Volume 48, Number 3, Fall 1999

LETTERS

[Charles Petit's] attempt to find a lighthearted answer to why there are now more female than male science writers begs several important questions. (1) Are editors and publishers looking to cut costs? (2) Are they doing this by paying women less than men (yeah, I know about all promises about equal pay, but who's kidding whom?); (3) As the money goes down, will the respect accorded science writing drop as well?

This is not a trivial concern: A profession marginalized as "women's work," is, well, marginalized. Need proof? Ask any primary and secondary school teacher.

Carol Ann Rinzler
Author of Nutrition for Dummies

Attempt? My attempt to do a lighthearted piece? It WAS lighthearted. Did you find it not the least bit funny? Several people have found it amusing. I wrote it with a light heart. I went for laughs and chuckles because I am not sure how else to tackle it, particularly in NASW's own publication. I don't believe a preponderance of women is a problem, and to write a piece whose subtext is that the shift toward women reflects a diminution of science writing would insult a lot of my friends and many of NASW's new members. I did not want to do that, and do not believe that the quality of science writing is less when women do it. But you ask good questions. My answers are just guesses. Yes, editors and publishers always want to cut costs. I doubt that editors and publishers are hiring women consciously as a cost-cutting tactic. However, it may be that if in their tightfistedness they don't offer competitive salaries, they may get more women than men willing to accept them (given the diminishing but persistent bias generally against women striving for the upper pay scales). So, the result would be the same.

As for marginalization, it's hard to say. Science writing has always been marginal, in the greater journalism world. It is possible that, as more women get into journalism generally, they may find themselves shunted into the less glamorous beats including science writing. The availability of more women could mean marginal beats would disproportionately fill with women.

This is pure speculation, but it's possible. Among questions to ask is whether other beats are seeing similar shifts. Finally, perhaps journalism itself, particularly print journalism, is becoming economically more marginal, and that may produce a shift in the sex ratios in the workplace.

Here's my hypothesis: A great number of the young women entering science writing have some scientific training. We may be seeing the effect of bias within science against women. It would not have to be much for the trickle of refugees from science into science writing to be mostly women. Our daughter is a primary school teacher. I know how poorly paid members of that profession are compared to the training and responsibility school administrators expect of them.

Thanks for the note, and for seeing that this issue is worth more than a few gags. That is exactly the kind of response I hoped to inspire-I hadn't seen this phenomenon recognized anywhere else. My intent was to write a piece whose lasting message was, "isn't THIS interesting,'' and let the discussion flow from there.

Charles Petit
US News & World Report