Diversity in the Marketplace of Ideas

During my Phi Beta Kappa visit to University of Oklahoma back in late March of this year, my host Ron Halterman added a somewhat unusual meeting to my visit. Namely, he arranged for me to go to a recording studio at the local NPR station, KGOU. While there, I had a conversation with Paige Willett Lough and Merleyn Bell on the work that I’ve been doing to promote diversity equity in chemistry through OXIDE. In much less than an hour, they recorded enough material to produce a 30-minute show as part of their Race Matters series. At first, it wasn’t clear to me who was more nervous, Merleyn or me. I’m pretty sure that it was me, and Merleyn pretended to be so just to make me adjust to the fact that I was staring at a very large microphone. In any event, it was fun to have a conversation about diversity equity and science advocacy, and I thank Ron, Merleyn and Paige for making that happen!

A 30-minute conversation includes a very long narrative that is too long to reproduce here, but I can highlight a few of the points to hopefully peak your interest. (Or you can just use this as your “cliff notes” so as to avoid going further!) The notion that we as scientists are competing in a marketplace, not of physical products, but of ideas is one that intrigues me. We develop and disseminate ideas but it’s hard to own or sell them. Yet it costs money to produce and maintain them. That money comes from the federal government or student tuition, for example. It leads to solutions and products that we all use and pay for. So it’s definitely a marketplace which has real value. For us to remain competitive in this marketplace of ideas, we need to have a diverse cohort of scientists, and this notion frames several of the segments of my discussion. Indeed, it is the need for us to remain competitive in science that drives OXIDE in its work to diversity the faculties in chemistry departments across the US. As a community, we have made significant advances in changing our policies and procedures to advance our climate, and I provided several specific examples. Meanwhile, Merleyn also asked me about how I encourage young people to be scientists. I hope that I do this by example, and by actively engaging and mentoring students when I visit colleges and universities. But scientists need help from the media to amplify our message. To this end, I mentioned that the theme in the “The Martian” —in which science was used frequently as the key to solve his challenges— is a great example of the media promoting science, and not just innovation. 

Please check out the show by listening to the recording or reading the transcript here.

Lost in Projection

Life is full of cycles. For the American Chemical Society (ACS), there’s a National Meeting held every 6 months. With that as my time constant, it feels as if it was just the other day that I gave the Keynote Lecture at the ACS Committee on Minority Affairs Luncheon at the last National Meeting in Dallas. Last March, I framed my remarks through the title of this post. I knew that it was a good title because my wife liked it. But she also wondered what in the world I would talk about under such a title. This seemed fortuitous. It meant that I could say nearly anything without disappointing the audience. After all, they couldn't possibly have any expectations. In truth, the title wasn’t advertised as evidence by the large turnout.

What is lost in the projection of how others frame you? That is, there is a potential disconnect between what others expect of you and the person who you believe yourself. To what extent are you bound by what others expect of you? Such expectations may arise from how others have seen you in the past or perhaps by who they see on first impression. I came to the United States as a child, a Cuban immigrant who spoke no English but proud to be able to count from one to ten without too much of an accent. Children grow and learn so surely I cannot be bound by that early frame. As adults, we may not grow physically, but we also learn. And yet, we have a tendency to hold others to the frames that we first see of them. Even more dangerous to each of us is the fact that the frame is often projected onto us by others, and not always correctly. There were several young scientists in the room. During the question and answer period, they echoed the angst of having felt bound by such projections in the past. I hope that I succeeded in encouraging them to find their way in breaking those projections and choosing their own frame.

The cycle continues this weekend with the start of the ACS meeting in San Francisco. If you are here, I encourage you to go to Monday’s CMA Luncheon where Madeleine Jacobs will be speaking. The issue of implicit bias and the effects that has on academic careers will also be a large piece of the Symposium on Advancing the Chemical Sciences Through Diversity to be held at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square Hotel all-day on Tuesday. I hope to see you there!

Inclusive excellence symposium coming up at ACS San Francisco

Two qualifiers, successful and diverse, for the research enterprise are inseparable concepts. And yet, some members in the scientific community have often treated them as orthogonal if not outright destructively interfering. (Please forgive my geek speak here!) I think that the only part that is destructive is the failure to be inclusive. Indeed, as we are broadening participation in the chemical research enterprise, we are drawing more and better talent from all over the world and this should include that which is within our borders. Unfortunately, we aren't quite there yet as is visible through the existing imbalance in the demographics between the US population and the chemical workforce. Achieving parity requires us to be actively engaged.

To this end, I just published a Comment in C&EN to advertise the upcoming symposium on "Advancing the Chemical Sciences Through Diversity in Participation." (Earlier, I wrote on this blog about why I publish there and here. You can also check out the ChemDiversity Blog post advertising the symposium.) If you happen to be in San Francisco in mid August, feel free to join us at the Hilton near Union Square. You'll learn a few tips for advancing inclusive excellence and you'll be in the middle of San Francisco. Hard to beat that pairing!

