Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation - New Report Suggests Women in Science Still Make Less Money than Men

A new report concludes that women in science still make less money than their male counterparts, though that "gender wage gap" was smaller than that gap "compared to others in non-STEM occupations."  The report, "Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation," examined women working in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) jobs.  It was released by the Department of Commerce and is based on an American Community Survey conducted in 2009 by the Census Bureau.

The report concludes that:

• Women are underrepresented both in STEM jobs and STEM undergraduate degrees, and have been consistently over the last decade.
• The relatively few women who receive STEM degrees are concentrated in physical and life sciences,
  in contrast to men, who are concentrated primarily in engineering.
• Women who do receive STEM degrees are less likely to work in STEM jobs than their male counterparts, though they experience a smaller gender wage gap compared to others in non-STEM occupations.

The report suggests that the under-representation of women in the sciences may be a combination of a variety of factors. One factor is that these fields "may be less accommodating to people cycling in and out of the workforce to raise a family.  Other factors may be the lack of female role models, the different choices men and women typically make in response to incentives in STEM education and employment, and "perhaps
strong gender stereotypes discourage women from pursuing STEM education and STEM jobs."  The report cautions that it "does not - and cannot – explain why gender differences in STEM exist, it does aim to provide data and insight that will enable more informed policymaking."

The findings provide definitive evidence of a need to encourage and support women in STEM with a goal of gender parity. Given the high-quality, well-paying jobs in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, there is great opportunity for growth in STEM in support of American competitiveness, innovation and jobs of the future.

The full report can be downloaded as a PDF and read here.

The Economist Demands Funding for Innovation to be Restored

The Economist, America's foremost "authoritative insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science and technology," is calling for the reinstatement of funding for the US Patent Office.  In an online editorial the magazine argues that Congress' rush to reduce funding stifles the very innovations that they profess the desire to encourage.

So how come Congress and the White House have decided not merely to underfund a crucial cog in American’s innovation machine but actually to take away revenue it earns?

According to The Economist, there are "more than 700,000" backlogged patent applications.  And "on average, hopeful inventors wait for two years until their applications are even considered. Ten months more may go by before they learn whether they have been successful. While they wait for a decision, the American economy is losing out."

They argue that it makes no sense to further slow the process. 

The backlog extends the uncertainty that the process causes to businesses, applicants and competitors alike, slowing investment and constraining the economy. 

But it doesn't stop there.  Congress has also been considering other patent reforms.  For example, one reform would "let the Patent Office determine its own fees and keep all the money that it collects."  This could help it reduce the backlog of applications.  And more importantly, both stimulate more inventors to innovate and speed up the process of getting those innovations to the people who can use them (perhaps to make even more innovations).

The article can be read in full in the online edition of The Economist.

The New Congress is in Session with the GOP in Charge of the House - And Industry is Worried

Yes, you heard right.  With Republicans taking over control of the House of Representatives and gaining seats to increase their minority position in the Senate, it seems industry is more than a little worried about the outcome.  In short, industry likes regulatory certainty, even if it means more regulation.  Industry can plan and invest and make business decisions when they know what requirements they need to meet.  Uncertainty (ironically) is a big old wet blanket on innovation and investment.


So while industry isn't going to be out there begging for stronger regulations, they do see a quagmire of uncertainty as Republicans follow through on their promises to put their legislative efforts into oversight investigations rather than regulatory predictability. Areas of environmental regulation that could be in a state of unrest include climate change and TSCA reform.  With last year's attempt to pass cap-and-trade legislation effectively dead for at least the next two years, new House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton has said he will fight EPA rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions.  Fellow Republican John Shimkus, who lost his bid to chair the committee to Upton, has been assigned a key subcommittee chairmanship, from whence he has promised also to hold hearings on EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.  On the TSCA reform side, what seemed like a clear path forward in the last Congress appears now to be in a state of confusion as to how, or if, legislation to reform the now 35 year old law can be accomplished.

All of this has industry very very worried.  There is a general feeling among industry leaders that attacking the EPA, which was started by a Republican President by executive order, could be going too far and would not only create a potential for backlash but effectively stymie industry attempts to rebuild their way out of the deep recession.  Many in industry actually very much want to see government incentives for innovative new technologies, including green technologies.  And that could be severely debilitating to the utility and other energy-intensive industries.

What industry most wants now is not some partisan gamesmanship from the GOP but rather some regulatory certainty, and for climate change and EPA's greenhouse gas emissions rules, industry acknowledges that some control of CO2 emissions is both an environmental necessity and offers a regulatory certainty that will allow them to innovate.  Without some sort of certainty, industry will continue to sit out the recovery while China and other countries continue to pass by us in development of new renewable technologies.

Is TSCA chemical reform good for business?

It depends on who you ask.

