[Type text][Type text][Type text]

30KristieIntroductionWithout our brains, there would be no music, beauty, poetry, or science, explained Kathleen Taylor, a computational neuroscientist poetically as she carries on writing about that human brain are more than pieces of meat that allows every one of the human race to become the person that they are now, in her 2012 book, The Brain Supremacy.The science of the brain, or in a more precise scientific terminology, Neuroscience, has been receiving huge hype for in popular culture and mainstream media. Yet, it is still difficult for scientists and researcher in its own field to establish actual research and study of the brain. Not to mention other limitations such as limited funding, budget cutbacks, and under appreciated acceptance by the public and the government, that has restrained neuroscientist from exploring and publishing their researches. Despite the struggle, brave and determined frontiers in brain science never backed down and now are rapidly increasing as a new breed of scientists, who are now creating careful observation and painstaking illustration of the conundrum of the human brain and behavior. Ever since the 1960s, the work dynamic for men and women in neuroscience have advanced and expanded remarkably. Neuroscience can appear to be female dominated at a glance; yet, male neuroscientists received more public acclamation and awards. Additionally, there is a considerable gap between the number of men and women in the field pertaining to a specific topic in the array categories overtime. These categories include cultural expectations, education, employment, ranks, research regulations, specialized organizations, and awards.

The Past: 1960 1970Neuroscience, both the field and the terminology was never invented until November 22 1950, when the National Institute on Disease and Blindness changed their name to National Institute on Neurological Disease and Stroke[footnoteRef:1]. Scattered under the department of either psychology, medicine, or biochemistry, what used to be called neuroscience were the studies specifically on the brain, the nervous system and behavior. This postwar era itself lead America to the expansion of science, application and practice of psychology. The trend continued through the decade of 1960 and was joined by a new interest in new public policy issues. [1: Warren Street. Chronology of Events in American Psychology. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1994, 230.]

Cultural ExpectationsFamily and social upbringing cast men and women to different roles. Besides being expected to be well adjusted, American women were also being warned to adapt postwar adjustments of contributing to the nations defense[footnoteRef:2], not only in the military sense, but also in a more innovative and scientific sense. Family values eventually changed, it was moderately acceptable for young women to withdraw from raising a family and staying in a household, and pursue scientific careers of their choice. Families that do support their female members career decision realize that the high demand for female scientists could bring more financial support and equality to the table.[footnoteRef:3] In the effort of encouraging young women in health fields other than nursing, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released new bulletins[footnoteRef:4], amongst those are the Careers for Women in the Physical Sciences (1960) and Careers for Women in the Biological Sciences (1961). Women were found to most likely be pursuing science careers in the social sciences (compassionate/soft science), while men were more dominant in natural or physical science fields (hard/dispassionate sciences). Under the division of biology with aspects of psychology at that time, neuroscience reserves as a bridge for social sciences and physical sciences. At this time, women scientists approached neuroscience as the best of both worlds[footnoteRef:5]. But, men were found to be more prominent as neuroscientists as to their fellow female colleagues due to the gender restriction to become published as a primary researcher in a published research.[footnoteRef:6] [2: Rossiter, Margaret W. Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action (1940-1972). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982, 50.] [3: Goertzel, Mildred George, Victor Goertzel, and Ted George Goertzel. Cradles of Eminence. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1962.] [4: Rossiter 66.] [5: Joyce Tang. Scientific Pioneers: Women Succeeding in Science. Lanham: University Press of America, 2006, 27.] [6: Rossiter 53.]

EducationSince a specific department for neuroscience itself hasnt been established as a professional scientific major, graduate research in any field pertaining a neuroscientific course such as biosciences, medical sciences, psychology is required for continuing research work and teaching. When a scientist has reached the doctoral degree, they can finally be called a specialized scientist. As seen in multiple articles from the New York Times, neuroscience was given the terms study of nervous system[footnoteRef:7] and brain study[footnoteRef:8]. Following NSFs scouting attempt to recruit more women scientists, the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) granted funding for young scientists in the undergraduate level, both men and women. Nevertheless, in the first year of the NSF distributing grants in the 1960, women scientists only constituted 11.99 percent of the entire fund recipients.[footnoteRef:9] In the field of biosciences, 22.69 percent female scientists were granted the aid in total. While in psychology, 30.77 percent female scientists in total.[footnoteRef:10] [7: Robert Reinhold, Scientists Tackle Mystery of Brain. New York Times, 30 December 1968, column 4, 20.] [8: Brain Study Planned, Trustees at U. of Rochester Back Research Center. New York Times, 9 December 1969, 24.] [9: Harmon, Lindsey R. Career Achievements of the National Defense Education Act (title IV) Fellows of 1959-1973. A Report to the U.S. Office of Education. 1977, 7+10.] [10: Refer to table A. 1 at the Tables, Charts, and Diagrams Pages]

