School of Social Sciences,

Cardiff University,

Glamorgan Building,

King Edward VII Avenue,

Cardiff CF10 3WT

Wales UK

Email ReesTL@cardiff.ac.uk

The efficient development and use of human resources has been identified by the European Commission (EC) as crucial to the economic competitiveness and growth of the European Union (EU) and to the achievement of a key policy priority, the creation of jobs to combat high levels of unemployment (CEC 1994). Integral to this is maximising the effective use of women in the labour force, especially as rates of female economic activity in the EU compare unfavourably with other global regions such as the United States (US). In addition to these economic concerns, there is a commitment at EU level to promoting gender equality on social justice grounds (EC 1996). However, a recent report commissioned by the EC illustrates that in the crucial fields of science, engineering and technology, gender remains a significant organising principle in the education, training, recruitment, retention and promotion of people working in these fields within the EU. Indeed, universities regarded as being at the forefront of scientific discovery are criticised for their medieval human resource practices (EC 2000).

The report was commissioned by the Research Directorate-General of the EC from a group of scientists, known as the European Technology Assessment Network (ETAN) to explore the issue of women and science in the EU and to make recommendations for change. The ETAN Group, chaired by Prof. Mary Osborn, a cell biologist from a Max Planck Institute in Germany, was made up of fourteen senior women scientists, including three social scientists, from ten member states (see Appendix 1). The report focused on three areas of concern:

• the under-representation of women in science, engineering and technology;
• the lack of attention paid to the gender dimension in science; and
• the lack of gender balance in decision-making about scientific policy.

This paper draws extensively on the ETAN report (for which the author was the rapporteur) and focuses on the first of these issues. It begins by outlining three models of equal opportunities that have dominated policy approaches to gender equality over the last three decades: equal treatment, positive action and mainstreaming. It then presents some statistics from the report on the position of women in science in the EU and beyond. It then explores some explanations for the patterns that emerge. Finally, it uses the framework of the three models of equal opportunities to propose recommendations for how the impact of gender as an organising principle in science engineering and technology in the EU could be reduced.

The 1957 Treaty of Rome that set up the forerunner to the EU included an Article committing signatory countries to equal treatment for women and men in pay. However, it had very little effect until it was followed up by a series of Directives in the 1970s that meant those member states that did not already have national laws in place to enforce the Article were obliged to enact appropriate legislation. Even then, the impact was muted by rigid patterns of gender segregation in the labour market. A gender pay gap of the order of 20% remains today.

It is clear that equal treatment does not lead to equal outcome. What lies at the heart of this is a confusion between collective bargaining systems for pay and welfare systems that are predicated upon a society organised into stereotypical white nuclear families (bread-winner husband, home-maker wife) with an individual-based right to equal treatment, irrespective of gender. The two approaches are incompatible. Sex stereotyping about roles in the private and public spheres has led to significant differences in subject choices at school and patterns of participation in the labour as well as the sectors men and women work in, the jobs that they do and the type and amount of training that they receive from their employers. Wages have traditionally been linked to ideas about whether the incumbent is a breadwinner or homemaker. However, this idealised form of the ‘gender contract’ (Pateman 1988) describes relatively few households in the EU at the turn of the century.

The crucial flaw in equal treatment is that it takes the male as the norm. Women are legally entitled, in effect, to be treated not as equal to, but as the same as a man. There is a need for a more sophisticated understanding of the issues in the ‘sameness’ and difference’ debate, whereby the principle of the legal right to equal treatment is upheld, but that differences are accommodated (Liff and Wacjman 1996). Sometimes treating men and women equally means treating them differently. Hence, the law on equal treatment is a vital principle and an effective tool in combating overt sex discrimination, but it is not a sufficient measure to ensure sex equality.

The shortcomings of the law on equal treatment in combating sex discrimination and ensuring equal pay were recognised in the EU member states in the 1980s. Hence, a series of positive action measures were co-funded by the EC to address the disadvantages experienced by women. These measures were principally training projects designed to improve women’s skills and enhance their employability. Particular problems addressed were the lack of confidence and erosion of skills experienced by women who had had periods out of the labour market in order to bear and raise children. Similarly, there were many training projects to develop women’s technical and computing skills or to equip them to work in areas of work usually exclusively or overwhelmingly undertaken by men. Some projects became recognised as examples of good practice in developing women-centred training (CEEP et. al. 1995). They offered careers guidance and counselling and child-care facilities. They worked ‘family friendly’ hours and were located near public transport facilities. They provided trainees with confidence, skills and an entrée to the labour market (Rees 1998).

