Before the Rocky Mountain News was sadly shuttered this week, I was interviewed for a story that never ran about concerns expressed by Lady Greenfield, professor of synaptic pharmacology at Lincoln college, Oxford, and director of the Royal Institution, that social networking sites such as Facebook infantilize the brains of children and contribute to attentional and behavioral problems. Her concerns, expressed in the British press, are centered on the fact that experience changes the brain, and that repeated exposure to particular stimuli or situations can focus neural activity and connections in the brain in a manner which favors some activities and eschews others. Specifically, she is concerned that repeated and regular exposure to social networking media such as Facebook, will rewire the brain to lack attentional capability and potentially, to have reduced communicative and analytical capability. Its not that she’s wrong, but I think the story is not quite as generally dire as has been portrayed in some stories circulating about her remarks.

Behavioral neuroscientists and developmental neurobiologists have known for a while that Lady Greenfield’s concerns certainly have a basis- that repeated experience causes recurrent stimulation of neural pathways in the brain which leads to strengthening of those connections. Conversely, especially during development, neural circuitry which does not receive repeated stimulation may be pruned away due to lack of use. Once pruned, the degree to which these deactivated pathways can be rescued is not clear, and as such, the best policy for keeping the brain agile, flexible, and functional is “use it or lose it”. This clearly applies to aging, but there are also implications for development. If young children spend endless hours engaged in social media applications and online, the very nature of these experiences, it is feared, may rewire the brain to favor self-centered, detached, impersonal stimuli over interactive, other-focused activities. Exposure to these electronic environments in children may, therefore, have lasting and untoward negative effects on brain development and function and behavior.

The sky is falling. Well, not really. There is no clear evidence that these fears are based in reality at this point and moreover, if a philosophy of moderation is applied here, as in essentially every aspect of life, it is unlikely that massive, irreparable damage to the developing brain will occur. As parents, we’ve long known that its important to teach our children balance and to limit “screen time” in favor of physical activities, reading, art, and personal interactions of many types. Facebook is no different. If parents are responsible in setting limits for their kids and helping them learn the value of balance, both through modeling it themselves and by enforcing it when necessary, kids are likely to reap the benefits of these technologies and others without suffering massive brain reorganization.

The take-home message is that although Lady Greenfield’s concerns might really be a concern in a kid whose life is consumed with computers, screentime, and Facebook, normal, balanced kids who are being taught to use today and tomorrow’s technologies responsibly and in a balanced way, are likely to be just fine.

Clearly, those of us who have survived, for better or worse, as women in academics, and specifically, in the Sciences, know full well that even though it *should not* be happening according to the statements and policies of out Universities and Professional Societies, inequity and frank discrimination are still a part of our lives.  I remember so clearly the meeting in which, as a graduate student, my PhD advisor said once when I disagreed with him, respectfully, about a lab issue, that it must be “that time of the month” for me, since I spoke up for myself.  Needless to say, I found another advisor.    Then there was the time when I was offered a prestigious postdoc fellowship in a great immunology lab, only to be told by the PI, “Well, we’re glad to have you, but please tell me you’re not going to crap up your career by doing something stupid like getting married and having kids”.  Time to move on-  again.

I wish these stories were isolated cases, but from my conversations with many colleagues, sadly, they are not.  We’ve all know for a long time that the academic pipeline is leakier for women than for men, and even leakier for members of underrepresented minorities.  Numerous studies have, over the years, tried to identify the variables that lead to greater loss of women in academic science departments.  Inside Higher Ed did a great piece reporting on the findings of a National Academies of Sciences panel formed to examine existing studies in 2006. 

Among the panel’s findings:

• “A series of cognitive and other studies “have not found any significant biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics that can account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and scientific leadership positions in these fields.”
• Although women fall out of academic science at nearly every stage of the pipeline, women are underrepresented on faculties even in fields in which they have reached relative parity. They make up only 15.4 percent of full professors in the social and behavioral sciences and 14.8 percent in the life sciences, despite having earned more than 30 percent and 20 percent of the doctorates in those fields, respectively, over more than 30 years.
• Women are “very likely” to face discrimination — sometimes deliberately but often inadvertently — in “every field of science and engineering. (Minority women, the panel notes throughout the report, often face a double whammy.) The discrimination results from a combination of built-in biases that make them less likely to hire a woman than a man with identical accomplishments, of evaluation criteria that “contain arbitrary and subjective components that disadvantage women.” For instance, “characteristics that are often selected for and believed … to relate to scientific creativity — namely assertiveness and single-mindedness —” are both given greater weight in hiring and promotion than traits such as flexibility, diplomacy and curiosity, and “stereotyped as socially unacceptable traits for women.”
  • From Inside Higher Ed, 9/16/2006, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/19/women

Depressing, huh?  I especially think the last part of these excerpts, addressing the fact that traits of assertiveness and single-mindedness, critical in science, are looked down upon in women.  This speaks to gender differences in how men and women are socialized to communicate.  One book (and now website) that does, in my view, a really nice job of discussing these differences and providing strategies for women seeking to develop stronger communication styles is Women Don’t Ask:  Negotiation and the Gender Divide (http://www.womendontask.com/_.  Although I hope things are changing, my experience has always been that assertive men are often viewed as “Strong, decisive, and clear-minded” and assertive women are viewed as “Aggressive, b*tchy, and pushy*.  In the close halls of the academy, it only takes a few perceptions of one (male or female, for that matter) as difficult, non-collegial or entitled for some serious damage to be done to one’s ability to get a fair shake in the political world of the University.  It does mean one cannot succeed, but if the wrong people get fed up with a junior faculty member, the path to tenure and success can be rockier than it needs to be.

