Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contexts of Equity: Thinking About Organizational and Technoscience Contexts for Gender Equity in Biotechnology and Nanotechnology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development

Part of the book series: Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society ((YNTS,volume 2))

Abstract

One of the most visible inequities in scientific research and development is the small number of women involved. But while this has traditionally been the case, there are groups working to remedy this imbalance in the future. In this chapter, Laurel Smith-Doerr considers the probable place of women in nanotechnology research and production, viewing these developments through the lenses of feminist theories and past experience with biotechnology in the United States. She notes that very little is known so far about the participation of women in nanotechnology research or production, but its association with physical sciences and engineering suggests that participation rates will be lower, since women are better represented in the life sciences and biotechnology. In addition, the non-hierarchical organizational environments that characterized startup firms in biotechnology—environments where women thrived—appear less frequently in nanotechnology. Smith-Doerr identifies a number of questions that are ripe for research during nanotechnology’s formative stages, questions about how nanotechnology work serves the broader society, interdisciplinarity, patenting, and authority relationships.

This chapter was peer-reviewed. It was originally presented at the Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 21, 2008.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bainbridge, William Sims. 2002. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4: 561–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, Susan E. 2007. Distributive justice in science and technology policy. Science and Public Policy 34 (2): 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, Susan E., Isabel Bortagaray, Sonia Gatchair, and Dhanaraj Thakur. 2008. Emerging technologies and social cohesion: Policy options from a comparative study. Paper presented at the PRIME Latin America Conference, September 24–26, Mexico city. http://prime_mexico2008.xoc.uam.mx/papers/Susan_Cozzens_Emerging_Technologies_a_social_Cohesion.pdf. (accessed July 30, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Croissant, Jennifer, and Sal Restivo, eds. 2001. Degrees of compromise: Industrial interests and academic values. Albany: SUNY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, Waverly W., Fiona Murray, and Toby E. Stuart. 2006. Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science 313:665–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, Waverly, Toby E. Stuart, Fiona Murray. 2007. Commercial science: A new arena for gender differences in scientific careers? Berkeley, CA: University of California. Unpublished manuscript. (paper specific url: http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/paper/ding2_gender%20and%20commercial%20science.pdf) Last accessed July 30, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, Susan C. 1999. Surprising opportunities: Gender and the structure of work in biotech firms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 869: 175–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feynman, Richard P. 1960. There’s plenty of room at the bottom: An invitation to enter a new field of physics. Engineering and Science (February). http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html. (accessed July 30, 2010).

  • Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. The dialectic of sex. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Mary Frank, Carol Colatrella, David McDowell, and Mary Lynn Realff. 2007. Equity in tenure and promotion: An integrated institutional approach. In Transforming Science and Engineering, ed. Abigail J. Stewart, and Jane E. Malley, 170–186. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Mary Frank, and Mohapatra, Sushanta. 2007. Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. Journal of Higher Education 78 (5): 542–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frietsch, Rainer, Inna Haller, Melanie Funken-Vrohlings, and Hariolf Grupp. 2009. Gender-specific patterns in patenting and publishing. Research Policy 38: 590–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginther, Donna K., and Shulamit Kahn. 2006. Does science promote women? Evidence from academia 1973–2001. NBER Working Paper Series, No. W12691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H. and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24:93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammonds, Evelynn, and Banu Subramanian. 2003. Conversation on feminist science studies. Signs 28 (3): 923–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hans, Asha. 2006. Gender, technology and disability in the south. Development 49 (4): 123–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, Donna. 2004. Cyborgs, coyotes, and dogs: A kinship of feminist figurations. In The Haraway reader, 321–332. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt, Wendy. 2008. Heading blithely down the garden path? Some entry points into current debates on women and biotechnologies. In Women in biotechnology, ed. Francesca Molfino, and Flavia Zucco, 35–69. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Heidi. 1976. Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation by sex. Signs 1 (3): 137–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosek, Susan D., Amy G. Cox, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, Aaron Kofner, Nishal Ramphal, Jon Scott, and Sandra H. Berry. 2005. Gender differences in major federal external grant programs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. TR-307-NSF-2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Jerry, and Scott Frickel. 2009. Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 35: 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1983. A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1992. Secrets of life, secrets of death: Essays on language, gender and science. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, Michele. 2009. How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 1996. Aramis or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libaers, Dirk, Martin Meyer, and Aldo Geuna. 2006. The role of university spinout companies in an emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology. Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 443–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. Scott, ed. 2001. From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnaughten, Phil, Matthew Kearns, and Brian Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, Jane, and Allan Fisher. 2002. Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, Mary Ann, Marc Goulden, and Karie Frasch. 2009. Why graduate students reject the fast track. Academe Online (January-February) vol. 95(1) http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2009/JF/Feat/maso.htm. (accessed January 21, 2009).

  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1999. A study on the status of women faculty at MIT. The MIT Faculty Newsletter, XI (4).