Once the NDEA fellows reach graduate school, their attrition rate was even higher, as the Wall Street Journal had feared. Of the 45,829 NDEA fellows given awards between 1959 and 1973, only 19,998 (43.6 percent from total) had completed their doctorates by 1974. More strikingly, there was an extensive differences by gender and field. Among the 40,166 fellows between 1963 and 1973 only, the 57.9 percent of men graduated biosciences, while women had 27.8 percent graduates (from the total of undergraduate fellows they received). In psychology, 53.4 percent of men finished their doctorates, while 31.1 percent women completed theirs.[footnoteRef:11] [11: Refer to table A. 2 at the Tables, Charts, and Diagrams Pages]

To infer the data available on the women who did not complete their degrees, compared to men, they were accepted at fewer institutions, fewer fields neutral for the women, and fewer professors or mentors were willing to accept them. Not to mention, the pressure to be married and urge for childcare overwhelmed more of the female scientists more than the male. This is also quantitatively evident in the data in Earned Degrees Conferred by Higher Educational Institutions, published by the USOE and continued by the National Center for Educational Stastics in late 1960s and early 1970s.[footnoteRef:12] [12: Refer to table A. 3 at the Tables, Charts, and Diagrams Pages]

Employment In 1960, there were only 7.21 percent female assistant professors in total faculty in the psychology department in twenty leading universities. Meanwhile, there were far less female assistant professors in biochemistry, with only 4.93 percent in total. Regarding full-time professorships, there were 2.72 percent female full-time psychology professors and 1.79 percent female full-time biochemistry professors.[footnoteRef:13] Until 1964, Most U.S universities would not hire women as faculty until Passage of Civil Act rights prohibited discrimination in education and employment based on sex.[footnoteRef:14] This attempt succeeded as a rise of women neuroscientists being employed in educational institutions (47.35 percent employment in 1960 to 61.87 percent employment in 1970) and self-employment (0.00 percent employment in 1960 to 2.71 percent employment in 1970), but experienced decrease in employment from the government and industrial sector.[footnoteRef:15] [13: John B. Parrish Papers, SLRC.] [14: Rossiter 107.] [15: NSF, American Science Manpower, 1960-1970, 197+238.]

By 1970, women neuroscientists had its highest contribution in consulting (15.68 percent as of total scientists) and teaching (13.29 percent) which is still far lower than the bigger proportion that male neuroscientists have. Male neuroscientists had dominated the work field, either in teaching, consulting, research, forecast/report, production/inspection, management, and others. [footnoteRef:16] [16: NSF 79+239 .]

Despite the small advances and attempts to reduce prejudices in a professional scope, invisible discrimination still occurs, as female neuroscientists are expected to have accomplished a minimum of doctorate degree to even be considered as real neuroscientists, while male neuroscientists can be hired in the same occupation with only an undergraduate degree. As The Academic Marketplace author Theodore Caplow had written:Women tend to be discriminated against in the academic profession, not because they have low prestige but because they are outside the prestige system entirely and for this reason are of no use to a department in future recruitment.[footnoteRef:17] [17: Theodore Caplow. The Academic Marketplace. New York: Arno, 1958, pg 111]

RanksAt most universities in the 1960s had several ranks for research personnel. Generally it was threefold: research fellow, for the recent doctorate: research associate for longer-term personnel tied to a particular project or faculty member; and senior research associate, privileged and benefited researchers who have stayed for many years and worked with distinction.[footnoteRef:18] Through 1964-1970 all over America, 56-221 research associates were offered in the physics department, but only 93-183 positions were offered in biological sciences and 5-33 positions in psychology.[footnoteRef:19] It was already a struggle for both men and women neuroscientists to reach a research rank, but even harder for the women. A 1966 survey at Berkeley found that 23.92 percent of its research staff were women, but then in 1970, a report on Berkeley added that compared with male research staff, most of the women were ranked lower and paid less even though they supervised more number of graduate students than the men. [footnoteRef:20] [18: Rossiter 153.] [19: NSF 106-7+171-72+189-90+202-3.] [20: Report of the Subcommitee on the Status of Academic Women on the Berkeley Campus Berkeley: JLP. May 1970, app. 15, 77-78]

Salary-wise, in the field of psychology, men earned $15,500 annually while women earned $13,000 annually, in ratio of 83.87 percent to mens. Following the same trend in biological sciences, men earned $15,500 annually while women earned $11,000 annually, in ratio of 70.97 percent to mens. This revealed the sublimely hidden income inequality that women neuroscientists were experiencing in early 1970.[footnoteRef:21] [21: Refer to table A. 4 at the Tables, Charts, and Diagrams Pages]

Fellowship-wise, from 1955-1969, there were only 21 women in the 703 memberships in total offered in Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (one of the field of studies in neuroscience nowadays). The statistics shows that not even 3 percent of the total fellows were female, which means the majority of 97 percent of the fellowship was received by males.[footnoteRef:22] [22: Refer to table A. 5 at the Tables, Charts, and Diagrams Pages]

Neuro-endocrinologist Hans Seyle wrote in a chapter Who Should do Research? , that a rather capable female scientist will always be blamed for wanting a little more authority and credit than her boss or the system would allow her. She (female neuro-physiologists) would be highly talented but underemployed and remain as a member of a women-deprived faculty rank. He concluded that even the best women in the field were blamed for presumed personality defects.[footnoteRef:23] Only through marriage with a well-paid faculty member, a female neuroscientist (and any other female scientists) could become a research associate or even have their husbands title combined as voluntary and the dual rank such as voluntary research associate in neurobiologist (associate professor).[footnoteRef:24] [23: Hans Selye, From Dream to Discovery: On Being a Scientist. New York: Arno, 1975, 25-26.] [24: Rossiter 153.]