The good news, however, is that I am optimistic that things are looking somewhat brighter in the academy for women than they did when I was a junior faculty member (12 years ago)-  more of us have made it through the ranks and are in positions of administration where we may be able to help pave the way and improve climate.  Senior academic women and administrators can work to educate our colleagues in the senior ranks and actively and personally support younger women experiencing “learned helplessness”. Learned Helplessness is Psychological phenomenon in which lab animals (or people, frankly) learn through direct experience that no matter what they do, their behavior and performance does not translate into the expected or desired outcome, and then, when contingencies change such that those efforts could or would make a difference in outcome, the subject is too tired of trying and failing to try again. Most of us who are female (and male, for that matter) academics have experienced this phenomenon to some degree; our success is only due to being helped up to try again by a senior mentor, and having that renewed effort may off. Sadly, even trying yet again cannot always overcome frank discrimination and inequity, but with the help of some of us who have weathered the storm and have taken positions in Universities that may be able to catalyze some positive change, overcoming learned helplessness in the academic world may be a little easier, and strong women and men can be recognized for their clarity of thought, commitment to science and academics, and their ability to contribute great things to the changing academy.

The Ripple Effect of Leadership

Highlights from “Stepping Up to Leadership with Your Head and Your Heart”, Women@Work Inspiration forum, 2/12/09

It’s the opportunity you’ve been waiting for your whole career. You know you can do this, but how do you step up and lead at this whole new level?

Step 1:  Embrace the “Shift Up”   A difficult aspect of taking on a major leadership challenge is the psychology of “shifting up”-  that is, thinking differently in a way that allows you to meet the challenges that you face and have faith in your own ability. 

1.     You must believe in yourself before others will believe in and follow you

2.     Acknowledge your fears and find a safe place for them.  It’s natural to be a little leery of taking on new things.  Change is always hard.

3.     Be proud of yourself:  But don’t be arrogant.  You’ve worked hard for this opportunity and have met the challenges that got you here.  Know that you are capable, and show it in your actions as a leader.

Step 2:  Know your own center:  Spend some time thinking about what your “core values” are and what is totally non-negotiable.  I often refer to this as figuring out “what hill you are willing to die on” as a leader.  For things that you decide may be negotiable for you, work hard to think as flexibly as you can. 

Also, think about the things that make you angry or emotional in the workplace and become very conscious of those.  Although feelings and being emotionally intelligent are critical parts of your success, it is never good to make a decision or deal with a difficult situation when your emotions are running high. 

Step 3:  Negotiate What Really Counts:  As you move into a leadership role, you need to know what you must have to succeed personally and professionally and ask for that.  Do not hesitate to request what you need, especially as you take on your new role.  Many of us fear that asking for things will reflect negatively on us, when in reality, asking clearly for what you need to get the job done that they are asking you to do shows decisiveness and an understanding of the road ahead.  Having said that, however, be ready to negotiate and back down or let go of things that are not necessary. 

Think about your core values in #2.  If one of them is family or personal time, be clear that this time is non-negotiable for you.  Do not be apologetic about it if this is a core value.  Honoring and protecting these types of time will ultimately make you more productive and effective as a leader and will help you avoid burnout. 

Step #4:  Be Open to Outcome:  There are a few ways to go about creating change in your organization, but in order for the change to be well-received and supported in the long run, as a leader, you have to share ownership of the process.  To make this process work for you, you have to develop the ability to be open to the outcome of such group sessions and not attached to a specific strategy.  As a leader, you can state the goal, throw out some ideas you have, and then, honestly, open the conversation up to your team(s) to let them decide on a course of action. 

It’s also important to be open to outcome in your own career.   It may be helpful to think back to your core values from #2 and map your ideal career trajectory onto those.  Keeping career and personal goals for the next year, 3 years, 5 and 10 years may be helpful in evaluating opportunities that come up, even if they are unexpected or unconventional.  Be open to these sorts of experiences, as they may lead you in an unexpectedly fulfilling direction. 

Do you have a junior-birdman inventor or scientist at home? I do, and I was thrilled to hear about this competition as an outlet for all that creative, inquisitive energy. Check this out with your kids!

Discovery Education and 3M Search For America’s Top Young Scientist

Discovery Education and 3M announce a call for entries in the 2009 Discovery Education 3M Young Scientist Challenge (YSC), the nation’s premier science competition for students in grades 5 through 8. Ten finalists will be selected to receive an all-expense paid trip to New York City to compete in the final challenge in October. The winner will receive $50,000 in U.S. Savings Bonds ($25,000 cash value) and the title of “America’s Top Young Scientist.”

Details of the competition:

Middle school students in the U.S. are challenged to create a 1-2 minute video about a specific scientific concept that relates to innovative solutions for everyday life.
Videos will be evaluated by a panel of judges based on creativity, persuasiveness, classroom suitability and overall presentation.
All video entries must be submitted online at www.youngscientistchallenge.com by May 20, 2009.
The video entry should use science to create an innovative solution to one of these everyday problems:

How can I play my music system for my own enjoyment, without disturbing the rest of the house?
What can I do to the soles of my shoes to make them better perform when I skate board?
What can I do to reduce the glare on my television when I’m playing video games
What device or method can I create which might help lower my family’s heating or cooling bills?