Check out the Comment on page 45 of the July 14, 2014 C&EN at this link. (Apologies if it's closed to ACS members and subscribers only.)

What do you see? (Part II) @OxideChem

The empiricists (think Locke, Berkeley and Hume) and the rationalists (think Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza) have debated forever about whether science is something to be observed or constructed. As I'm a theorist, you might think that I would land entirely on the side of the rationalists. However, I believe that no matter how well constructed, a theory must still be tested by experiment. It invariably also rests on experiment and may even be guided by experiment. Indeed, roughly half of my group's work involves simulations because it provides us with observations to guide our theory development. This does not detract from the fact that the theory can and must predict phenomenon that have yet to be observed. All to say that I, like most working chemists, believe that there is a significant place for observation, and our training as chemists has involved a sharpening of our observational skills. As such, most chemists (and likely also most physical scientists) pride themselves in their ability to accurately observe, analyze and synthesize all the data around them.

How can we reconcile this with the social science data that routinely shows that we all have implicit biases shaping our decisions? To make this question more concrete, it is helpful to consider Amy Herman's work on the Art of Perception that I discussed in my last post. Clearly, she has found that the average person has difficulty in accurately observing signals and discerning them from spurious information. Providing training for specific settings, she is able to help individuals improve their ability to see. I would claim that most chemists, through their training and experience, are already very good (if not exceptional) at seeing the signal in the data of their experiments. The problem is that we have seldom been trained to see or judge candidates (for positions all the way through the academic ladder) without employing implicit biases. But we're so good at rating the quality of a given science that it's hard to accept that we aren't equally good at rating the quality of a given scientist. The latter, though, is perhaps much more complex and a lot harder to see. As observers, we must also recognize that our current practices have led to faculties whose demographics are far from being representative of our nation. And this suggests that we need to change the way we see scientists....

Talking to the Press About Diversity Equity (@ACSpressroom #ACSDiversity #ACSIndy @GT_CHEM)

As part of my participation in the Symposium on "The Impact of Diversity and Inclusion," I was asked to participate in a Press Conference today with some of my fellow speakers. It was the first time that I have done such a thing. It was exciting and scary at the same time. In order to ensure that I kept my remarks to under the allotted 2 minutes, I wrote some Talking Points, which I include below. I will note  the most important thing I learned from this experience: Don't start multiple prompts with the same letter! In my case, OXIDE, OPPORTUNITY and OBJECTIVE got muddled during my remarks and I revisited OPPORTUNITY a second time. I now see how easy it is for people in public positions to make small flubs. Fortunately, mine wasn't too terrible, and it won't hurt anyone!  You can see it at:
    Bringing more diversity to the nation’s… (26:22)
I was the second speaker, and also gave an answer to one of the press questions towards the end of the video.

Here follows the talking points I prepared for my opening remarks:

The tittle of the presentation was "Top-down approach for diversity and inclusion in chemistry departments" and was coauthored with my collaborator, Dr. Shannon Watt.

OXIDE is the Open Chemistry Collaborative in Diversity Equity

OPPORTUNITY: Visible under-representation in the diversity of the chemical faculties with respect to gender, under-represented minorities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, questioning,  and disabilities in comparison to the nation's broader demographics

OBJECTIVE: We aim to encourage the nation's best minds to enter the field in order to ensure the competitiveness of our nation's science.

TACTICS: Flattening diversity inequities by engaging middle
 management (chemistry departments) to find the solutions
 rather than burdening single agents

KEYS: 1. Inclusive excellence
, 2. Diversity writ large, and 3. Flattening inequities helps everyone

OXIDE enables dialogue between chemistry departments, diversity communities and social science

The power of awards in science (@AmerChemSociety #ACSIndy #ACSAward)

Awards of any kind certainly reward the recipient directly and indirectly. The direct part is obvious in so far as there is some kind of remunerative component. The indirect part is perhaps equally obvious in that it helps the individual to advance their career and sets them to be in a better position for the next award. The Nobel Prize presents a kind of absurd example. It is an extreme in remuneration. It is perhaps an end in so far as there are few prizes in science that exceed it in prestige. It's also an extreme example of the power (and sometimes failure) of awards to impact society well beyond the individual awardee. Namely, awards provide a focus on the scientific work advanced by said individual, and thereby accelerate its adoption and dissemination broadly. For example, the recent Physics Nobel Prize recognizing graphene has clearly accelerated the interest in commercializing the technology as can be seen through the dramatic rise in graphene patents in the last year. It's interesting here that the acceleration of the impact of the work may or may not include a literal boost of the scientific effort of the awardee herself or himself. As such, awards given to individuals, no matter what stage in their careers, can also have very positive impact on advancing and disseminating the science or broader activities for which they are selected.