Research RegulationsThe lack of support and resources to pursue scientific research in neuroscience results in early departure or blocked mobility for both men and women neuroscientists. Even so, due to the height of exposure for social issues, neuroscientists were drawn into learning more towards social backgrounds of behavior, leaning more to pure psychological science. [footnoteRef:25] [25: Street 226.]

In a 1968 New York Times article[footnoteRef:26], President Nixon managed to cut funds that were first intended for different scientific research centers, including brain study and behavioral research centers. Reallocated funds went to research handling atomic energies, laser development, pollution impact and new computer technology. But, there is a twist to the cut, President Nixon also wanted more scientists and more research on the mentally-ill. This was a sign that the psychology can be rerouted back as a branch within neuroscience. [26: Homer Bigart. Nixon Scores Cuts in Science Funds. New York Times. 6 October 1968, 74.]

In another staggering 1969 New York Times article[footnoteRef:27], it was stated There is a growing fad among high school students to perform heart transplants, brain surgery and other radical experiments on animals. Among youngsters interested in science, this desire to imitate the more spectacular work being done by mature professionals on the far frontiers of science is understandable. Following the previous information, Times added But it is a desire that must be brought under control. In spite of all the past negative approach towards neuroscience, in April of 1970, recorded by New York Times, there was a great urge by neuroscientists to broaden overly restrictive brain surgery rules.[footnoteRef:28] Supposedly, this movement could lead therapeutic drugs and medicines business to a higher profit, as proposed by the experts. [27: Radical Sciences Brought to Control. New York Times. 10 May 1969, 14.] [28: V.A. Urged to Widen Brain Surgery Rules. New York Times. 5 April 1970, 55.]

In addition to extension of the policy, technology funding boosted in response to first modern computer development starting the 1970s, creating greater improvements in neuroimaging and eventually the development of in vivo imaging techniques enabled observation of the learning brain, providing insights into the brains perceptual, cognitive, and emotional functions, with clear relevance for education. Finally in 1973, early computerized axial tomography (CAT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) made the dream of neuroscientists to visually discover brain mapping, came true.Specialized OrganizationsIn 5th of September 1961, the organizing meeting of the APAs reconstituted Division 6 (Physiological and Cognitive Psychology) was held. The original Division 6 had merged with Division 3 (Theoretical-Experimental Psychology) but finally reconstituted itself as a separate division[footnoteRef:29], creating room for psychologists who were specifically involved with physiological and cognitive cases and were able to introduce to brains function towards understanding behavior and efficacy of treatment for more specific. This also prompt the start of field specialization in psychology that led to neuroscience. 1969 was a big year for both male and female neuroscientists, it was the year when an organization specialized for neuroscience-only was officiated, the organizations name was The Society for Neuroscience[footnoteRef:30]. With 500 members in its inception, this gathering momentum of neuroscience as a discipline, steered one of its members, Horace W. Magoud, into collaborating with colleagues Donald B. Lindsley and John D. French and a successful neuroscience program leading to establishment of the Brain Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles in the same year, which became the mecca for postdoctoral fellows (both men and women) in neuroscience from all over the world. [footnoteRef:31] [29: Street 261.] [30: Milestones in Neuroscience Research University of Washington, 2013. 30 October 2014. ] [31: French, J. D.,D. B. Lindsley, and H. W. Magoun. An American Contribution to Neuroscience: The Brain Research Institute. Los Angeles: UCLA Publ. Serv., 1984.]

AwardsThere were no specific awards given yet for neuroscience in the 1960-1970. Apparently, the world of human brain and behavior has not been recognized as a prestigious field publically and professionally. There were achievement awards for the general sciences such as the Guggenheim Awards, which in 1970 distributed awards for specific science departments. Of the total 2,754 awards given, only 113 women scientists were had received them. From 113, 7 can be found in psychology, 2 in medicine, 4 in biochemistry and the most of 35 in the life sciences. [footnoteRef:32] A very rare exception was when Rita Levi-Montalcini became famous for her work in the 1960s on nerve growth factor (NGF), and became a co-winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. She was the fourth woman to receive this high honor, the path to which she described with extreme modesty in her wonderful autobiography, In Praise of Imperfection. Prior to presenting the work leading to her discovery of NGF in St. Louis, Missouri, she wrote about how difficult and unusual it was for a young woman growing up in the two world wars to even consider a career in medicine, much less one in basic laboratory science. Indeed, in 1930[footnoteRef:33], when the 20-year-old future Nobel Prize winner told her seemingly open-minded father that she wanted to go into medicine, he ``objected that it was a long and difficult course of study, unsuitable for a woman''[footnoteRef:34]. Thankfully, he did not prevent his daughter from pursuing her dream. [32: John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, Reports of the President and Treasurer. New York: John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, 1970.] [33: Levi-Montalicini, Rita. In Praise of Imperfection. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1988, 37.] [34: Levi-Montalcini 38.]

