TABLE 1

Science Doctorate recipients US citizens/permanent resident 1973–76 by major field and sex.

The figures in Table 1 are rather clear in showing that although the overall percentage of doctoral degrees awarded to women in the period of 1973-76 is 11.1 percent there is extreme variation from a low of 1.5 percent in engineering to 23 percent for biological science. These figures are straightforward and certainly demonstrate unequivocally that females obtain doctoral degrees in basic science and engineering significantly less frequently than males. However, I ask you to look at these figures in another manner. If one assumes that the U.S. population of 220,000,000 is 52 percent female and 48 percent male one can calculate that during the 4 year period 1973-76 the proportion of males in the entire U.S. male population receiving doctoral degrees was one out of every 3,000 males while only one out of every 30,000 females received a doctoral degree during this same period. Thus, the likelihood that an American male will receive a doctoral degree in basic sciences is 10 times greater than the likelihood that a U.S. female will receive a doctoral degree in science. I will return to this point later, however, I want now to present you data regarding minorities.

Table 2 is a similar display of data of doctoral recipients, however, the breakdown of the data is by racial/ethnic group rather than sex.

TABLE 2

Basic Science Doctorate Recipients U.S. citizens/permanent resident: 1973–76 by Major Field, Racial/Ethnic group.

The data in Table 2 is clear although it does require some explanation. First, a significant number of individuals completing the NRC questionnaire did not give information about their race/ethnic group. Second, the figures cited for Native Americans appear to be spurious and those of us concerned with the needs of Native Americans for higher education feel that these figures may be exaggerated by a factor of 4 or even by a factor of 5. Rayna Green from Dartmouth who did extensive study on this topic for the American Association for Advancement of Science feels that in the U.S. there are perhaps 50 Native Americans with the doctorate in the basic sciences and she personally know over 30 of them. I will not be able to speak at any length about the underdevelopment of Native Americans, primarily out of my ignorance. The figures presented for Asian Americans are striking because of their comparatively large size. These figures are accurate but may be slightly misleading in that major American universities do not appear to employ Asian doctorates in basic sciences at anywhere near the level presented here. Careful analysis should be given to my claim that the figures for Asians are accurate but misleading. I have encouraged several Asian American scientists to do so. My point here is that although Asian/Americans may be considered as

overachievers in so far as receipt of a doctoral degree is concerned, they may not be overachievers insofar as employment as faculty in major universities. I will try to develop my concern with employment patterns by major universities shortly. I ask you once again to look at these data as proportions of the subgroup population rather than as just numbers. In Table 3 you can see what these proportions are.

TABLE 3

Basic Science Doctoral Recipients in 1973–76 by Radical/Ethnic Group.

This table reveals that Blacks are 10 times less likely to obtain a degree in basic science than are Whites, while Chicanos and Puerto Ricans are 7 times less likely to obtain a degree than are Whites. This difference of one order of magnitude is not trivial, it is in fact highly significant and may even represent the data in somewhat favorable terms. I say somewhat favorable since the employment rate of minority doctoral recipients in basic science in major universities is not one order of magnitude less than the employment rate of Whites by these institutions. I emphasize major universities since these are the institutions which have the resources and facilities which permit basic research to flourish. Moreover it is at such institutions that maximal development would be likely to occur. In addition such major universities are also the recipients of more federal and private moneys devoted to the support of scientific research. I am not aware of any careful study of employment patterns of major universities. I do know that at my own campus, which is a part of the prestigious University of California system, over 50 percent of the faculty in basic sciences received their doctoral degrees from only nine universities. These nine universities are UC Berkeley, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, UC San Diego, Columbia, MIT, UCLA and Michigan. In addition I understand that in practice these leading universities recruit for faculty almost exclusively from a pool of 20 select universities. I contend that not only do minority individuals have less likelihood of obtaining a doctoral degree in basic science than do whites, their likelihood of obtaining employment at a leading university is very low unless they obtain a Ph. D. or do postdoctoral work at one of the major research universities.

I do not mean to suggest that it is only the country's most prestigious universities that have underrepresentation of minorities on their faculties. In fact my own alma mater the University of Arizona-has no Chicanos as regular ladder faculty in the biological or chemical sciences. This is true in spite of the fact that the University of Arizona sits in a major population center of MexicanAmericans.

A further example of the underutilization of minority doctorates is clear when one examines a major university in the Los Angeles area. This institution with over 400 ladder-rank faculty in basic sciences and engineering has only 1 Chicano (actually a Chicana) as part of these 400 science faculty. (This individual is one of the pool of 202 Chicano doctoral recipients of 1973-76 reported above). Thus at this major university, which is within 12 miles of a Chicano population of almost 2 million, only one member of this minority group has been recruited into the basic science faculty of the university.

