeting.
• Network with other parent scientists through the Parents in Science Slack and the Parents in Science Meetup at TAGC 2020.
• Coordinate with other parents to arrange playdates and meetups during the conference. Look for others that would be willing to work together on childcare arrangements.
• Ask a colleague for their session notes if you miss part of a session due to your child’s needs.
• Bring snacks, coloring books, puzzles, and other quiet activities to help entertain children during sessions.
• Remove disruptive or fussy children from session rooms until they are settled down. Many session rooms will have a remote viewing option so that you don’t have to miss the science if you need to exit with a fussy child. 
• Keep an eye on safety. Children 12 and under must be accompanied at all times in conference spaces, and running, performing gymnastics, and other physical exertions are not permitted in any conference areas. Note that children are not allowed in the exhibit/poster hall during set-up or break-down times.
• Be patient with yourself and your child. There may be some challenges to navigating TAGC 2020 with your child, but you are taking an important step in doing so!

For those attending without children:

• Leave the reserved rows at the back of plenary sessions free for those with children so they can easily exit the room when needed.
• Avoid stirring up a child who may be misbehaving.
• Be respectful of nursing mothers/infants.
• Do not harass a parent about their child’s presence or behavior in a session. 
• Practice empathy. No parent wants to disrupt a session with an unruly child, and every parent is acutely aware of their child’s behavior in situations like this. 
• Be an ally. Recognize that parents bringing children to the conference may be outside of their comfort zone, too, but that to change our culture, we all need to work together.

We recognize that change like this might feel uncomfortable to some; however, we’re committed to doing what we can to address this particular contribution to the “leaky pipeline” of women in science. This isn’t a challenge that is unique to women; parents and caregivers of all genders can face hardships balancing a career in the sciences and parenthood. But it’s true that much of the career penalty that can come from having children is borne by mothers. There is a long-standing perception that science and motherhood are not compatible; it’s up to us to change that perception by providing better support for all parents in science.

It is our job as a community to ensure that talented scientists can succeed in their careers regardless of their decision to be parents. We hope you’ll join us in working to make TAGC 2020 inclusive to all attendees.

FURTHER READING

Problems in the Pipeline: Gender, Marriage, and Fertility in the Ivory Tower
Nicholas H. Wolfinger, Mary Ann Mason, and Marc Goulden
The Journal of Higher Education. 2008. 79(4): 388-405. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2008.11772108

Keeping Women in the Science Pipeline
Marc Goulden, Mary Ann Mason, and Karie Frasch
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2011. 638(1): 141-162. doi: 10.1177/0002716211416925

Do Babies Matter?: Gender and Family in the Ivory Tower
Mary Ann Mason, Nicholas H. Wolfinger, and Marc Goulden

About the authors:

Elisabeth Marnik

Elisabeth Marnik is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Updike Lab at The MDI Biological Laboratory in Bar Harbor, ME, mom to a 7-month-old boy, and a member of the GSA Conference Childcare Committee.

Julie Claycomb

Julie Claycomb is an Associate Professor and the Graduate Coordinator in the Department of Molecular Genetics at the University of Toronto, mom of a 2 and a half-year-old boy, and a member of the GSA’s Conference Childcare Committee.

Guest post by Tânia Reis, Chair of GSA’s Conference Childcare Committee, on barriers to conference participation and how we can address them.

I’m a Scientist. I’m a Mom. I couldn’t pick one over the other; half of me would be missing. I am lucky I have never had to choose. Yet, there were and are times that these two roles seemed incompatible.

But why should it be this way? Despite the challenges, being a scientist has made me a better mom, and being a mom has made me a better scientist. Why the barriers? Why the lack of support? These are questions many of us have when we are “in the trenches.” And being in the trenches has made me think a lot about the many little things that could easily be changed to make a huge difference to the mom and dad scientists.

My husband is a dad. And a scientist, a dad scientist, and a scientist dad. His “barriers” have been very different from mine. At our institutions, we are very used to juggling our kids and our science, planning who can drop everything for the sick kid that day, who goes on the field trip, who has a meeting or an assay that day. For the most part, we handle it, not as gracefully as we imagined before parenting, but in a way that balls don’t get dropped (at least not the major ones…a minor ball may bounce away now and then, and we’re learning to live with it).