The PresentA new century has passed and finally neuroscience has reached it peak with the uncanny attention it has gained from mainstream media. Various books, movies, and shows suddenly incorporate any neuroscience fact/method that their creators can find in order to attract the growing audience that the neuroscientific field has attracted. Still, it is a very strenuous, stressful and demanding environment for budding neuroscientists to bear and accomplish in.Cultural ExpectationsA newly celebrated education and workforce sector called STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) has become a crucial field in Americas innovative capacity and global competitiveness. Better yet, neuroscience also a part of STEM. With that in mind, American families have greatly evolved by now, overlooking gender roles and chose to support children, girl or boy, to explore their talent in scientific discovery and allowing them to pursue a scientific career along the way. In 2004, Scientific American even published the bimonthly magazine concentrating on psychology, neuroscience, and related fields. This magazine, the Scientific American Mind, focuses on analyzing and showcasing breakthrough in these fields. With all the neuroscientific aspect we see in popular culture, mainstream media, and even advertisement, a friendlier and a more open comprehension towards young scientist wanting to specifically be a neuroscientist has begun. As well as public acceptance, there has been higher professional demand than ever for medical field involving neuroscience expertise, especially in regenerative medicines and artificial systems (intelligence, behavior, personality and much more). Besides being a beneficiary in a growing field, a neuroscientist would face intellectually engaging diverse range of faculties, producing socially valuable work, and most likely to have job stability in the long run. In the contrary, there are a few also a few cons to being a neuroscientist such as having a high barrier to entry, high competitiveness amongst peers, potentially dangerous working environment and high dependency of grants for job security. [footnoteRef:35] [35: LearningPath.org. Pros and Cons. Becoming a Neuroscientist: Job Description & Salary Info. 2014]

EducationDr. Arthur Lavin felt that neuroscience arent taught enough in the early education curriculum, commenting: I dont see that schools are applying the best knowledge of how minds work. Schools should be the best place for applied neuroscience, taking the latest advances in cognitive research and applying it to the job of educating minds.[footnoteRef:36] [36: Dr. Arthur Lavin, Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Case Western School of Medicine. Speech.]

The undersupplied early education supplements for students focusing in neuroscience contradict the need of a high degree in order to obtain a job in the end. An April 2012 job search[footnoteRef:37] turned up several posts advertising positions available for neuroscientists. Nearly all of the positions discovered required applicants to hold a Ph.D., while the level of experience varied depending on the employer. The following is a list of some actual postings found during that job search: [37: LearningPath.org. Requirements. Becoming a Neuroscientist: Job Description & Salary Info. 2014]

A college in Philadelphia advertised for a cognitive neuroscientist who'd be hired as an assistant professor to teach undergraduate psychology and neuroscience courses. The successful applicant would hold at least a Ph.D. A Maryland technology company advertised for a neuroscientist with a Ph.D. and at least 3 years of experience in neuroscience research to conduct research into brain body interactions. The successful applicant would also have particular experience in brain imaging techniques and software, technical writing and digital signaling, among other areas. An Iowa university advertised for a cognitive neuroscientist who could fill a tenure-track position. The applicant needed a Ph.D., an M.D. or both. The university sought a published professional who had experience in clinical and experimental neuropsychology.According to an ASCB Newsletter in 2000 about statistics[footnoteRef:38] of the number of bachelors degrees earned in biology[footnoteRef:39] by men and women, the number between the gender increased in parallel during the first half of the 1970s, although the number of womens degrees was less than half that of mens. Beginning in the mid-1970s, the number of degrees earned by men declined, while the number earned by women held steady. In the early 1990s, degrees earned by men and women began to increase at the same rate. After the mid-1990s, the number of womens degrees rose more steeply, until women earned more biology bachelors degrees than men. [38: Refer to Graph B.1 at the Tables, Charts, and Diagrams Pages] [39: In this case is defined by US Department of Education as a field that includes biochemistry, molecular biology, microbiology, and the specialization of neurosciences.]