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, G. Steven. 2009. Gender differences in patenting activity: An examination of the U.S. biotechnology industry. Scientometrics 80 (3): 683–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuaid, James, Laurel Smith-Doerr, and Daniel J. Monti. 2010. Expanding entrepreneurship: Female and foreign-born founders of New England biotechnology firms. American Behavioral Scientist 53(7): 1045–1063.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, Amy Scott, and Sheila Slaughter. 2008. The differential effects of academic capitalism on women in the academy. In Unfinished agendas: New and continuing gender challenges in higher education, ed. Judith Glazer-Raymo, 80–111. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Alan D., Vibha Gabha, and Kenneth A. Colwell. 2005. Organizing far from equilibrium: Non-linear change in organizational fields. Organization Science 16: 456–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 2003. Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molfino, Francesca, and Flavia Zucco, eds. 2008. Women in biotechnology. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, Fiona, and Leigh Graham. 2007. Buying science and selling science: Gender differences in the market for commercial science. Industrial and Corporate Change 16: 657–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. 2007. Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington DC, National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NACME. 2008. Confronting the “new” American dilemma, underrepresented minorities in engineering: A data-based look at diversity. White Plains, NY: NACME. http://206.67.48.105/NACME_Rep.pdf. (accessed January 25, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. 2008. Science and engineering indicators 2008. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/ (accessed January 25, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldenziel, Ruth. 1999. Making technology masculine: Men, women and modern machines in America 1870–1945. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, Walter W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior 12:295–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, Walter W., Kenneth W. Koput, and Laurel Smith-Doerr. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayman, Paula M. 2001. Beyond the bottom Line: The search for dignity at work. New York, NY: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reskin, Barbara F., and Debra Branch McBrier. 2000. “Why not ascription? Organizations’ employment of male and female managers.” American Sociological Review 65: 210–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoten, Diana, and Stephanie Pfirman. 2007. Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy 36: 56–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2009. Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender & Society 23: 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, Sue V. 2006. Using the lenses of feminist theory to focus on women and technology. In Women, gender, and technology, ed. Mary Frank Fox, Deborah Johnson, and Sue V. Rosser, 13–46. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, Londa. 1999. Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Doerr, Laurel. 2004. Women’s work: Gender equity v. hierarchy in the life sciences. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinpreis, Rhea E., Katie A. Anders, and Dawn Ritzke. 1999. The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants. Sex Roles 41: 509–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suitor, Jill, Dorothy Mecom, and Ilana S. Feld. 2001. Gender, household labor, and scholarly productivity among university professors. Gender Issues 19: 50–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Charis. 2008. Stem cells, women, and the new gender and science. In Gendered innovations in science and engineering, ed. Londa Schiebinger. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 109–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong, Rosemarie. 2008. Feminist theory: A more comprehensive introduction, third edition. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towers, Sherry. 2008. A case study of gender bias at the postdoctoral level in physics, and its resulting impact on the academic career advancement of females. ArXiv Working Paper 0804.2026v3 (April 19), http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.2026v3.pdf. (accessed January 15, 2009).

  • Traweek, Sharon. 1995. Bodies of evidence: Law and order, sexy machines, and the erotics of fieldwork among physicists. In Choreographing history, ed. Susan Leigh Foster, 211–228. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valian, Virginia. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetter, Betty M. 1976. Women in the natural sciences. Signs 1 (3): 713–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wajcman, Judy. 2004. TechnoFeminism. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, Kjersten Bunker, and Laurel Smith-Doerr. 2005. Gender and commercial science: Women’s patenting in the life sciences. Journal of Technology Transfer 30: 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, Kjersten Bunker, and Laurel Smith-Doerr. 2008. Women inventors in context: Gender disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender & Society 22 (2): 194–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenneras, Christine, and Agnes Wold. 1997. Nepotism and peer review in science. Nature 387: 341–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, Nicholas H., Mary Ann Mason, and Marc Goulden. 2009. Stay in the game: Gender, family formations and alternative trajectories in the academic life course. Social Forces 87 (3): 1591–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Rosemary, and Jerry A. Jacobs. 1994. Male flight from computer work: A new look at occupational resegregation and ghettoization. American Sociological Review 59 (4):511–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Yu, and Kimberlee A. Shauman. 2003. Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, Lynne G., Michael R. Darby, and Marilynn B. Brewer. 1998. Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review 88: 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, Harriet, and Jonathan R. Cole. 1975. Women in American science. Minerva 13: 82–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, Harriet, and Jonathan R. Cole. 1984. The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement 2: 217–258.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the workshop organized by Jameson Wetmore and Susan Cozzens on “Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality,” held at Arizona State University, November 2008, Tempe, AZ. Thanks to Jamey and Susan—also this volume’s editors—for their helpful comments on drafts of this paper, to two anonymous reviewers for comments, and to Ed Hackett for the “War on Cancer” analogy. Author thanks the National Science Foundation for support in preparation of this work; however, any opinions and conclusions are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

    Laurel Smith-Doerr

Authors
  1. Laurel Smith-Doerr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurel Smith-Doerr .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Oak Brooke Way 1147, Atlanta, 30319, USA

    Susan E. Cozzens

  2. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Jameson Wetmore

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smith-Doerr, L. (2010). Contexts of Equity: Thinking About Organizational and Technoscience Contexts for Gender Equity in Biotechnology and Nanotechnology. In: Cozzens, S., Wetmore, J. (eds) Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development. Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation