Does bias in science hold women back?

FASEB Journal

Volumn 20, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 1284-1287

  Selby, Cecily Cannan ^a,b  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCIENTIST; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; ARTICLE; FEMALE; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

FEMALE; HUMANS; PREJUDICE; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES; WOMEN; WOMEN, WORKING;

EID: 33746531911     PISSN: 08926638     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1096/fj.06-0703ufm     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. MIT Report of the Committee of Women Faculty, MIT Faculty News Letter, 2000.
2. Selby, C.C., (2006) What Makes It Science/ A Modern Look at Scientific Inquiry. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching (In press)
3. Einstein, A. (1934) The World as I See It. Covici, Friede, New York. p. 290
4. Hubbard, R., (1976) Introductory Essay. In The Ideology Of/In the Natural Sciences (Rose, H. and Rose S. P. R., eds.) G. K. Hall, Boston. p. 363
5. Keller, E. F., (1975) Feminism and Science. In Sex and Scientific Inquiry. (Harding, S. and O'Barr, J. F., eds.) University of Chicago Press, Chicago. p. 233-246
6. Schiebinger, L. (1999) Has Feminism Changed Science? Harvard University Press, Cambridge
7. Selby, C.C. (2006) The Missing Person in Science: Inquiry Begins with I. New York Academy of Sciences Update, May 2006, p. 10-13
8. Valian, V. (1998) Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
9. American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1978) The Limits of Scientific Inquiry. Daedalus. 103
10. Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London
11. Holton, G. and Sonnert, G. (2001) Proposal: Developing and Testing a Quantitative Instrument on Normative Styles in Science and Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 14 (unpublished).
12. National Science Board (2004, 2006) Science and Engineering Indicators. National Science Foundation, Washington, D. C.
13. Fruton, J. F. (1990) Contrasts in Scientific Style: Research Groups in the Chemical and Biochemical Sciences. In Memoirs series, vol. 191 (Stewert, J., ed.) American Philosophical Library, Philadelphia. p. 473
14. Gladfelter, E. (2002) Agassiz's Legacy: Scientists' Reflections on the Value of Field Experience. Oxford University Press, New York. p. 437
15. Medawar, P. (1979) Advice to a Young Scientist. Harper and Rowe, New York
16. Holton, G. (1999) Different Perceptions of 'Good Science' and Their Effects on Careers. Annals, NY Acad. Sci. 869, 78-86
17. Georgi, H. (1999) A tentative theory of discrimination against women in science. In National Academy of Sciences, Who will do the science of the future? A symposium on careers of women in science. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.
18. Eisenhart, M.A.and Finkel, E. (1998) Women's Science: Learning and Succeeding From the Margins. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. p. 281
19. Seymour, E. and Hewitt, N. M. (1997) Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave Sciecne. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado
20. Medawar, P. (1974) The Hope of Progress. Wildwood House, London
21. Negroponte, N. (2003) Creating a Culture of Ideas. Technol. Rev. 106, 34-35
22. Popper, K., (1983) Realism and the Aim of Science: Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery. Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa, New Jersey