However, such training projects tended to be short-term, piecemeal, and outside the mainstream training provision. They were ‘add-ons’, addressing the ‘special needs’ of some groups of women. Funding for them was precarious. In short, they were outside mainstream training provision. Indeed mainstream training provision continued unaffected by these measures. In effect there were two parallel systems in operation.

Again, while positive action measures are essential to gender equality, they are not sufficient. And they carry a health warning: some positive action measures reinforce a particular version of masculinity in the work culture that is alien to many women (and indeed to some men). They prepare women for operating in male-dominated culture. Positive action measures do not challenge the culture and practice of mainstream: they simply assist women to fit in. This is where gender mainstreaming comes in.

The concept of gender mainstreaming came to the attention of women world-wide at the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing. It was identified as one of the key items in the Platform for Action. The EU has adopted it mainstreaming as its main policy approach to promoting gender equality. Indeed, the EC is now insisting on the mainstreaming of gender equality in all its policies and programmes. A communication on mainstreaming was agreed by the Council of Ministers of the Member States in 1996 committing the EC to the approach in all its policies and programmes (EC 1996).

However, what is mainstreaming? Of all agenda items on the Platform for Action, this is probably the one about which there is least consensus (see EC 2000:20). Many different versions co-exist. Two are identified here. For some, it means a process of conducting a gender-impact assessment of all proposed legislation and policies. Indeed, both the EC and Council of Europe have produced guides on how to carry out gender-impact assessments (Council of Europe 1998; Equal Opportunities Commission 1997; EC 1997). However, for others, it is a more radical approach. It means a wholesale redesign of systems and structures. It means analysing the ways in which current systems in effect advantage men, and recasting them to open them up to all. Monitoring and evaluation are vital tools in this approach. Gender mainstreaming can be regarded as the systematic integration of equal opportunities for women and men into the organisation and its culture, into policies, programmes and projects, into ways of seeing and doing (Rees 1998). Instead of grooming round women to fit into square holes, it means, in effect, transforming organisations.

While most of the literature and measures that have been developed focus on gender mainstreaming, as an approach mainstreaming can be applied to other groups in society, such as ethnic minorities and the disabled, and indeed to other concerns such as the environment or sustainability.

In short, while equal treatment is about addressing individuals’ rights to equality, and positive action addresses group disadvantage, mainstreaming focuses on systems and structures themselves — those very institutionalised practices that cause both individual and group disadvantage in the first place. It is clearly a long-term strategy and needs the law and positive action measures to support it. However, it has much more potential to have a serious impact upon gender equality than either of the other two strategies has individually.

A major difficulty in reviewing the position of women in science is the lack of systematically collected, analysed and published statistics, compatible for international comparisons and broken down by gender. Gender disaggregated statistics are an essential element for reviewing and evaluating equality policies. While there are some statistics on the student population, there are no coherent, publicly available statistics on the employment of scientists.

Nevertheless, such statistics as do exist show the following:

• women now constitute about 50% of first degree students in many countries of the world (Figure 1)
• the percentage of full professors who are women is very low world-wide: for the most part, below 15% (Table 1)
• there are considerable variations in the proportion of women students between disciplines (Figure 2)
• there has been a slow increase in the proportion of professors who are women (Figure 3)
• women tend to disappear from academic life before obtaining career posts (Figures 4, 5 and 6)
• the higher the position in the hierarchy, the lower the percentage of women (Figure 4, 5 and 6)
• men are appointed to academic posts in numbers disproportionate to those in the recruitment pool at each grade (Figures 4, 5 and 6)

It has to be remembered that women have only had the right to equal access to education in many countries relatively recently. For example, women were not fully admitted into the University of Cambridge until 1948: at a special ceremony to commemorate the event fifty years later, over a thousand women in their 70s and 80s came to collect their degrees.

Source: Osborn et al (2000:8) Figure 2.1

Figure 1 shows the proportion of bachelors degrees awarded to women in Europe, North America and Australasia in the late 1990s. While there are differences world-wide, women now constitute more than half the student body in the US (55%), Canada (58%), Australia (59%) and New Zealand (58%). In Europe, women are the majority in all the EU Member States except Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria and Germany (Doyle 1999:22).

in the EU Member States (1994-95)

Source: Osborn et al (2000:8) Figure 2.2

There are of course significant discipline differences (Figure 2). Women are the clear majority of medical science students in all the member states of the EU and near half in the natural sciences in many countries. However, in mathematics and computer science, women are consistently in a minority across member states. In the category ‘engineering and architecture’, women constitute a quarter or less of all undergraduates.

Despite years of equal access to higher education, women remain an extraordinarily small proportion of the professoriat. Attempts at cross-national comparison are hampered by country specific definitions of what constitutes a professor and in the use of various gradations (full, associate, assistant etc.). Nevertheless, the ETAN Group constructed a Table based on near equivalence in status and duties drawing on available information from 24 countries, a summary version of which is reproduced here (Table 1). In the EU as a whole, figures range from a low of 5% in the Netherlands to 18% in Finland.

The relatively high figures for women in Finland is in part a consequence of the decision in that country in 1998 to dispense with associate and assistant grades and promote all incumbents to full professorships, causing an overnight increase of women full professors from 13% to 18%. In Portugal, the conscription of male graduates into the army in the 1960s and 1970s plus an investment in life sciences in recent years may have a bearing on the figures.

Source: Adapted from Osborn et. al. (2000:10, Table 2.1), data updated from Osborn (1998).

It will be noticed that the four lowest scoring EU member states in terms of percentage women among professors are the same four shown in Figure 1 to have a minority of women among the undergraduate population. Does that mean that with a gradual increase in women students in most countries, so that they are now the majority of the student body, it is just a matter of time before there will be more equal numbers of men and women in the senior grades?

Figure 3 suggests not. Data from six countries (differentiating, in the case of Germany, between universities and research institutes) illustrate the remarkably slow increase in the proportion of women among the professoriate. This is despite the very different set of education and employment systems that pertain in various countries, not to mention variations in culture and legal infrastructure regarding equality of opportunity.

The highest increase is in Finland: a partial reason for this was given above. The increase in Spain may in part be attributed to the effects of the restructuring and expansion of the higher education system. In the case of Sweden, a small positive action measure designed to boost the percentage of women professors, the 30 ‘Tham’ professorships designed for women, will have had some impact although they represent a small fraction of the total number of chairs. In the UK, the end of the binary divide following the 1992 Education Reform Act enhanced the percentage of women, as there were many more women in senior positions in the Polytechnics than among the old universities. In other words, there are particular factors associated with each of the modest increases illustrated in the Table.

On average in the EU, the annual percentage increase in the proportion of women professors is around 0.5-1.0%. Clearly, waiting for equality is not a particularly effective strategy to achieve a better gender balance.

Figure 4 shows the disappearance of women at each stage in the academic career in six European countries. The pattern of loss is the same for all the countries although they operate very different systems of education and employment. Even in those countries where women constitute the majority of undergraduate students, they form a minority of the postgraduate community.

The decline continues throughout the academic hierarchy but is particularly marked at the stage between PhD student and Assistant Professorships, when women often begin to start families. This pattern has been described as the ‘leaky pipeline’ (Osborn et. al. 2000) and has been observed previously in studies of individual countries including Finland (Academy of Finland, 1998) and the UK (Committee on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, 1994).

Are there discipline differences in this trajectory of decline? Data from the UK suggests a consistency in direction, even comparing disciplines where women range from as high as 60% among the undergraduate population (in the biological sciences) to as low as 15% (in engineering and technology) (Figure 5). The decline is again especially marked at the time in the lifecycle where academic careers begin to take off and where qualified women start to have children. In all the disciplines shown, the result is that women comprise less than 10% of the professors.

The Federal Ministry for Education and Research in Germany has made an interesting calculation shown in Figure 6. It reveals the proportion of women and men at each stage in academic careers (this is for all disciplines, not just science) from school-leavers from general schools with university entrance qualifications through to the highest level professors (C4). The widening of the gap at the post post-doc stage is especially marked in Germany. However, in Figure 6, the actual figures are compared with the number that might have been expected, given the gender ratio at undergraduate level. The Figure shows clearly the impact of gender on outcomes in academic careers. What this suggests is that there are mechanisms that systematically exclude women from advancement. Men are shown to be selected disproportionate to their numbers at each stage in the hierarchy.