Our kids are veterans at scientific meetings. Both have breastfed, melted down, and played hide-and-seek in the hallways of the different hotels and universities of GSA conferences. (When you next see me, ask me about that time that we ended up in the San Diego Children’s ER just as the fly meeting started! The joys!!). We have had institutional retreats where we both present and the kids come along. They know the drill. They even enjoy listening to talks from time to time.

Yet, one of our biggest challenges was TAGC 2016: we always attend the GSA fly (me) and yeast (him) meetings, and we were excited to attend this one, too. We were actually one of the 28 parent attendees to be awarded a GSA childcare grant. We used ours to fly our three and seven-year old kids with us to the meeting; without nearby family who could drop everything, we had no choice. I had a workshop to host and a poster to present, some lunches to sit in; husband had a talk to give. We juggled it all again, as we know so well how to do. But, this time around we both thought that we missed too much. We took too little out of this meeting, and we wanted to take so much more. With TAGC 2020 just around the corner, we want to ask: how could the experience of parents with young children be different?

Our experience and variations are far from unique. Scientists everywhere end up missing meetings because of lack of childcare support. And it’s not just them missing out— the whole community misses out when parents can’t fully participate.

Because GSA wants to help address this problem, it has formed a Conference Childcare Committee. I think my years of “nagging” for something to improve has earned me the committee Chair position. Like me, many others reached out.

This is who we are, and we are pumped!

• Julie Claycomb, Associate Professor, University of Toronto
• Sean Curran, Associate Professor, University of Southern California
• Rhea Datta, Assistant Professor, Hamilton College
• Madhumala Sadanandappa, Postdoc, Dartmouth College
• Elisabeth Marnik, Postdoc, MDI Biological Laboratory
• Thomas Merritt, Professor, Laurentian University
• Maureen Peters, Associate Professor, Oberlin College
• Maria D. Vibranovski, Assistant Professor, University of São Paulo
• Gillian Stanfield, Associate Professor, University of Utah

As you can see, the Drosophila and C. elegans communities are well represented. Because every GSA meeting looks and operates differently, we’d love to have members of other communities, too. Are you also interested in making conferences more inclusive, and don’t see your community represented? Send us an email!

After our first couple of meetings, it was obvious that, like me, many others have been thinking over the years “How can we make this better for parents and caregivers? Accessible for everyone? So everyone can contribute their science to the community?”

We have so many ideas.

We are building a growing list of “first steps” (relatively easy-to-implement ideas, some of which build on existing GSA initiatives) and “big goals” (harder, either practically or financially, to implement) for parents and caregivers. We are also working on messaging, and we’re researching opportunities for funding, from grants to requesting supplements from vendors. If you know of an organization looking to fund meaningful projects for improving science, let us know!

Here are some ideas from the (ever-growing) list:

First steps:

• Data collection at registration: better understand how many attendees are bringing children, how many need nursing facilities, etc; including an option for connecting with other parents attending.
• Better informing parents: adding inclusive messaging to the website and providing more detailed information on resources available. Making sure parents know that they and their children are welcome.
• Family Room at the conference: Provide a Family Room that includes games for kids and session broadcasts for parents.
• Connecting parents at GSA conferences: Set up a Slack channel or other forum for parents and caregivers to connect at the meeting.
• Nursing Room standards: Ensure Nursing Room is easily accessible and equipped with a fridge, sink, microwave, and private pumping areas.
• Exhibitor support: Offer exhibitors the opportunity to donate to the childcare funds and to equip the Family Room.
• Conference session: Develop a work/family life session or workshop for current and future parents or caregivers.
• Kids Session: Fun outreach opportunity for kids to present their parents’ work or other passion area in science.

Big goals:

• Provide onsite childcare: Although costs make this a major challenge, particularly for GSA’s smaller community meetings, it would be a game changer for parent attendees.
• Expanding the Childcare Grants: These need-based grants can be given to provide care either at the meeting or at home; the more funding we can find, the more we can offer. We would like to support more people and provide more support per grantee.

We are working with the GSA Board of Directors on setting priorities and finding funding to see as much as possible in effect for TAGC 2020.

We have so far only looked at things we personally missed and guessed at those things we think others may be missing. Because we’re sure others have additional ideas (or support for existing ones), we’d like to ask the community what they think. What would help you and your family? What do you have to add?

Contact me at tania.reis@cuanschutz.edu.

