Picture a Scientist (2020)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Picture a Scientist is a documentary film which premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2020. It premiered on US television (PBS) in 2021.

 

It is an episode of the long-running program NOVA which is devoted to science and technology.

 

** Season 48

** Episode 06 

** 14 April 2021

 

The topic is gender bias and sexual harassment in the field of science in academic institutions in the US.

 

Here is some basic information about this film:

 

** Directors: Ian Cheney and Sharon Shattuck

** Language: English

** Subtitles: English

** Run time: 93 minutes

 

THE CAST

Many persons are interviewed in the film. Most of them are female scientists.

 

Here are the names of the participants (listed in alphabetical order):

 

** Mahzarin Banaji – a social psychologist, Harvard University

** Sangeeta Bhatia – a biomedical engineer, MIT

** Robert A. Brown – former provost, MIT – President of Boston University

** Raychelle Burks – a chemist, St Edward’s University in Austin, Texas

** Sylvia Ceyer – a chemist, MIT

** Penny Chisholm – an ecologist, MIT

** Kathryn Clancy – a biological anthropologist, University of Illinois

** Azeen Ghorayshi – an investigative reporter, New York Times

** Nancy Hopkins – a biologist, MIT

** Paula Johnson – President, Wellesley College

** Ruth Lehmann – a biologist, New York University

** Adam Lewis – a glacial geologist

** Paola Malanotte-Rizzoli – an oceanographer, MIT

** Marcia McNutt – President, National Academy of Sciences

** Corinne Moss-Racusin – a social psychologist, Skidmore College

** Mary-Lou Pardue – a biologist, MIT

** Molly Potter – a cognitive scientist, MIT

** Leigh Royden – a geophysicist, MIT

** Jane Willenbring – a geomorphologist, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

** One woman, who is interviewed anonymously, offers testimony about David Marchant (see more below)

 

The film focuses on three cases: 

 

** Raychelle Burks

** Nancy Hopkins

** Jane Willenbring

 

The story of their lives, their professional careers, and their personal experiences is covered in great detail.

 

Other participants present background information and evidence to support the accounts which are presented by Burks, Hopkins and Willenbring.

 

PART ONE - THE ICEBERG

As stated above, the topic is gender bias and sexual harassment in the field of science in academic institutions in the US.

 

The public debate about this topic can be compared to the image of a floating iceberg where only a small part is visible above the surface, while a large part is invisible below the surface.

 

What we see is only a small part (10 percent):

 

** Unwanted sexual attention

** Coercion

** Assault

 

What we do not see is much more (90 percent):

 

** Subtle exclusions

** Being left off an email

** Not being invited to collaborate

** Vulgar name-calling

** Obscene gestures

** Hostility

** Being passed over for promotion

** Relentless pressure for dates

** Remarks about bodies

** Sabotaging of equipment

** Being mistaken for the janitor

** Being ignored in meetings

** Receiving inappropriate emails

** Being treated like a technician

** Not getting credit

** Competence being questioned

** Family leave stigma

 

PART TWO – NANCY HOPKINS

In 1994, when Nancy Hopkins had been working at MIT for several years, she needed a bigger lab, but she was told she could not have it.

 

She noticed that more space was allocated to male scientists than to female scientists. She wondered why this was. When she contacted the administration regarding this issue, she was told she was wrong.

 

In order to prove her case, she decided to measure the size of every office and every lab in the building. When the project was completed, the conclusion was clear: her claim was true: more space was allocated to men than to women.

 

She could not accept this fact. She could not let it go. She decided to write a letter to the president of the university about this issue.

 

But before sending the letter, she asked an older colleague Mary-Lou Pardue to read it and to offer any comments about it.

 

Having read the letter, Mary-Lou Pardue said she liked it. She liked it so much that she would like to sign it.

 

This was the beginning of a process in which female scientists at MIT came together to discuss their situation at this academic institution. They discovered that they had many similar problems.

 

The female scientists decided to make a collective request to the president. They asked for better conditions.

 

The request was heard. A committee was established to study the question. The committee discovered that the initial claim about the allocation of space was true. 

 

The committee also discovered that the average salary of male scientists was higher than the average salary of female scientists. And this was just the beginning.

 

PART THREE – JANE WILLENBRING

In 1999, when Jane Willenbring was a graduate student at Boston University, she was invited to go on a field trip to Antarctica. A group of four persons spent several days in a deserted location.

 

The leader of the team David Marchant was a famous scientist. He was so famous that a glacier in Antarctica was named after him.

 

Jane was fascinated with the unique location and the scientific project. But she had a big problem with the team leader who bullied her, constantly and in many different ways.