If you ask the major NGOs, the answer is yes, of course it is good for business.  To begin with, TSCA reform would help protect both workers and the public from exposure to hazardous chemicals.  Safety is hard to prove as of now because for most chemicals there are very little actual health and safety data.  Reform would provide the data needed to more accurately assess risk.  Ensuring that all chemicals have data will also allow the public to gain more confidence that the system is protecting them.  While most people don't think about it all that often, any time there is a "chemical scare," either real or imagined, the public loses confidence in both the chemical industry and the regulatory apparatus.  And finally, TSCA reform would stimulate innovation as it would encourage the development of newer, greener chemicals.

The chemical industry is split on this point.  The manufacturing trade associations, especially those representing smaller and more specialty manufacturers, believe that increased regulatory burden is just too much for them to handle and that this will effect jobs.  Larger manufacturers tend to advocate both for and against positions, depending on the audience.  Greater requirements to provide data will obviously require more resources put toward testing and/or development of alternative data.  On the other hand, many manufacturers, especially those multinationals who do business in Europe, would already have had to develop those data to comply with the EU REACH program.  So they may find it a competitive advantage to "raise the bar" on US data requirements.  In any case they most likely have collaborations with more innovative firms to develop the next wave of more sustainable chemistries.

Behind all of this, of course, is the need for ensuring public health and safety and protection of the environment.

Will TSCA Chemical Reform Hinder - or Help - Development of New Chemicals?

As Congress and stakeholders debate whether the newly introduced Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 will get passed this year, the chemical industry is concerned that the more stringent standards "could actually hinder the development of new products that could be safer than existing ones now 'grandfathered'under the old law."

But is that true?

Let's be honest. The first reaction to any new regulations, no matter the topic, is always the same. It will "kill jobs" and "hinder innovation." It's a mantra that is mimed whenever a new regulation is proposed, and frankly, no longer has any credibility. On the other hand, some regulations could, in fact, inhibit innovation. So which is it?

In looking at the history of innovation you see a mixed bag. But the bottom line is that regulation actually enhances innovation more than not. Why? Simply put, why come up with a new chemical that would make your old chemical obsolete when the old chemical is making you lots of money? Basic chemicals that were developed years ago have the advantages of:

1) a robust and mature market, where the chemical has been found to be useful in a variety of different product types,

2) established comfort zones, where customers are comfortable using your chemical in their products because they know they work, already have supply chains set up, and have streamlined operations to minimize costs and maximize profit margins,

3) being inexpensive, that is, relative to more recently developed chemicals that are still paying for substantial R&D costs, marketing efforts to get into new products, and no track record.

So given that there are essentially no costs to continuing to sell the old chemical, why spend lots of money developing a chemical that does the same thing (though perhaps not as well) except require you to convince current customers to switch to something more expensive? It just doesn't make economic sense.

Unless there is a cost to the old chemical. Of course, there is a cost, but that cost is "hidden" in the sense that any health or environmental costs are spread around to society as a whole (unless there is a huge spill, such as the current Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf). And how does one capture the actual cost of proving safety of chemicals (i.e., rather than wait until after the fact)? By requiring testing up front. So the health and environmental costs, if there are any, will be included in the costs of the manufacturer. If those costs are excessive, for example if the chemical is a substance of very high concern, a PBT, a carcinogen, mutagen or reproductive toxicant, then the company now has incentive to develop newer, safer, more innovative chemicals.

It's just basic free market economics. And all one has to do is look at what happens after some egregious regulation is passed that will "kill jobs" and "inhibit innovation." The ingenuity of companies is released and new products come on the market, usually quite quickly. Jobs are always being created in emerging technology areas while more mature technologies have been giving up jobs to overseas sourcing for decades.

So it is likely that the Safe Chemicals Act will encourage the funding and development of new, safer chemicals. Emergent and innovative companies and chemicals that are currently unable to break into established markets will have a better chance of competing. Requiring safety data on all chemicals, both existing and new, will ensure that dangerous old chemicals are not replaced with dangerous new chemicals.

And the poor guy who has the "next best thing" but can't get his foot in the door because no one wants to lose their biggest suppliers will finally get a seat at the table.

Green Businesses Now Generate More Revenue Than the Aerospace and Defense Sectors Combined

That's right. It pays to be green. According to a story by Fiona Harvey published in the September 18, 2009 Financial Times (the London version of the Wall Street Journal), "[b]usinesses selling low-carbon goods and services now generate more revenue than the aerospace and defence sectors combined, making the sector one of the new linchpins of the global economy."

And that global turnover reached $534bn for "companies in the climate change sector - including renewable-power generators, nuclear, energy management, water and waste companies," versus about $530bn total for the other two sectors. And the numbers are increasing at rates far beyond the initial predictions, which hadn't figured on reaching this level until 2050.

So it seems the smart and innovative money is on the low carbon industry. Guess those climate change denialists are going to lose out on the big bucks.

Read Fiona Harvey's full article here.