I am thus very grateful for the recognition that the ACS Award—sponsored by the Dreyfus Foundation—for Encouraging Disadvantaged Students into Careers in the Chemical Sciences (EDSCCS) has just provided. But I am most excited by the fact that it provides visibility to our efforts mentoring students broadly, and in particular on our OXIDE (http://oxide.gatech.edu) activity. As I've posted before, mentoring works, and we should practice it often! Through our OXIDE program, we are working with chemistry departments to change the culture to be more open to everyone. The truth is that such inclusive excellence helps everyone, and makes our chemistry programs better. But the community needs help (from, for example, social scientists) to move in this direction. I'm excited by the fact that the visibility of the award will help us reach more faculty. Such awareness should also highlight our role as a resource for adapting their programs and policies. How else could we leverage the award for EDSCCS to advance diversity in the chemical science? I've got some ideas, but your suggestions are welcome and encouraged!

I'm very grateful to the financial support of the National Science Foundation for the individual research grants that have funded my research projects for both its intellectual and broader impacts (most recently #CHE 1112067). Equally important, I'm grateful to the National Science Foundation Division of Chemistry; the Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Division at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH); and the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) in the Department of Energy (DOE) for support of our OXIDE work (#CHE-1048939).

Diversity Tax (@OxideChem)

At NDEW2013, I described the now oft told refrain about the overburdening of female and URM* faculty. In fact, this affects anyone in a department who is different in some way that adds to the faculty's strength. For example, in Georgia Tech's chemistry department, Mostafa El-Sayed is presently the only member of the National Academy of Sciences. So everyone wants him to be on their committee. But even he cannot be on every committee. Similarly, a female or URM faculty member is invariably asked to be on far too many committees. Let's call this the diversity tax as it adds an extra layer of work to such faculty. The existence of the diversity tax is not without good intentions. After all, everyone wants university and professional committees to be diverse. The trouble is that there are necessarily too few such faculty and hence they are asked to participate much more often than their colleagues. Moreover, only a few of those committees are actually useful to them at a given stage of their career.

Meanwhile the diversity tax goes further because female and URM faculty are invariably taxed in several other service roles. There's no doubt that said faculty are willing and interested to help. The trouble is that it's difficult to say no (for a number of reasons) and even the mental tax of doing so is part of the problem. Good intentions to limit the requests often fall on individuals not being invited to the tasks that are most in demand (because it's easy to fill those slots, and it apparently avoids further taxing female and URM faculty.) Thus the solution for the diversity side is too tricky to solve on the demand side. Instead, I advocate for correcting it on the supply side. Namely, if you see a faculty member being limited by the diversity tax, then give them more support—e.g., administrative assistants, teaching relief, research scientists, etc. This will put them on an equal playing field with their colleagues, and will help your department in the long run.

*URM stands for under-represented minority

Does science favor the biased mind?

Most of us in academia (if not more broadly) have heard Louis Pasteur's famous quotation, "In the fields of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind," from his 1854 lecture at the University of Lille. But how is prepared any different from biased in the context of this adage? Indeed, are you not more ready to accept an association (whether it be about science or people) when it includes something that is either explicitly or implicitly familiar? That preparation or bias enables new findings, but it can also hinder you when it leads you to hold on to false hypotheses.

The cover of the April 24th issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly features the winner of the most recent American Crossword Puzzle Tournament. I haven't done a crossword in years, and word puzzles are far from my expertise. Under normal circumstances, it is a story that I would have ignored in favor of, for example, the side story documenting Anne-Marie Slaughter's decision to become the next President of the New American Foundation. But I read this one first. Why? Because among the many words included on the winning crossword shown on the cover was "OXIDE." Both as a chemist and as the director of OXIDE, I have a strong association with this word. It gives me happy feelings. This bias led me to read the crossword article first before the others. To the extent that each article in a magazine is vying to be read, this means that the crossword puzzle article won the race for my eyeballs. And that only because of an accidental bias that had little to do with the article. The question is how does bias play into my scientific endeavors for good or for bad?

Our focus on diversity

Today marks the two-week anniversary of the National Diversity Equity Workshop (NDEW2013) that we organized in Arlignton, VA. Over 70 chemistry department chairs, representatives, sociologists and federal agency program officers participated in this very hands-on effort. I'm happy to report that several of the department representatives have gone back to their departments (in faculty meetings or in other public forums) to discuss diversity equity in the recruitment, retention and promotion of their students (undergraduates through postdocs) and their faculty. This makes me optimistic that diversity equity is becoming a true driver for academic excellence!

NDEW 2013 is one of OXIDE's activities, as funded by a consortium of agencies (NSF, DOE, and NIH) back in August 2012 to work with department heads across the nation in a top-down effort to remove diversity inequities that may be stalling our efforts to achieve commensurate demographics in our faculties. The Open Chemistry Collaborative in Diversity Equity (OXIDE) is a partnership between Chemistry Department Chairs, Social Scientists, and everyone in between... The initiation of this effort was featured on the Georgia Tech College of Sciences web pages... “OXIDE Aims to Find the Best Minds for the Job”.