In the US, legislation requires universities to keep statistics broken down by gender for all levels of staff. In addition, the American Association of University Professors publishes an annual report listing the salaries paid to women and men at each rank in each US institution. While there is still a gender pay gap among academics in the US, the transparency of pay roles allows women to take class actions. The recent complaint by 15 tenured women professors at MIT resulted in larger salaries (20%), research money and space being afforded to them to bring them into line with their male counterparts (Pardue et. al. 1999).

In all EU member states there is a gender pay gap in the workforce as a whole but it is difficult to acquire figures for academic life. However, the first rigorous study in the UK showed considerable differences in the amount of pay given to male and female academics at the same grades doing the same work (Independent Review Committee on Higher Education Pay and Conditions 1999 - the ‘Bett Report’).

The figures in this section on the ‘political arithmetic’ of women in science suggest that mechanisms other than merit are influencing the allocation of positions in the academic hierarchy. Men are systematically appointed and promoted in numbers disproportionate to their ratio in the recruitment pool, at all levels and grades, across disciplines and across country borders. What are the explanations for these patterns and their persistence?

This section focuses on four sets of explanations for the patterns described above, sex stereotyping, exclusionary mechanisms, and patronage and nepotism.

Sex stereotyping plays a role in scientific careers in two main ways. In the first instance it is a major factor in the process of decision-making that leads young people to choose their subjects at school and in higher education and it informs decisions pertaining to their future career paths. Young people are more likely to choose those subjects, including science subjects, where their gender is already well represented (Arnot et. al. 1999). Schiebinger (1999:72) summarises research over many decades that shows that in the US, children persistently assume scientists to be men.

Secondly, employers are likely to make stereotypical assumptions about men and women’s commitment to their careers informed by the ideology of the gender contract — the breadwinner male and the homemaker female. Universities in particular are built around the assumption of continuity of service: women who take career breaks find it extremely difficult to return to academic careers, more so in some countries than others. The long hours culture in science militates against women with caring responsibilities who are assumed not to be able to make an appropriate commitment to their careers. Women without caring responsibilities may be assumed to have them or expected to have them at some time in the future, irrespective of their current or intended circumstances (1).

These forms of stereotyping are played out in exclusionary mechanisms.

There is ample evidence of direct exclusionary mechanisms experienced by women scientists as individuals, such as the experiences of Rosalind Franklin and as groups, for example as recently as the 1960s, women were not admitted to physics and astronomy programs at Caltech, MIT or Harvard. Age bars, that discriminate indirectly against women, still apply to senior scientific posts in France and Germany.

Little attention is paid in universities or research institutes in the member states to work/life balance or the family responsibilities of employees. Whereas progress has been made in some sectors on childcare, eldercare, flexible hours, combating the long hours culture, and career breaks, they have not percolated through to academe. In Germany in particular, it has proved almost impossible for women scientists who take a career break to resume their careers. The German Ministry of Education and Science has now invested considerable resources into seeking to attract women back into science and provide them with appropriate support (Osborn et. al. 2000).

A number of small scale studies in the UK have begun to chart the experiences of women academics on the receiving end of employment policies that do not readily accommodate those women with family responsibilities (Bagilhole 1993; West and Lyon 1995). Such policies can be described as exclusionary mechanisms. Numerous reports on women in science, engineering and technology at national and EU level have sought to assess the impact of such mechanisms on women’s access to scientific careers and have recommended an overhaul of employer’s practices (Academy of Finland 1998; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology 1994; Ministry of Research and Information Technology 1998; Osborn et. al. 2000).

In conclusion, universities tend to be old fashioned and exclusionary in their employment practices. In the words of Tom Wilson, head of the University section of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education ‘Universities are often outraged at the idea that they might be discriminatory, because they regard themselves as very liberal institutions. But they have limited management and personnel departments’ (Wilson 1999).

Merit is a core principle of the academy and scientific culture and yet a study by Wennerås and Wold (1997) found it to be compromised at the heart of the peer review system. In their study of the Swedish Medical Research Council, two of the three most important factors associated with successful applications for fellowships included being male, and having worked with a member of the board. Successful women applicants were found to have a publication rate 2.5 times as great as the successful male candidates.

