Women who contribute to scientific research are underrepresented compared to their male colleagues in specialized publications, shows a study published Wednesday in Nature.

And this discrimination weighs heavily on the professional future of women.

On paper, women publish and patent less research than men.

A finding suggesting lower female productivity, for reasons as varied as maternity or the occupation of a subordinate position in the laboratory... But this hypothesis has been challenged by recent research.

History is replete with examples of women scientists whose pivotal role has been downplayed or even ignored.

Like the discovery of the helical structure of DNA by the British physico-chemist Rosalind Franklin, which will contribute to the Nobel of two other researchers.

Or that of the French doctor Marthe Gautier, co-discoverer of trisomy 21, but relegated to second place in the publication of research results.

For the first time, a team, led by Professor Julia I. Lane, an economist at New York University, has managed to quantify this phenomenon: "We have been able to establish how many women are not mentioned in scientific publications" , she told AFP.

40,000 scientific articles

For this, the researchers have compiled the contribution to almost 40,000 scientific articles and more than 7,000 patent applications, from almost 10,000 research teams with a total of more than 120,000 members, depending on twenty American universities and a few dozen campuses, all over four years.

While women accounted for almost half of the workforce considered (48%), they were barely a third (34%) to see their contribution recognized in articles and patents.

The conclusion is that a woman is 13% less likely than a man to be named in a scientific article to which she has contributed.

"It's a widespread phenomenon, with a wide and persistent gender treatment gap, observable across all disciplines and at all levels of responsibility," comments study co-author Raviv Murciano-Goroff. professor of economics at Boston University.

Moreover, this difference in treatment is "stronger when it comes to being designated as co-inventor of a patent coming out of the laboratory, and also stronger for high-impact studies", that is to say say the most important, adds Prof. Murciano-Goroff.

"Worst moment of my career"

The consequences go far beyond an ego wound for those who are deprived of recognition, underline the authors of the study.

"In these disciplines, if people don't have recognition or don't see a positive outcome for their career, they are inclined to give up," according to Prof. Lane.

"Young graduates see that they have less recognition than young graduates, and that this is also the case for senior researchers".

Part of the study, called qualitative, collected bitter testimonies from women thus discriminated against: "It was one of the worst moments of my professional career", confides one of them.

Not being cited as an author "can really change someone's career", according to Prof. Murciano-Goroff, who remarks in this regard that one of the main grievances of the scientists interviewed is the absence of clear and objective criteria governing the signature of a scientific article.

The authors of the study thus consider it essential, within universities and research funding agencies, to establish recommendations allowing the contribution of the researchers of a laboratory to be recognized at their true value.

"Researchers are not trained in management, they are trained to do science", remarks Prof. Lane.

It is therefore "crucial", according to her, "to train scientists to manage a group, particularly if it is varied".

All this to avoid discouraging future Rosalind Franklin or Marthe Gautier.

© 2022 AFP