Diana Garnham, Chief Executive of the Science Council
Diana Garnham is Chief Executive of the Science Council. She is also on the Council of Nottingham University, a trustee of Sense About Science, the Spinal Research Trust and the Benevolent Society of Blues. She is an ardent campaigner for public engagement in science and for opening up science careers for all.
I am not a scientist my
self. My specialism was international politics and after an MA in War Studies I did research into British attitudes to Japan. There is a link though! During my research I looked at how the decision to use atomic weapons in the Far East came about and the extent to which the wider and social impacts of using this new and powerful technology were considered at the time. Ever since then I have been interested in the social consequences of science.
Although my appointment as Chief Executive of the Science Council certainly raised some eyebrows at the time, I don’t think you have to be a scientist in my role. In some respects there is a gain as I have no loyalty to a single discipline and I can look at things a little bit from the outside – seeing our world as others see it rather than looking from the inside. The job is less about the science and more about the vision and leadership and the skills needed to help organisations to work together more effectively. I have almost 30 years experience of working with umbrella groups, fostering collaboration and partnership within sectors.
I worked for a while with the Council of Christian Approaches to Defence and Disarmament, which brought together 110 different perspectives. We worked collaboratively on a response to President Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ strategy, exploring both the potential of the technology and the potential social and political consequences. I went on to head up the Association of Medical Research Charities, which was just getting started. This was a classic umbrella group where we worked to bring the medical science closer to patients and user groups. There were some tough public engagement issues to work on, including the use of animals in medical research and the campaign to enable embryo STEM cell research in the UK.
I joined the Science Council in 2006. There are more than 30 professional bodies and learned institutions in membership from across science and its applications. Our aim is to enable the various organisations to be more aligned and more effective, and we also develop and maintain professional standards for practising scientists. A major achievement has been setting up the qualification ‘Chartered Scientist’ as a parallel to ‘Chartered Engineer’.
Gender equality is a priority at the Science Council and we are pleased that a good number of women have come forward for Chartered Scientist status - 29% of the register are women and 51% of those on the register aged 35 and under are women. So the future for CSci is gender balanced!
Different disciplines face different challenges – in the physical sciences, for instance, there is a serious lack of women. In the biosciences, entry numbers are up and it is a matter of finding ways to help those women stay in their careers and progress.
Last year I chaired the Department for Business, Innovation and Skill’s expert group looking at science careers. Our report raised a number of issues relevant to women and men – such as the lack of family friendly employment policies in many places of employment. There are a lot of factors that put young women off aiming for STEM careers (including in academia) and we need to find the solutions. We will need to engage with young people to understand their aspirations – I have never believed any teenager will set a course for a STEM career on the basis of being told their country needs them to!
Nurturing future generations of scientists is one of the Science Council’s main areas of work and we have an award winning web site www.futuremorph.org. We ask some big questions, such as what is a science career? If you move into management or mixed roles, have you stopped being a scientist? I think the answer is that many different kinds of scientist are needed, and often they are people who can mix their scientific expertise with other skills such as business development, communications, technology, innovation and more. Some of these jobs are with obvious science employers, but others are embedded in all sorts of organisation. Women are often very adept at evolving into these new kinds of role.
I think the vast majority of jobs in the 21st century will require high levels of science and technology expertise – indeed UKCES suggests it will be 58% of all newly created jobs. We need more STEM graduates, and we need more women to take part. Returning to one of my central themes, that if science is truly going to serve society, then it must involve and engage all society. My vision is that by 2025 the science and technology workforce will fully reflect the diversity of British society.
Comments
Ruth Wilson (moderator):
Thank you for joining us on the blog, Diana, and for starting the new year with such a positive rallying cry for gender equality in science - one we wholly endorse at the UKRC. It is great to hear that the Science Council is involving and profiling women so effectively.
The diversity of science careers, and the way they can evolve, is fascinating and very important. On this blog the sheer diversity of women and jobs is a testament to how varied the opportunities are. What more do you think could be done to communicate the richness and range of opportunity that people with science, technology and engineering qualifications can explore?