In Finland, the growing custom of inviting individuals to fill vacant chairs (now accounting for half the appointments) has had the effect of reducing the proportion of women appointed compared with open competition (Academy of Finland, 1998). Many senior academic appointments in a number of member states are not customarily advertised. There are very few women indeed in the senior management of universities that make appointments and decide on policy. Appointment panels will tend to be all-male unless the institution has policies to safeguard against this. Male networks are used to encourage applications.

Women constitute less than 5% of members of scientific academies. There are relatively few women on senior scientific committees such as those that allocate research funding and prizes. These elites tend to be self-perpetuating, nominating their own successors.

What can our there models of equality, equal treatment, positive action and mainstreaming offer us to address these three issues of sex stereotyping, exclusionary mechanisms, and patronage and nepotism?

The ETAN Group proposed a series of recommendations designed to address the situation of women in science, engineering and technology combining the three approaches to gender equality outlined earlier.

The ETAN Group concluded that above all, good employment policies benefited women in science. Hence, open advertising for all jobs, fair and effective recruitment and promotion procedures and good work/life balance policies would ensure women were treated equally. Gender balance is an issue to be addressed in the constitution of appointment panels. Ensuring the operation of the highest standards in appointments, promotion and in peer review procedures is an essential element of equal treatment. The development and use of the concept of ‘academic’ rather than chronological age has been helpful in this regard.

Positive action measures are effective if they tackle blockages in the system and/or focus on the development of good practice that can then be mainstreamed. In this context, there are examples in the member states of measures to assist women scientists who have had career breaks (in Germany); the funding of chairs directed at women (in Sweden), and fellowships designed to suit women (such as the Daphne Jackson fellowships in the UK). Earmarking budgets for women for research grants has been identified as a helpful mechanism to encourage applications from women. Support for mentoring and network projects is to be encouraged.

Mainstreaming gender equality in universities and research institutes would entail a wholesale programme of assessment of the gender impact of existing and new policies. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of new procedures need to be instigated. This should include a gender pay audit, followed up by policies to address the gender pay gap. Awareness raising and training for staff is a prerequisite. Building ownership through performance review and line management systems is a requirement. Targets are needed for moving towards a gender balance in decision-making through the organisation.

These tools need to be animated by the ‘visioning’ of gender mainstreaming, the development of ways of seeing and doing things differently, challenging and changing the organisation and its culture. This needs expertise that can be brought in to assist organisations to change.

This paper has focused on just one of the concerns of the ETAN report, the position of women in science engineering and technology in academic life. The report is also concerned with the lack of women in senior decision-making about what constitutes excellence, how science budgets should be spent or in determining scientific policy. This represents a democratic deficit. In some member states (e.g. Finland, Sweden, Italy) this has been addressed through legislation on gender balance in public sector decision-making. The report focuses finally on the concern that many scientific projects, for example in medical science, are conducted solely on men, but the results are then applied to women. The questions asked in science are coming from a narrow part of the population. There is a more sociological issue here about the gendering of science itself. The ETAN report has been widely disseminated and the authors hope that the recommendations will be discussed and implemented. The report was supported in a Resolution in the European Parliament in April 2000.

In terms of the focus of this paper, it is clear that there many leading universities and research institutes have been left behind in the more general modernisation of employment practices that characterise some other parts of the public sector and increasingly major employers in the private sector too, driven by the business case to creating and managing diverse workforces. Mainstreaming gender equality is advocated by the ETAN Group both to address the social justice ambitions of the EU, but also in the name of fostering excellence in science through the more effective use of human resources.

This paper draws heavily upon the ETAN Report. I am grateful to my co-authors (listed in Appendix I) and Nicole Dewandre of the Research Directorate of the European Commission for their permission to draw upon the material here.

Indeed, the author, on being offered a three year research contract at a British university in the 1970s was asked to give an assurance ‘not to get pregnant’ for the duration of the contract.