About the author: 

Tânia Reis

Tânia Reis is an Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, mom of a 9-year old boy and a 5-year old girl, and chair of GSA’s Conference Childcare Committee.

A member of GSA’s Conference Childcare Committee presents an overview of childcare resources available at scientific conferences.

Guest post by Madhumala K. Sadanandappa.

Recently, I received an email from the Genetics Society of America (GSA) regarding my interest in being a part of the Conference Childcare Committee that aims to tackle the childcare-conference conundrum as outlined in Calisi et al., 2018. The committee has been tasked with exploring better ways to accommodate primary caregivers attending GSA conferences. Based on my personal experiences at scientific meetings, this is a much-needed initiative to address the challenges faced by both parent-researchers and the conferences.  

Before choosing my postdoctoral research, I planned to attend a well-known, reputable, biennial conference in my field. Besides offering an excellent platform to present my work, the conference offered a timely opportunity to survey my study area and weigh my future course of research. However, the meeting failed to accommodate my parental needs, including practical and monetary considerations for breastfeeding and childcare. As an early career researcher, it was not feasible for me to afford additional travel expenses. So, after weighing my options, in addition to planning for a solo trip, I forced myself to wean my toddler early. This decision left me with a heavy heart because I really enjoyed my time nursing my daughter and also, as a researcher, I admired the beauty of nature that was unfolding around me. Therefore, I have enthusiastically agreed to serve the GSA conference childcare committee as a parent postdoc researcher.

Going forward, normalizing parenthood at conferences will empower parent-scientists (especially early career researchers) to thrive in science. To achieve this goal, many scientific societies are working to reduce the ‘baby penalty’ on parent-researchers. With the purpose of serving as a resource for parents and parents-to-be, here I list some of the childcare services that are currently provided by various conferences/societies to their attendees, including dependent/carer grants. In addition, I hope that the compiled data in this article may offer some ideas to conference organizers to accommodate parent-scientists at their meetings.

• American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP): Travel award to ACNP members includes childcare stipend of $80/day/child.
• American Ornithology Society (AOS): In addition to travel awards participants can also apply for a caregiver grant to the AOS annual meeting. On-site childcare facility at the conference hotels and lactation room available at the main meeting venue.
• Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB): Award childcare grants of up to £500 to members attending ASAB conferences or workshops.
• American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB): Childcare grant up to $1000/family is available to members presenting at the ASBMB annual meeting.
• American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB): Offers childcare grant to ASCB members attending the ASCB/EMBO meeting.
• Australasian Society for Immunology (ASI): Women’s Initiative offers up to AUD 1000 travel award for women members to attend the ASI annual meeting.
• British Neuroscience Association (BNA): BNA-Brain Carer grants offer up to £300 to cover childcare expenses.
• British Society for Cell Biology (BSCB): Provide £250 childcare support to applicants presenting at the meeting.
• Ecological Society of Australia (ESA): In addition to registration discount for families where both parents are presenting the meeting, ESA offers Conference Childcare Travel Grants up to $250 per family.
• Elsevier Family Support Awards: Provides up to $500 per award to early-career researchers attending Cell Symposia.
• Entomological Society of America (ESA): Offers up to $400 per family.
• European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO) childcare grants: From January 2019, the organizers of EMBO funded courses and workshop are provided up to €1000 to offset childcare costs incurred by the attendees.
• European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB): Conference Attendance Aid Grant (from €250 to €500) supports ESEB members to the meeting.
• Federation for European Neuroscience Society (FENS): Offers childcare grants up to €400 to attend the FENS Forum meeting.
• Genetics Society of America (GSA): Awards childcare grants to members attending The Allied Genetics Conference.
• Microbiology Society: Eligible members receive £245 for annual conferences and £300 for focused meetings organized by the society.
• National Postdoc Association (NPA): Limiting to one per institution, NPA awards childcare support ($500) in addition to travel award ($500) to postdoctoral attending the annual meeting.
• Open Bioinformatics Foundation Travel Fellowships (OBF): The travel fellowship ($1000) can be used towards childcare costs.
• Society for applied microbiology (SfAM): Care support grant offers £300 for dependent care.
• Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution (SMBE): On-site daycare facility and also, Carer Travel Awards up to $2000 are available to SMBE members.
• Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR): Offers family care grant up to $400 per family to members attending the meeting.  
• The Capstone Editing Carer’s travel grant: Funds up to A$3,000 per year to academic women in Australia and New Zealand.
• The Genetics Society: Carer’s award (up to £60/day) supports members and selected speakers to attend the society organized meetings and events.
• The Physiological Society: Limited number of carers’ fund up to £500 available for attending any meeting or workshop organized by the society.
• Wellcome Genome Campus Advanced Courses and Scientific Conferences offers carer grants.