Marion Scott:
Yes, I agree with Ruth, and thank you for talking about your career which I enjoyed reading about - especially the part with the social and historical perspectives on technology. I did an MSc in the historiography of science. Somehow the ownership and understanding of science, engineering and technology has to be better recognised as being developed in part by many disciplines, many contributors.
Could you comment on the following dilemma: should we focus on supply or demand? Should we worry about the numbers of girls taking STEM subjects at schools, colleges and universities or should we look at the fact that having gone into STEM far more women and men end up leaving. I know that references to "attrition" is thought by some as offering a bad image to young women when we are trying to increase supply. But can we afford to stick our heads in the sands when it comes to the life long careers of women in SET - 'professionals' and others in craft and technician roles - and ignore the way they mostly leave in droves? Can't girls see what's happening even as we talk up the careers? What in your view can be done about keeping a focus on retention? And how should the career-supply strategy dovetail?
Diana Garnham:
Marion
I think we have to acknowledge that there are problems for both supply and retention and i wouldn't want to favour one or the other. But the issues are different so they need different approaches. The demand is certainly there for people in science at all levels - UKCES is suggesting that 58% of all new jobs will require science qualifications. We know that flexible working environments are a key factor in attracting and retaining skilled staff and anecdotal feedback suggests that science and engineering has got itself a reputation for not being a flexible or family friendly work environment. The focus of attention on science n academia is an issue here, I think. But there are other factors influencing graduate choices and I am looking forward to BIS's research on graduate intentions when it is published later this year.
We can take a broader look at what a long term science career might look like and begin to re-shape expectations. Many people move away from bench or operational science as they develop their careers and it is in those 'from' science jobs that we are also seeing growth. I think those people are still 'doing science' but may be combining it with other skills and interests - so how do people get these skills?
Research also uggests that young people don't see science as a flexible career so that is a perception we need to change.
Diana
Annette Williams:
Welcome to the UKRC's blog Diana and thank you for giving up your valuable time to it.
We are at a watershed in government policy regarding women in SET with a move towards embedding diversity into government funded programmes and away from the direction put forward in 2003 by the SET Fair (Greenfield)report.
How do you see this panning out overall and do you think the major influencers and business have reached a stage of awareness so that mainstreaming equality and diversity will give us the outcomes needed to achieve your 2015 vision?
Geraldine Wooley:
Hi Diana,
It’s great to see that there’s a good gender balance in candidates for “Chartered Scientist” status, but what practical steps will the Science Council take to make sure that gender equality is a reality in business and academia, so that these young women have long-term career prospects in the sector? When I speak to people in the industry – both women and men – I find the “mainstream” attitude is often that there isn’t really a problem with employment and career prospects for women. And yet we know that women both avoid science as a career option, and often leave the sector having qualified and/or started a career.
The work of the UKRC has raised awareness of these issues, working with the sector to address them in practical terms. However, as the government now wishes to “mainstream” gender equality, business and academic institutions need to continue to actively engage in change in the workplace to ensure that your 51% of younger women “Chartered Scientists” are still there in 10 years time, have progressed in their careers, and are looking forward to a long term career in the sector. How will your organisation embed the principles of gender equality with its members to ensure that real, long-term change is achieved?
Eva McClean:
Hello Diana
I was very interested to hear about the issues of retention of women in science careers. What makes women leave careers for which they have trained so many years? And what keeps women in their science jobs? Team based working? Doing something useful? Flexibility and part time work? If there is any proper research done on this specific topic I would be interested to hear about it. If there isn't then maybe this is something for the Science Council to initiate?
Knowledge of what is important for women at different stages of their career could also be useful when developing career advise and employment policies.
I work at the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine and our members work in healthcare, industry and academia. We have a high number of female physicists and engineers but the majority of the women work in the NHS. Retention does not seem to be a big problem there, and return after maternity leave is very common. This group might be an interesting one to sample in a research project!
Subscribe by RSS