On a doctoral degree level, the number of doctoral degrees earned by women gradually increased over the last 30 years, and the number of doctorates earned by men fluctuated and showed an overall slight decline until the 1990s[footnoteRef:40]. In a different case of a favorably gender-neutral university like the University of Alabama, it was found that over half (53 percent) of the students majoring in neuroscience were women, and 13 of them were actually international student.[footnoteRef:41] [40: Refer to Graph B.2 at the Tables, Charts, and Diagrams Pages] [41: Holley, Karri. The Challenge of an Interdisciplinary Curriculum: A Cultural Analysis of a Doctoral-Degree Program in Neuroscience. Higher Education Vol. 58. No. 2, 2009. ]

Despite the positive trend, gender inequality is presented again in the aspect of treatment from faculty and staff members towards student, even though gender distinction in the family and public realm have diminished vastly, making it still challenging for female neuroscientists to gain higher education degree crucially needed to secure an occupation for them later on. Interview source Professor Sandra Hutchinson, a psychobiology graduate, acknowledges the difficulty she encountered as a female psychobiology undergraduate student in the 1990s. Even if I had the benefit of being Asian, having the positive stereotype of someone who is regarded as very studious, it was still rather difficult to be a woman in psychobiology. I had to constantly proof myself in comparison to other Asian male students. I think if I were Caucasian, it wouldve been much more difficult[footnoteRef:42], she said. [42: Personal Interview with Sandra Hutchinson, Professor of Anatomy and Biology, Department of Life Sciences, Santa Monica College, 20 November 2014.]

Employment The most disconcerting drop-off of females in the academic ladder occurred not on higher education anymore, as seen in the employment category in the past section, rather it occurred at the next step, application for a faculty position. Females comprised only 19 percent of the applicants for 71 different neuroscience assistant professor positions at seven major American colleges and universities from 1995 through 2000. However, the number of women hired for these positions was almost proportional to the number of applicants, 18 percent overall.[footnoteRef:43] [43: Smith, Dean O. Gender Disparity in the Academic Pipeline: Women in Neuroscience. Synapse Vol. 14, 2003, 332-334]

Teaching can definitely be a field where women neuroscientists are more prominent than men neuroscientists, as they prefer researching and pharmaceutical work more. Professor Hutchinson added that women are more likely to teach because of the less-demanding working hour, which the extra time can be spend with their family and personal matters. Research doesnt stop for anything, including your family. I felt that especially during the time I had my first child, I worked sixteen hours per day when I was nine months pregnant. she confessed. Overall, there are vastly more neurologists emphasizing on patient care than administration, research, and teaching (in decreasing order)[footnoteRef:44]. [44: Refer to Graph B.3 at the Tables, Charts, and Diagrams Pages]

In 2009, 57 percent of the 2.5 million female workers with a STEM degree are comprised of physical and life sciences degrees, compared to 31 percent of the 6.7 million male workers with a STEM degree were graduates with physical and life sciences degrees. This demonstrates that physical and life sciences graduates are more likely to acquire a job than other sciences. [footnoteRef:45]But, even though the demand for STEM scientists is currently high, in an non-academic placement, women are vastly underrepresented in STEM jobs and among STEM degree holders, despite making up nearly half of the U.S. workforce and half of the college-educated workforce.[footnoteRef:46] [45: Refer to Graph B.4 at the Tables, Charts, and Diagrams Pages] [46: U.S. Department of Commerce. Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation Executive Summary, 2011, 1.]

In 2010, the median annual wage of medical neuroscientists working at pharmaceutical and other medicine manufacturing companies was around $95,000. The comparable figure for medical neuroscientists employed by colleges and universities was about $53,000, according to the BLS. Nonetheless, there is still a remaining 8 percent regression-adjusted gender wage gap of college-educated STEM workers in the field physical and life sciences, with women receiving the lower salary between the genders.[footnoteRef:47] [47: U.S. Department of Commerce, 5.]

RanksContinuing the system of ranks from past patterns, there is only a small portion of neuroscientists that could accomplish the highest achievement of being a research associate. Both men and women neuroscientists are competing to be elected as primary research associate, having their names to appear first in the research published. The numbers of women associate professor and professor in the neurosciences is increasing until now, but women still show reduced retention relative to men in the academic sector.[footnoteRef:48] [48: Refer to Graph B.5 at the Tables, Charts, and Diagrams Pages]

With peer reviewing in mind, it was a bit more complex for women neuroscientists to be reviewed with zero judgment attacking their personal condition (for being a woman) rather than their professional work. Professor Hutchinson had an experience where she underwent the unfair treatment: I did a special program where we were able to research in a lab for 6 months. Its not that I was treated poorly but I guess the ideas that I originally come up with in a collaborative process, always got attributed to male lab students rather than to myself. The male lab students never corrected that nor change the professors opinions on that. When I talked to my professor, I was told Oh, thats okay, whatever you say with a slightly condescending attitude. Nevertheless, the professor was a kind man but there is a little bit of prejudice underlying the assumption that women, especially with a youthful appearance, cant come up with good ideas.The derogatory behavior towards female neuroscientists results to the fact that only one in five papers published in Nature Neuroscience, a bona fide scientific editorial journal, has a female corresponding author. In addition, the composition of the journals statistics also reflects the demographics of its own authors. Among 940 reviewers for the journal, 152 (16.2 percent) were female and 788 (83.8%) were male. This proportion of women is slightly higher than their representation among last authors in the manuscript sample (67 of 449, 14.9%), but lower than the proportion of female first authors (125 of 397, 31.5 percent). Pointing out the case of abuse of rank and power, it has also reported by the Gender Issue in Neuroscience (GIN) members of the Stanford University that in 2013, 228 individuals who have committed misconduct, of which 94% involved fraud. Analysis of the data by career stage and gender revealed that misconduct occurred across the entire career spectrum from trainee to senior scientist and that two-thirds of the individuals found to have committed misconduct were male. This exceeds the overall proportion of males among life science trainees and faculty.[footnoteRef:49] [49: Ferric C. Fang. Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct mBio, 2013.]