Another example of underdevelopment of minorities and women in science was made clear to me recently. Last month I spent 5 days with 160 scientists discussing the most recent addvances in scientific understanding of physical and biological properties of the world's oceans. The meeting was highly productive in the exchange of ideas and the stimulation of further research. Of the 160 individuals at this meeting I was the only domestic minority individual present and only 4 of the participants were women. I acknowledge readily this low participation by women and minorities represents the reality of available minorities and women who are expert in this area of science. However, I do not

acknowledge that this small number represets the true potential contribution of women and minorities to the study of the world's oceans.

This data describing underrepresentation and underutilization must have its roots in the underdevelopment of minorities and women. If we have human resources which are not permitted to grow and evolve then we must expect that these latent or underexpressed resources will of necessity be underrepresented and underutilized. The recognition of the need for programs which will help to solve the problem of underdevelopment has led to the implementation of a number of initiatives. A few of these initiatives have been successful. I will now discuss several of these and in closing I will propose several new initiatives which I urge the subcommittee to consider.

Foremost among the existing programs are the well-established NIH Minority Biomedical Support Program and the recently initiated NSF program of Resource Centers in Science and Engineering. The NIH program has 75 foci of activity nationally, while the NSF program has two centers operative at present, one in Atlanta, the other in Albuquerque. Both of these NSF centers sponsor large and comprehensive programs that are well integrated into the entire local academic system from the grade school level to the graduate and postdoctoral level. This integration involves supplemental instruction in all the basic science disciplines for some pre-college minority students as well as support for the research development of minority faculty. I am impressed with all aspects of the Atlanta Resource Center but particularly so with its highly successful Saturday Academy. I believe you are all aware that the Saturday Academy offers supplemental supportive instruction in basic science and stimulation for further science study to some pre-high school minority youngsters in Atlanta. I am also impressed with the Albuquerque center. A strong point in the New Mexico center is the active cooperation in science instruction between 2-year and 4-year institutions. As 1 have mentioned earlier presently only 2 Resource Centers for Science and Engineering exist; more are needed. I realize that more are planned, however, their formation is proceeding too slowly for me. I am anxious to have more centers because I am convinced that an integrated program which combines pre-college with college education stands the best chance of developing the scientific talents of minority youngsters.

NIH's Minority Biomedical Support Program has been successful for a long enough period to give me confidence that its impact will be long-lasting. Of course, its impact has been primarily in biological and health related areas. I understand that NIH has plans to expand this program into community colleges. I applaud this initiative, however, I urge NIH to make sure that the programs at 2-year institutions work to bring science instruction and curricula of such 2year colleges into close congruency with science programs at nearby 4-year institutions. Without close articulation between institutions students are frequently disadvantaged when transferring to a 4-year college.

The underdevelopment of women as science resources may actually be the result of 2 factors. One factor can be considered the broader ill-understood matter of women's roles in modern society while the second factor is the better understood problem of inadequate educational opportunity for women. Let me discuss the second factor first since it appears to have a ready solution.

Many educators now believe that inadequately developed academic strengths in mathematics serve to "filter" women out of science educational programs and hence out of science careers. Since this problem is recognized and acknowledged, a number of programs are operative across the country to try to solve it. Au example of a highly successful program is one offered at the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley. The program is funded by the Office of Education through Title IV and it focuses on educating already employed teachers through 5-day long workshops at the Hall of Science. An important component of the program is the requirement that prior to attending the workshop participating teachers establish through their own research the status of young women in mathematics programs in the given school district. Once teachers develop their own knowledge in this they are more easily able to deal effectively with math avoidance problems and that girls demonstrate and they recognize the need to develop expanded intellectual aspirations in their bright female students. The coordinator of the program, Dr. Nancy Kreinberg, hopes to expand the program to include parent education. As Dr. Kreinberg states "The only way to learn mathematics is to do it". Thus she insists that participating teachers reestablish their strengths in mathematics. The program promises to be a model that can be transported throughout the country and also promises to contribute to removing the "filter" that has kept more women out of science.