Academy of Finland (1998) Women in Academia, Report of the Working Group appointed by the Academy of Finland, Publications of the Academy of Finland 3/98, Helsinki: Edita

Arnot, M., David, M. and Weiner, G. (1999) Closing the gender gap: Postwar education and social change, Cambridge: Polity Press

Bagilhole, B. (1993) ‘How to keep a good woman down: an investigation of the role of institutional factors in the process of discrimination against women academics’ British Journal of Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 261-274

CEEP, ETUC and UNICE (1995) Women and Training in Europe: 50 projects which challenge our traditions, A Compendium of Good Practice, published at the initiative of the European Social Dialogue, Brussels: DGXXII European Commission

Commission of the European Communities (1994) Growth, Competitiveness and Employment: The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21st Century, White Paper, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

Commission of the European Communities (1999) Women and Science - Communication from the Commission COM(1999)76 final, Brussels: Research Directorate-General, Commission of the European Communities

Committee on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (1994) The Rising Tide: A report on women in science, engineering and technology London: HMSO

Council of Europe (1998) Gender Mainstreaming: Conceptual framework, methodology and presentation of good practice Strasbourg: Council of Europe

Doyle R (1999) ‘Bachelor’s degrees awarded to women’ Scientific American (Oct) p.22

Equal Opportunities Commission (1997) Mainstreaming gender equality in local government: A framework, Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission

European Commission (1996) Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all Community Policies and Activities - Communication from the Commission, COM(96) 67 final, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

European Commission (1997) A guide to gender impact assessment, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

European Commission (2000) Beijing +5: An overview of the European Union follow-up and preparations, Brussels: Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs

Independent Review Committee on Higher Education Pay and Conditions (1999) The Report of the Independent Review Committee on Higher Education Pay and Conditions, chaired by Sir Michael Bett, London: HMSO (The Bett Report)

Liff, S. and Wacjman, J. (1996) `"Sameness" & "Difference" Revisited: Which way forward for equal opportunities initiatives?' Journal of Management Studies, Vol.33, No. 1, pp. 79-94

Ministry of Research and Information Technology (1998) Women and Excellence in Research, Copenhagen: Statens Information

Osborn, M. (1998) ` Facts and figures still show little room at the top for women in science in most EU countries’ in European Commission (ed.) Women and Science: Proceedings of the conference, Brussels, April 28-29^th 1998, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

Osborn, M., Rees, T., Bosch, M., Hermann, C., Hilden, J., Mason, J., McLaren, A., Palomba, R., Peltonen, L., Vela, C., Weis, D., Wold, A. and Wennerås, C. (2000) Science Policies in the European Union: Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality. A report from the ETAN Network on Women and Science, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (available from national distribution outlets for Office for Official Publications of the European Communities and on the EC Research Directorate-General, Women and Science Sector website: http://www.cordis.lu/improving/src/hp-women.html)

Pardue et. al. Nature website on debates/women: http://helix.nature.com/debates/women

Pateman, C. (1988) The Sexual Contract Cambridge: Polity Press

Rees, T. (1998) Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union, London: Routledge

Schiebinger, L. (1999) Has feminism changed science? Cambs, Mass: Harvard University Press

Wennerås, C. and Wold, A. (1997) ‘Nepotism and sexism in peer review’, Nature Vol. 347, pp. 341-3

West, J. and Lyon, K. (1995) ‘The trouble with equal opportunities: the case of women academics’, Gender and Education, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 51-68

Wilson, T. (1999) cited in the Independent, 11/11/99

Mary Osborn, (Chair) Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen

Teresa Rees, (Rapporteur) School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, UK

Mineke Bosch, Centre for Gender and Diversity, University of Maastricht, The

Netherlands

Helga Ebeling, Head of Division for Women in Education and Research, Federal

Ministry of Education and Research, Bonn, Germany

Claudine Hermann, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France

Jytte Hilden, former Minister for Research and Information Technology, Denmark

Anne McLaren, Wellcome-CRC Institute of Cancer and Development Biology,

University of Cambridge, UK

Rosella Palomba, National Institute for Population Research, Rome, Italy

Leena Peltonen, School of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland, and UCLA

Carmen Vela, Ingenasa, Spain

Dominique Weis, University of Brussels, Belgium

Agnes Wold, Göteburg University, Sweden

Joan Mason, Association for Women in Science and Engineering, UK

Christine Wennerås, Göteburg University, Sweden

Paper prepared for the Mainstreaming Gender in European Public Policy

Workshop, University of Wisconsin-Madison

14-15^th October 2000

School of Social Sciences,

Cardiff University,

Glamorgan Building,

King Edward VII Avenue,

Cardiff CF10 3WT

Wales UK

Email: ReesTL@cardiff.ac.uk