Below are the societies that offer family-friendly facilities, such as on-site/off-site daycare services for infants and children, a family room and/or nursing room at the conference area: American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), American Fisheries Society (AFS), American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), British Ecological Society (BES), Ecological Society of America (ESA), European Conference on Computational Biology (ECCB), European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) conferences and symposia, Evolution meetings, International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB), GSA conferences, International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Japan Neuroscience Society (JNS), Japanese Society of Developmental Biologists, Society of Experimental Biology (SEB), Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB) and Society for Neuroscience (SFN).

Don’t forget to investigate support from your host institution. Dependent care travel grants for faculty members have been established at Harvard University, Stanford University, UC Irvine, Princeton University, Cornell University, The University of Chicago, Brown University, Vanderbilt University, UCLA, University of Glasgow, and several other institutions. In the United States, childcare professional development awards are offered to postdoctoral researchers by UC San Diego,  University of Michigan, Yale University, West Virginia University, Northwestern University and the University of Colorado Denver.

Parent scientists: don’t forget that conferences can help not only your professional development but also your family. Because your participation matters!

About the author:

Madhumala K. Sadanandappa is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department of Molecular and Systems Biology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, NH. She is also a member of the GSA’s Conference Childcare Committee. She would like to thank Shivaprasad H. Sathyanaryana for his help in researching this article.

Guest post by members of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee Emily Lescak, Giovanna Collu, and Lacy Barton

Recent high-profile cases of sexual misconduct in science have revealed a pervasive undercurrent of harassment in the STEM workplace. How should scientists, institutions, and funding agencies respond? Given the importance of this issue, we wanted to provide a brief outline of the problem, policies that seek to prevent harassment, and steps the scientific community can take.

How pervasive is sexual harassment?

It has been difficult to estimate the prevalence of sexual harassment because there is no centralized system for reporting, and self-reported rates may not capture the entirety of the problem. Some estimates include:

• The 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report that more than 50% of women faculty and staff and 20-50% of women students at universities have experienced harassment.
• 71% of women surveyed experienced sexual harassment while conducting fieldwork and 25% had been assaulted.  
• Women in STEM report experiencing discrimination at higher levels than women in non-STEM occupations (50% vs 41%).
• Women in STEM report experiencing sexual harassment at over three times the rate of men (22% vs 7%)

Alarmingly, a recent inventory and analysis of 300 cases of sexual harassment of students by faculty at universities found that in most instances, misconduct was physical rather than verbal. In more than half of the cases, the faculty member was a serial harasser. Surveys conducted in astronomy and planetary sciences reveal that women of color are more likely to be victims of harassment. The prevalence of harassment against women has brought to light the hostile work environments fostered by long-standing power imbalances between men and women. It also indicates policies surrounding misconduct—particularly in academia—need to be strengthened.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened an ad hoc committee to study the effects of harassment on the success of women in academia. They define three forms of sexual harassment: gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. That committee recently issued a report that reviews the pervasiveness of harassment toward women in STEM, the extent to which harassment impedes career advancement, and the efficacy of current policies that seek to prevent misconduct. Their report also includes specific recommendations for Congress and federal agencies.

Here we outline the stakeholders who are in a position to effect change. The recent NASEM report also includes guidelines for actions that these entities can take.

How does the federal government regulate sexual harassment?

In the United States, sexual harassment is prohibited under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972. However, last year, US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos relaxed federal rules surrounding sexual assault investigations at universities. The Obama-era guidelines directed that colleges use the lowest standard of proof in determining whether a student has committed assault. The Education Department now requires colleges to use a higher standard that requires ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ Secretary DeVos has also removed the requirement for investigations to be completed within 60 days and included an allowance for universities to use mediation—if both sides agree—instead of formal investigations. Mediation by nature implies dual responsibility and direct confrontation between the sexually harassed and the accused, which may discourage the reporting of sexual assault and change attitudes toward sexual harassment on campus.

Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) has proposed legislation that would terminate faculty found guilty of sexual harassment. Kate Clancy, a sociologist who studies sexual harassment in the sciences, recently testified at a congressional hearing, urging academic institutions to change workplace culture to make more ‘respectful and equitable climates for everyone.’ You can read her powerful testimony here.

How can funders impact the behavior of grantees?

The National Science Foundation now requires institutions to report findings of sexual harassment and place grantees accused of harassment on administrative leave while investigations are taking place. Under these new policies, NSF research grants may be suspended or eliminated if an institution finds that a grantee is guilty of harassment. These requirements build upon NSF’s 2016 statement that institutions must implement Title IX protections or risk having funding revoked. The requirement for institutions to implement protections may have a more tangible effect because these systemic changes may deter future incidents in addition to dealing with reported harassment.

The National Institutes of Health initiated efforts in 2016 to address sexual harassment issues. Thus far, these efforts have led to changes in the sexual harassment policy and the development of a new system meant to facilitate rapid response to sexual harassment claims. However, these measures are limited to intramural branches of the NIH and NIH-sponsored meetings, and it remains to be seen whether such measures are extended to extramural NIH-funded research. The new initiative by the NSF may provide a template for the NIH and other institutions to make broader changes in the future.

What can institutions do?

Scientific societies have also begun to re-evaluate codes of conduct for their members. For example, the American Geophysical Union has named sexual harassment as a form of scientific misconduct and is involved in an NSF-funded project that will update teaching of research ethics to include sexual harassment. The Genetics Society of America is chartering a working group to revise its code of conduct for meeting attendees and investigate the best ways to prevent and address harassment or inappropriate behavior at conferences. The Council of Evolution Societies have unveiled the Safe Evolution Program to standardize codes of conduct, address issues regarding work environments, and provide support to individuals who feel threatened or harassed while at society meetings. In terms of the broader scientific community, there are also campaigns to strip honors and awards from scientists who have been sanctioned for sexual misconduct.

Some institutions are proactively preventing sexual harassment. The University of London, which recently found itself at the center of harassment allegations, is now adopting a strict approach to curbing misconduct, which includes the development of a 10-point plan for tackling workplace harassment and the creation of a new position focused on sexual harassment strategy and review.

In the United States, The University of California Santa Cruz revised its policies on sexual violence and assault in 2016 to include the process for reporting and processing complaints and mandate online training for faculty and staff. The University of Michigan has recently updated its policies so that harassment cases are now heard by professional Office of Student Conflict Resolution staff, rather than volunteer members, to ensure that professionals are handling conflicts.

In a recent high-profile case at the University of California, Irvine, Francisco Ayala has been terminated, and the university plans to remove his name from the library and biology building after multiple women have come forward with complaints of sexual harassment. Ann Olivarius, a lawyer specializing in sexual harassment who reviewed the report against Ayala states that his “…very public punishment will send a loud signal that times are changing—that harassment…does not mean just extreme misconduct.”

What can individuals do?

Reporting sexual harassment in any context isn’t easy; it can result in difficult workplace interactions, disrupted career paths, and loss of productivity. Within the research community, reporting can lead to public scrutiny of the victim’s quality of work or abandonment of STEM careers altogether. The consequences can be even tougher to deal with as an early career scientist who depends heavily on recommendation letters for obtaining future positions. Given that the burden of reporting incidents falls on the very people who have already suffered, we must move to a culture that pro-actively discourages harassment.

Be proactive about addressing sexual harassment. As individual scientists, we can influence our own workplace environments to make sure that they are welcoming to all individuals. If you feel safe to do so, you can challenge inappropriate behavior. If you are in a position of power, be an ally and speak out.

How to seek assistance

Here are some resources that can help individuals who have been victims of—or have witnessed—sexual harassment:

• Contact your institution’s Title IX office or support services including the ombuds office or human resources department.
• Get guidance on how to support someone who has been a victim of harassment or assault.
• Get involved with Know Your IX, an organization that supports youth advocates working to end sexual violence in schools.
• Learn how to fight campus sexual assault.

About the authors:

The goal of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee is to analyze and communicate the impact of policies and their implications for training, funding, and advancement of the scientific enterprise.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

[wysija_form id=”1″]