Research RegulationsLawfully, there are no policies limiting neuroscientific researches nowadays. Professor Hutchinson confirmed that there were no governmental policies controlling her science service and research work, the determining factor to when a neuroscientist can become a neuroscience researcher is through peer reviewing and government or faculty funding. This goes the same for both female and male neuroscientists. In 2004-2008, the number of neuroscience articles published has increased by 18 percent. Statistics of the rise in related research fields are even higher: clinical neurology by 23 percent, psychiatry by 25 percent, psychology by 39 percent and behavioral sciences by 48 percent.[footnoteRef:50] In 2013, President Obama announced a project called the Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN), which will potentially allocate billions of dollars to decode the pathways of the brain, all the way down to the neural level. This supports the premise that the growing industry of brain research has undoubtedly create an advantage for both female and male neuroscientists to pursue a specialization in. [50: Kathleen Taylor. The Brain Supremacy: Notes From the Frontiers of Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 8.]

Specialized OrganizationsThere has been an increase of numerous organizations gathering neuroscientists, independently and government directed. The progress aided both female and male neuroscientists to escape from neurosciences umbrella term incorporation with other scientific sub disciplines that neuroscientists had to join in the past due to there were no specific organization on neuroscience were available at the time. This emancipation had been influencing a greater difference for women neuroscientists. When women made up 21 percent of Society for Neuroscience (SfN) membership, under the division of SfN, Women in Neuroscience (WIN) was finally inaugurated in SfNs 1980 annual meeting. Female membership in the SfN was up to 43 percent in 2011.[footnoteRef:51] [51: Laurel L. Haak. Women In Neuroscience (WIN): The First Twenty Years, Journal of the History of the Neuroscience Vol. 11, 2002, 71.]

The total attendance in Neuroscience annual convention created by the SfN has been increasing every year, from 31,975 visitors in 2011 to 32,357 in its 2012 conference. Thus overall, an opportunity for both male and female neuroscientists becoming esteemed members of a distinct institution of neurosciences has been positively promoted. AwardsProfessor Sandra Hutchinson was one of the recipients for a scholarship award that allowed her to pursue a career in psychobiology. Like Professor Hutchinson, young neuroscientists were able to become students and receive acknowledgement for their academic achievement and involvement within their research or scientific service. The SfN also awards honor and support neuroscientists at all career stages. Prizes, fellowships, and travel awards recognize scientific achievement and discovery, outreach efforts, contributions to the field, mentoring activities, and more. Taken from SfNs homepage[footnoteRef:52], the SfN states their mission behind presenting neuroscientists with multiple awards: [52: Individual Prizes and Fellowships. Society for Neuroscience Awards and Fundings, Society for Neuroscience, 2013. Web. 15 November 2014.]

Each year, SfN honors some of the best research and achievements by neuroscientists around the globe with more than $500,000 in prizes and other compensation, such as complimentary travel and registration for SfN's annual meeting.These awards recognize scientists at all stages of their careers for a variety of activities, including research that expands knowledge of the brain and its functions, outreach programs that educate the public about neuroscience, and mentoring efforts that cultivate achievement for the next generation of neuroscientists.There is also The Peter and Patricia Gruber International Research Award in Neuroscience established in 2005 to help support promising young neuroscientists to pursue education and research at a center of excellence in their field[footnoteRef:53]. Joining forces with the SfN, an SfN committee selects two recipients, a pair of young scientists who have demonstrated international collaboration and scientific breakthrough, to share equally the $50,000 Gruber fellowship. The award is presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. [53: The Peter and Patricia Gruber International Research Award in Neuroscience. The Peter and Patricia Gruber International Research Award in Neuroscience. The Gruber Foundation, 2011. Web. 15 November 2014.]