Earlier I said that there may be a broader question that operates in the underdevelopment of women as science resources which relates to the role of women in society. I am not certain that such a question exists, moreover if it does exist, it may not be the responsibility of women to develop the answer. This matter was discussed recently by Dr. Phillip Handler, President of the National Academy of Sciences, in a conference at NSF. Using Sweden as an example, Dr. Handler described that although equal educational opportunity for women has been in force in Sweden for a longer time than in the U.S., representation problems still exist. He states and I quote "After equal formal education and equal opportunity in taking the first steps up the employment ladder, some monstrous barrier seems to be operative. Very few women in Sweden rise to positions of authority in science". It may be that a societal barrier exists to keep women underdeveloped in science, however, that barrier may be of men's creation and until men assist in removing completely the blocking filter I mentioned above it may not be possible to consider effectively the barrier referred to by Dr. Handler..

I have mentioned three successful programs, let me add a few proposed solutions. My top prority would be given to trying to make more effective the academic linkages between the 2 year community colleges and 4 year institutions. If these linkages were strengthened through faculty interactions I feel certain that they would have real stability. What I propose is that NSF and NIH initiate immediately a supplemental grant program as follows:

Faculty at 4 year institutions having NSF or NIH funded research grants would be given the opportunity to apply for a 2 or 3 year grant supplement to obtain summer support for the participation in the funded research project of one Community College science faculty member and a Community College female or minority student. Of course the Community College faculty member included in the project would be expected to contribute meaningfully to the research project in question. I would also insist that the sponsoring 4-year institution have a proven track record of educating and graduating minority and women students in science.

My second priority would be further development and replication of the Saturday Academy program. The Atlanta model uses the Saturday Academy as an important component of the Research Center for Science and Engineering. However, I see the Saturday Academy as a potentially independent program which could be implemented widely throughout the country. Institutions with a proven experience in successfully educating minority science students would be then eligible to apply. As an inducement for institutions to apply I would recommend that each successful applicant institution would receive two full year graduate fellowships to support minority graduate students enrolled at their universities.

A third priority would be a faculty development program targeted for the support of young women and minority science faculty who although non-tenured, are on a tenure track appointment at colleges and universities. Only faculty in their 3rd or 4th year of employment who have demonstrated that their research development has suffered, because of unusual academic demands on their time would be eligible. These competitive fellowships should be funded for 1 year and should include research support and travel.

By continuing and expanding support of the successful program models described above and by considering minor additions such as the Saturday Academy and Faculty development I am convinced that we can look forward to developing women and minorities in science so that their strengths are adequately used as resources of our society.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that although I refer to our society repeatedly in my testimony I do not mean to imply that the programs I support to improve the development of our women and minorities in science are so-called "social welfare" programs or "make work" programs. I state most clearly that it is to the benefit of science as a whole to develop all of our human reservoirs of scientific talents be these talents in majority males, minorities or women. I stand ready to answer any questions or to develop my points more clearly as you desire. Thank you.

Mr. PEASE. Thank you very much, Dr. Cota-Robles. We appreciate that testimony. It is quite obvious you spent a great deal of time preparing it.

Would you differentiate the problems of women in science, blacks in science, Hispanics in science? Are there significant differences in the kinds of problems these groups have, differences more significant than similarities?

Dr. COTA-ROBLES. I think the similarities are great, but there are some marked differences.

I think that the similarities are frequently the tracking out of mathematics and, therefore, tracking out of science.

Thus women face a problem that minorities face as well.

However, I think there is one problem that minorities face specifically and that is repeated defeat. I don't think women have necessarily faced that same type of repeated defeat that minorities have faced. In addition for minorities the situation is even more difficult because there are so very few minority scientists that minority students, can identify with. I don't know if the concept a role model is really valid.

Mr. PEASE. You made a statement in your testimony that "Today a Ph. D. degree is required of virtually every individual who seeks the opportunity to perform original research within an institutional setting."

Does that disturb you as an educator and as a member of the National Science Board, that our higher education is so rigidly structured that you can make that statement?

Dr. COTA-ROBLES. It doesn't really disturb me since I recognize that the Ph. D. is two things.

For one thing, it is a degree that is a certificate on paper. However, the other thing the Ph. D. means is a validation of the ability to ask questions of nature, and to try to obtain answers by mobilizing complex methods and techniques, thus I am not disturbed.

Mr. PEASE. We were talking earlier about the need in our country for scientific literacy for general citizenship. Your remarks today about the handicaps of minorities and women were directed primarily to the small numbers who go into science itself. Do you see a parallel problem insofar as general scientific literacy is concerned among women and minorities?

Dr. COTA-ROBLES. Absolutely; and it is magnified because many are really filtered out of science so very early.

Mr. PEASE. Mr. Brown has a question.

Mr. BROWN. Dr. Cota-Robles, I think the statistics that you have given with regard to the utilization of women and minorities in science. are startling to say the least. I was aware that there were discrepancies, but the magnitude of these discrepancies boggles the imagination, you might say.