This discussion would have been much better on ANZstat where we once has a stats community, where a topical issue could be discussed with hundreds of interested colleagues.
I will go through Glenn’s response in detail.
“There's been a large and ongoing bias against women at senior levels in NHMRC funding that's very clear in the data.” The data Glenn refers to shows no such thing. I have attached a rough analysis. Success rates are similar for males and females. Where is the bias? Who is biased? The NHMRC assessors? It is too easy to make these claims without having the courage to be specific.
“Women take on more caring responsibilities.” It is the job of the NHMRC to fund projects based on their quality alone. Tax payer’s money is involved. In assessing track record of the applicant, there is already a statement of achievement relative to opportunity, specifically for those who face family interruptions. It is a bit sad if you are a male who took time to raise kids. You are going to miss out with this new zero-testicle based system. Does anybody care? Perhaps only those with sons or grandsons.
“Applicants … drop-out at the senior levels”. This is cross-sectional data not longitudinal, a point I make in the attached document. There is some drop-out in the industry but the discussion paper data cannot address it.
Applications reflect gender ratios in our industry at senior levels. This is the NHMRC view not mine. Not to mention that senior male applicants will probably be employing several female post-docs. Why is the discussion paper not based on sex of beneficiaries rather than sex of CI? Probably because the message of affirmative action would be obscured.
Glenn claims that he has heard females get passed over because “they’ll just go off and have babies”. I have been in academia for 45 years and have never heard this. Not second or third hand. Not at all in any forum. I call bullshit. Maybe in steel works but not in academia. If you have any information at all Glenn, it is time to name names. If you keep silent you are the problem. Speak up or keep quiet. Stop spreading third hand rumours to make a political point. There is no evidence of bias let alone sexism in our industry. Well not until now.
“The new system will mean equal funding for men and women. Hopefully it will also encourage more women to apply.” If 1+1=2 and if women can count then it surely will. If you are mid-career female you are virtually guaranteed of success based on the figures in the discussions paper. If you are a mid-career male you have to be nuts to apply for the NHMRC next year.
“The NHMRC did a roadshow on the discussion paper around the country and online. The gender split at these events was telling, I think it was about 3 to 1.” Was it 3 to 1 in favour of males or females? How is it telling? I cannot guess what you mean. In any case, I think many females are completely against affirmative action. Here is an email I received based on a similar post at Biometrics.
“As someone who has received awards designated for women, I can tell you first hand what a terrible impact they have. Others couldn't help but assume that I'd won them because I'm a woman, not because I deserved them. Worse, I myself didn't know whether I deserved them! Early career researchers in particular do not need additional reasons to doubt themselves.
I have children of both sexes, and I fear for them. I want them to be judged on their merits alone, but that wish seems unlikely to come true in the current climate.”
This woman, who has an H-index of 45, is scared to have her name published. She is one of several folk who thanked me for challenging this toxic NHMRC decision, mostly female.
If I had known about the roadshow I would have attended and injected some sanity into the discussion. Unfortunately, nobody in the SSAI leadership thought it worth bringing to our attention. Never too late I guess. But unfortunately, in this case it is.
@StatSocAus