In an upper and highly prestigious echelon like the Nobel Prizes, it is still a difficult stratum for women to cross the inequality border, especially in the neurosciences.[footnoteRef:54] But, to a large extent, with all the awards and prizes being given by multiple sources, it is more likely for both male and female neurosciences to receive them earlier in a smaller scale compared to situations in the past. [54: Refer to Chart B.6 at the Tables, Charts, and Diagrams Pages]

The FutureAs we can see from past trends in 1960s until the present, it can be safe to conclude that neuroscientists will keep on increasing in number and ingenuity, both men and women. Culturally, families and surrounding members will encourage their children to pursue any career they want and the government will hopefully continue their support by providing an enhancing environment for students to accomplish their goals. There could be a decreasing or even vanishing discrimination and inequality in neurosciences, if mentors and staff members in higher positions treat male and female neuroscientists without any differentiation. Schools could also add neuroscience as a subject, side by side with mathematics and other sciences starting from an early education curriculum to boost the number of college students majoring neuroscience in time ahead. Lowering tuition in specialization higher degree institutes or granting more scholarships would increase number of undergraduate neuroscience students continuing as graduate students. Following up with President Obamas BRAIN project initiative and launch, will undeniably would unlock new research areas unthinkable and broaden policies or barriers hindering neuroscientific researchers. As a strong growth field, neuroscience will be projecting employment growth of 36 percent between 2010 and 2020 [footnoteRef:55] The high and solid circulation of interest and investment in neuroscience would eventually to more specialized organizations and awards granted for neuroscientists, both male and female. Eventually, with more awards, acceptance, networking, and financial aid, a neuroscientist could reach his or her potential. Thus, the ever-growing circle of neuroscientists and all of their innovations could be sustained. [55: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics]

ConclusionThere is no shortage of proposals for this exploding field. Only time will tell which ones are mere pipe dreams created by overheated imagination of science-fiction writers and which ones represent solid avenues for future scientific research. Progress in neuroscience has been phenomenal and in many ways modern engineering in biology and psychology has been the key.Neuroscience paved way for both men and women scientists explore the wonders of the mind and behavior. Looking at the rise in the trend of neuroscience in both mainstream media and scientific publications, it is highly undoubted that more research, publication and occupation opportunities will be opened for both men and women neuroscientists in the near future. The inception of societal acceptance, educational opportunities, strong-hearted workers, loosely-tied political agenda, encouragement from prestigious ranking system, a responsible specialized organization and prized possession in 1960s created a novel route for emerging neuroscience scientists and scholars, both men and women. Moreover, this movement affects greatly on the face of women in science. In the end of the day, neurosciences and any other sciences should encourage diversity, discipline, and pure ingenuity. Just like exactly what Professor Hutchinson said as she ended her interview:Really, natural or biological intelligence doesnt matter, it is all the time and effort you are willing to spend in to accomplishing that goal.

Tables, Charts and Diagrams

Table A. 1.

Table A. 2.

Table A.3.

Table A. 4.

Table A. 5.

Graph B. 1. Bachelors Degrees Earned in Biology by Gender and Year, 1970-1998

Graph B. 2. Doctorates Earned in Biology by Gender and Year, 1970-1998

Graph B. 3. Physiological Occupations by Specialty, 2010

Source: AMA Physician Masterfile (December 2010)

Graph B. 4. College-educated Workers with a STEM Degree by Gender and STEM Degree Field, 2009

Graph B. 5. Women Neuroscientists by Work Field and Year, 1988-1998

Source: Huffman et al., 200Graph B. 6.

Source: Reprinted from ASCB Newsletter (2000, vol. 23, pp. 1821), with permission from the American Society for Cell Biology.