 

She was afraid to speak up and to object. She knew David was a famous and powerful man. She knew he could make or break her future as a scientist.

 

She kept quiet, but she told herself that one day she was going to speak out about this person and the horrible way he had treated her.

 

More than 10 years passed. She still did not say or do anything. But once she had tenure, she felt safe and decided it was time to act.

 

In 2016, she submitted a Title IX complaint to Boston University where David Marchant was still working. The case was discussed by a committee behind closed doors.

 

The committee accepted that David was not completely innocent. The committee recommended that David be suspended for three years without pay. After a suspension of three years without pay, he could return to his former position.

 

But the President of Boston University Robert A. Brown decided that the recommendation of the committee was not a fair solution. In 2019, he fired David Marchant from his position at the university.

 

The directors of the film wanted to interview David Marchant. They tried to contact him. They wanted to give him a chance to present his side of the story.

 

An on-screen message explains that he did not respond when they tried to contact him.

 

A second on-screen message explains that the glacier which was named after David Marchant was given a new name in 2018.

 

PART FOUR – RAYCHELLE BURKS

When Raychelle Burks decided to become a scientist, she soon discovered that it is difficult to be a woman in a field which is dominated by men.

 

As an African American woman, she discovered that a woman of a minority group faces an extra obstacle. Not only is she a woman; she is a black woman!

 

She explains how she has been mistaken for the janitor, how she is being ignored in meetings, how she is treated as a technician and not as a scientist, and how she is not getting credit for the work that she has done.

 

What can be done? She says the solution is not to be alone. The solution is to find another person who is in a similar position. You must join forces and support each other. This is the way forward.

 

RATINGS AND REVIEWS

What do reviewers say about this film? On IMDb it has a rating of 78 percent, which corresponds to a rating of 3.9 stars on Amazon.

 

There are five user reviews on IMDb. Here are the ratings and the headlines:

 

60 percent = Harassment

100 percent = Eye-opening

100 percent = A must see

100 percent = A very inspiring story

100 percent = Every man in academia has to watch this

 

As you can see, four of these five reviews offer ratings which are much higher than the average rating on the website.

 

On Amazon there are at the moment 19 global ratings and 1 global review. The average rating is 4.8 stars which corresponds to a rating of 96 percent.

 

CONCLUSION

If you ask me, the average rating on IMDb is too low, while the average rating on Amazon is much more appropriate.

 

Gender bias in the field of science is an important topic, and in this film, it is covered very well. I understand the numerous positive reviews and I agree with them.

 

I want to go all the way to the top with this product. I think it deserves a rating of five stars (100 percent).

 

PS # 1. One woman, who is interviewed anonymously, offers testimony which supports Jane Willenbring’s account about David Marchant.

 

When the woman submitted a complaint to Boston University, she was invited to a meeting with a member of the administration who explained that David Marchant was bringing in a lot of money to the university.

 

The woman was told that this fact was more important to the university than the complaint of one person.

 

The woman was told that it would be best for her to withdraw her complaint.

 

PS # 2. When the world of science is under discussion, we often see or hear the acronym STEM. 

 

What does it mean? 

 

The four letters stand for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

 

PS # 3. Title IX is a federal civil rights law in the US that was passed as a part (Title IX) of the Education Amendments of 1972.

 

Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government.

 

REFERENCES

 

# 1. Books

 

** The Madame Curie Complex: The Hidden History of Women in Science by Julie des Jardins (2010)

 

** Inferior: The True Power of Women and the Science that Shows It by Angela Saini (2018)

 

** Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado Perez (2019) (2020) (a Sunday Times best seller)

 

** Conquering Heroines: How Women Fought Sex Bias at Michigan and Paved the Way for Title IX by Sara Fitzgerald (2020)

 

# 2. Articles available online

 

** Rachel Bernstein,

Science still seen as male profession, according to international study of gender bias,

Science, 22 May 2015

  

** Richard Walker,

Gender bias in science – New data on a man’s world,

Frontiers – Science News, 8 December 2017

 

** Meredith Wadman,

Disturbing allegations of sexual harassment in Antarctica leveled at noted scientist,

Science, 6 October 2017

 

** Meredith Wadman,

Boston University fires geologist found to have harassed women in Antarctica,

Science, 12 April 2019

 

** Alissa Simon,

Film Review: Picture a Scientist,

Variety, 17 January 2020

 

** Sigal Samuel,

Women in science are up against a lot of unconscious bias,

Vox, 11 February 2020

 

*****

Picture a Scientist:

The Fight for Gender Equity in Science

PBS - NOVA - 2021

 

*****