Search results

Recently established policies for ethical conduct of researchers have resulted in efforts to implement those policies through educational practices. While these policies and training efforts have good intentions, how do researchers respond? Little research has been conducted to understand how researchers react to ethics policies, and to ethics education requirements as a particularly salient part of the policies. This research explores variations in the responses of life scientists to policies originating in the U.K., E.U. and U.S., between 2000 and 2003. Semi-structured interviews with 30 life scientists in the U.K., Italy and the U.S. provide the basis for the findings. Across the interviews, scientists consistently reported dislike of the ways the ethics policies and ethics programs are implemented, but with variation by country. U.K. life scientists regarded the policies tied to Research Council (RC) funding with a skeptical attitude, expecting that policies would change with RC leadership. Italian life scientists often noted the lack of funding (and policies) at the national level, and appeared frustrated by what they viewed as overly complex policy requirements at the European level, where successful grantees employed outside consultants to complete the ethics sections of their applications. U.S. life scientists expressed distaste for the implementation of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy in web-based ethics training modules. This research suggests that introducing new shallow routines that are separate from daily research and educational practices in science may be worse than no ethics training at all, if it turns off young researchers to the discussion of ethical issues. Observing variation in scientists' discourse on ethics policies allows us to see how education following ethics policies might be more effective, and indicates that ethics policy formation more informed by empirical research is a desirable goal.

Why do some Ph.D.'s languish in positions with little authority, and what does educational background have to do with it? Hypotheses predicted that life scientists with Ph.D.'s from elite programs would be the most likely, those from middle-ranked programs the next most likely, and those from lower ranked programs the least likely to achieve supervisory positions. A sample of 2,062 life scientists with doctorates from U.S. universities was collected from records archived from 1983 to 1995. In contrast to hypotheses, Ph.D.'s from elite and lower ranked schools did not have a significantly different chance of supervising. Within prestigious organizations, however, Ph.D.'s from top 10 programs did have a greater likelihood of leading. Ph.D.'s from middle-ranked programs were less likely to advance into supervisory positions. Qualitative interviews explored how, in a knowledgeexpanding field such as the life sciences, being stuck on the bottom rung early on can adversely affect a scientist's career.

Asymmetrical convergence is the increasing overlap between academic and industrial sectors, but with academia moving closer toward for-profit industrial norms than vice versa. Although this concept, developed by Kleinman and Vallas, is useful, processes of asymmetrical convergence in daily laboratory life are largely unexplored. Here, observations of three lab groups of chemical scientists in academic and industry contexts illustrate variation in interactions with ethics-related policies (as defined by the respondents). Findings show more tension for academic science with business-based practices, such as the move toward greater accountability, than for industrial science with academic practices. This asymmetry is evident in the process of purposive decoupling: for example, where academic scientists use humor to distance themselves from the performance of compliance in required reporting and top-down ethics training requirements. This distancing from meaningless requirements (formalism) contrasts with mentoring around practices of professional behavior that are thought to matter (engagement). Convergence is evident in how safety policies seem more engaging than other kinds of policies. Yet, power structures shape engagement. Academic engagement often means rule following, and flows vertically from professor's authority to student apprenticeship. Industry engagement includes collaborative problem solving and flows along a more horizontal peer structure where informal power is less visible.

AbstractHow to study inequality in innovation? Often, the focus has been gender gaps in patenting. Yet much is missing from our understanding of gendered inequality in innovation with this focus. This review discusses how gender and innovation are intertwined in durable academic inequalities and have implications for who is served by innovation. It summarizes research on gender and race gaps in academic entrepreneurship (including patenting), reasons for those longstanding inequities, and concludes with discussing why innovation gaps matter, including the need to think critically about academic commercialization. And while literature exists on gender gaps in academic entrepreneurship and race gaps in patenting, intersectional analyses of innovation are missing. Black feminist theorists have taught us that gender and race are overlapping and inseparable systems of oppression. We cannot accurately understand inequality in innovation without intersectionality, so this is a serious gap in current research. Intersectional research on gender and innovation is needed across epistemic approaches and methods. From understanding discrimination in academic entrepreneurship to bringing together critical analyses of racial capitalism and academic capitalism, there is much work to do.

Research on immigrant entrepreneurs in the United States has focused on small businesses in the retail and food service sectors rather than on high-technology start ups. Scholarship on women and immigrants in the U.S. science and technology workforce has focused on academia rather than scientists in industry. This article aims to bridge the gaps in these two literatures by examining the role of women and immigrants in founding science-based biotechnology firms. This research thus speaks to the sociological perspective on power inequalities for women and foreign-born people in entrepreneurship and in the U.S. science and technology workforce. Opportunities and barriers vary by organizational context, and the flexibility of the biotechnology industry has previously been found to benefit female scientists. But what of foreign-born scientists and women who play founding roles in biotech firms? A survey conducted of 261 biotechnology firms located in Massachusetts and New England in 2006 provides the data. The results show that 42% of the firms had at least one foreign-born founder, and 21% of firms had at least one female founder. These numbers suggest that foreign-born life scientists are well represented and female life scientists are somewhat underrepresented in founding roles in biotech. The role of entrepreneurs who have the double status of female immigrants is less clear and needs further study. The research finds significant variation in biotech entrepreneurship of immigrants by their world region of origin. Interviews supplement the survey data to illustrate the barriers and opportunities for foreign-born biotech entrepreneurs.

Abstract
Workplace inequalities scholarship often assumes making people aware of problems will lead to change, although gendered and racialized organizations theories show systemic problems beyond individual awareness. Still, not enough research analyzes the narratives of savvy organizational actors – like university faculty aware of inequalities – to understand the mechanisms operating against leveraging that knowledge for change. Data consist of 10 group interviews with 45 faculty across departments in one US public university, supplemented by content analysis of 56 departments' written bylaws. Findings focus on three common shared decisions: committee service, hiring/promotion, and voting practices. We find awareness of inequality may actually reinforce the status quo when narratives about gendered and racialized processes feature decoupling from formal bylaws, and when narratives about outcomes relate to multiple layers of unanticipated consequences favoring whiteness and men. Specifically, inequality is reproduced when narratives about gendered and racialized unanticipated consequences: 1) highlight the imperviousness of change, as in the difficulty of allocating service work equitably, 2) lack reflexivity and shift responsibility to 'other' groups – 'faculty' or 'administrators' – as in unequal hiring and promotion decisions, and 3) focus on standard old boy stories which obscure other inequalities, as in faculty voting where non-tenure track rank inequality obscures race/gender inequalities. When unanticipated consequences narratives have dimensions of fatalism, finger pointing, and blindness to intersectionality, white men may continue to benefit. This study shows how formal policies and awareness of inequalities may still fail to produce change.