Interview InformationSourceSandra Hutchinson, Professor of Anatomy and Biology, Department of Life Sciences, at Santa Monica College. A Graduate of Pennsylvania State Dept. of Psychobiology and conference member of Society for Neuroscience since the 1990s.Questions1. How do you first develop interest in Psychobiology?2. Where did you graduate from and what was your research for your graduate program?3. How was the view towards women in psychobiology at your time?4. Have you encountered any difficulty as a woman in psychobiology? How did you finally overcome these obstacles in the end?5. What made you decide to teach life sciences in Santa Monica College?6. Is balancing family and work tough for you as a psychobiologist?7. Throughout your education and career, how important was female role models and mentors in guiding you?8. Do you think the number of women scientists in psychobiology increased or decreased by now? What do you think are the factors contributing to the change?9. If there were any difficulties that a neuroscientist today can face, what would be the difficulties?10. Are there any law regulating researches and publications in psychobiology?11. Do you have any advice to women pursuing pscyhobiology?Works ConsultedBarinaga, M.Profile of a field: Neuroscience - The Pipeline is Leaking. Science Vol 255 (1992): 1366. JSTOR. Web. 31 Oct 2014.Bigart, Homer. Nixon Scores Cuts in Science Funds. New York Times. 6 October 1968, 74, Microfilm.Bird, Karen S. Do women publish fewer journal articles than men? Sex differences in publication productivity in the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology of Education Vol. 32. No. 6 (2011). JSTOR. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.Brain Study Planned, Trustees at U. of Rochester Back Research Center. New York Times. 9 December 1969, 24, Microfilm.Buchmann et al. Gender Inequalities in Education. Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 34. (2008). JSTOR. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.Dash, Joan. The Triumph of Discovery. New Jersey: Julian Messner, 1991. Print.Dryburgh, Heather. Work Hard, Play Hard: Women and Professionalization in Engineering Adapting to the Culture. Gender and Society Vol. 13. No. 5 (1999). JSTOR. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.Fang FC, Bennett JW, Casadevall A. Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct mBio, 2013.Finger, Stanley,Origins of Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Print.Women And The History of The Neurosciences. Journal of the History of Neurosciences Vol. 11. (2002): 80-86. MEDLINE. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.Fort, Deborah. A Hand Up: Women Mentoring Women in Science. Washington D.C.: Association for Women in Science, 2005. Print.French, J. D.,D. B. Lindsley, and H. W. Magoun. An American Contribution to Neuroscience: The Brain Research Institute. Los Angeles: UCLA Publ. Serv., 1984. Print.Friedman, Sharon M. Research Report: Women in Engineering: Influential Factor for Career Choice. Newsletter on Science, Technology and Human Values. No. 20 (1977). JSTOR. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.Goertzel, Mildred George, Victor Goertzel, and Ted George Goertzel. Cradles of Eminence. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1962. Print.Gross, Charles G. Brain, Vision, Memory: Tales in the History of Neuroscience. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1998. Print.Haak, Laurel L. Women In Neuroscience (WIN): The First Twenty Years, Journal of the History of the Neuroscience Vol. 11 Page 70-79 (2002). JSTOR. Web 31 Oct. 2014.Harmon, Lindsey R. A Century of Doctorates: Data Analyses of Growth and Change. Washington DC: NAS, 1978. Print.Career Achievements of the National Defense Education Act (title IV) Fellows of 1959-1973. A Report to the U.S. Office of Education. 1977, 7+10.Holley, Karri. The Challenge of an Interdisciplinary Curriculum: A Cultural Analysis of a Doctoral-Degree Program in Neuroscience. Higher Education Vol. 58. No. 2 (2009). JSTOR. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

Hruby et al. Neuroscience and Reading: A Review for Reading Education Researchers. Reading Research Quarterly Vol. 46, No. 2 (2011). JSTOR. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.Hutchinson, Sandra. Personal interview. 20 November 2014.Individual Prizes and Fellowships. Society for Neuroscience Awards and Fundings. Society for Neuroscience, 2013. Web. 15 November 2014. . John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, Reports of the President and Treasurer. New York: John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, 1970. Print. Kaku, Michio. The Future of The Mind. London: Penguin Group, 2014. Print.Levi-Montalicini, Rita. In Praise of Imperfection. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1988. Print.Luckenbill-edds, Louise. The Educational Pipeline for Women in Biology: No Longer Leaking?. BioScience Vol. 52 No. 6 (2002). JSTOR. Web. 1 Nov. 2014.McGrayne, Sharon B. Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles and Momentous Discoveries. New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1993. Print.Milestones in Neuroscience Research University of Washington. University of Washington, 2013. Web. 30 October 2014. The Peter and Patricia Gruber International Research Award in Neuroscience. The Peter and Patricia Gruber International Research Award in Neuroscience. The Gruber Foundation, 2011. Web. 15 November 2014.Radical Sciences Brought to Control. New York Times. 10 May 1969, 14, Microfilm.Reinhold, Robert. Scientists Tackle Mystery of Brain. New York Times. 30 December 1968, 20, Microfilm.Report of the Subcommitee on the Status of Academic Women on the Berkeley Campus Berkeley: JLP. May 1970, app. 15, 77-78.Rose, F.C. and Bynum, W.F.,Historical Aspects of the Neurosciences. New York: Raven Press, 1982. Print.Rossiter, Margaret W. Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action (1940-1972). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982. Print.Selye, Hans. From Dream to Discovery: On Being a Scientist. New York: Arno, 1975. Print.Smith, Dean O. Gender Disparity in the Academic Pipeline: Women in Neuroscience. Synapse Vol. 14 (2003): 332-334. JSTOR. Web. 1 Nov. 2014.Street, Warren R. A Chronology of Events in American Psychology. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1994. Print.Tang, Joyce. Scientific Pioneers: Women Succeeding in Science. Lanham: University Press of America, 2006. Print.Taylor, Kathleen. The Brain Supremacy: Notes From the Frontiers of Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.

Theodore Caplow. The Academic Marketplace. New York: Arno, 1958, pg 111Tokuhama-Espinosa, Tracey. A Brief History in the Science of Learning. John Hopkins University. John Hopkins University, December 2011. Web. 30 October 2014. U.S. Department of Commerce. Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation Executive Summary, 2011.USOE. Earned Degrees Conferred by Higher Educational Institutions. National Center for Educational Stastics, 1963.V.A. Urged to Widen Brain Surgery Rules. New York Times. 5 April 1970, 55, Microfilm.Women In Neuroscience: A Numbers Game. Nature Neuroscience Vol. 9 No. 7 (2006): 835. MEDLINE. Web. 31 Oct 2014.Zuckerman, Harriet, Jonathan R. Cole, and John T. Bruer. The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991. Print.