All News & Events
Increase Your Networking Savvy - Skills to Move Your Career from “Good to Great” - May 23, 2007
The Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology (SCWIST) is proud to present the 3rd Personal and Professional Development workshop for members of 2007!
Increase Your Networking Savvy
*How do you introduce yourself to someone at a reception?
*Do you have a quick answer when someone asks you “what do you do”?
*How do you shake hands when you’re holding a plate and a wine glass?
Marlene Delanghe will direct us through the awkwardness of approaching strangers, and will give us tools to apply at our next meeting, conference, or reception.
Format of the evening:
*Networking Skills Presentation
*Art Gallery Reception to Practice Skills
*Prizes for Networking Savvy
Who can attend? This workshop is open to all who have pre-registered.
Do I have to be a SCWIST member? SCWIST encourages all members and non-members, students and professional women to attend.
When? Wednesday May 23rd 2007 6:30-9:30
Where? Bjornson-Kajiwara Gallery, 1727 West Third Ave, Vancouver
Cost? $15/SCWIST student/unemployed member, $40/SCWIST professional member and $60/non-member
How do I register? Register online
Need more information? Contact Us
Marlene Delanghe is Principle of Career Solutions [url=http://www.career-solutions.ca]http://www.career-solutions.ca[/url], a Human Resources Consulting and Career Coaching Firm that has been in operation since 1989. The firm specialises in the retention and development of organisational talent with recent clients that include Deloitte Touche LLP, Edge Training and Consulting Ltd., Service Canada, Ministry of Forests, Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Marlene has also assisted numerous professionals achieve their career goals including individuals from some of Canada’s top companies. In addition to her consulting practice, she assists graduate students at UBC Career Services to plan their futures.
Her credentials include a Master’s degree in Psychology and an undergraduate degree in Business Administration. She is a member of the BC Human Resource Management Association and serves on the Steering Committee of the Minerva Foundation.
BrownBag Series - May 2007 - Impact of increase of women in scientific research - Summary
Groups of women discuss provocative topics at locations in academia and industry throughout BC. The May topic is: What would the impact be on research direction of more women in science?
Locations: NRC and UBC
By Michelle La Haye
Introduction
Considering last month’s topic (Hard science doesn’t come naturally to women) this is a nice way to round up the year of Brown Bag Lunch discussions. Something which comes to mind immediately from this topic is the particular impact women can have on health research. As an example, it was not until a woman, Dr. Bernadine Healy, became director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) that a particular major change in clinical studies was achieved. In 1991 the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) was created to investigate hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. Prior to 1991, studies were severely lacking in that area. In fact, even before the studies were completed it turned out that one of the widely accepted hormone replacement treatments was actually to the detriment of women’s health by increasing the risk of breast cancer, heart attacks, strokes and clots [1]. In addition to establishing the WHI, during her tenure at NIH, Dr. Healy established a policy where funding for clinical trials was only granted to those that included both men and women when what was being studied affected both. According to her colleagues at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Healy was “someone who often challenged conventional wisdom and created new directions in research” [2]. This is a prime example of how women can affect the direction of research.
Because when they take on [leadership] roles, they often bring a fresh approach to situations that have persisted for years. From their particular vantage as women, they question received wisdom, look at familiar ideas from new angles, and sometimes ask if there’s not a better way to do things. [3]
– Linda Babcock and Sara LascheverIt is inarguable that women bring different perspectives, challenges and desires to any environment, whether it be research, high tech or family. An alternative view on research can only bring about new ideas which will lead to more and better research. The discussions at NRC and UBC this month focused around these ideas. To borrow a quotation from the group at NRC, “The process of knowledge production is becoming more reflexive and affects at the deepest levels of what shall count as “good science” Gibbons Michael et al 1994.
[1] NHLBI Stops Trial of Estrogen Plus Progestin Due to Increased Breast Cancer Risk, Lack of Overall Benefit, NIH News release, July 2002, http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/whi/pr_02-7-9.pdf.
[2] Biography Dr. Bernadine Healy, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/changingthefaceofmedicine/physicians/biography_145.html
[3] L. Babcock, S. Laschever, “Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide”, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 2003.
Summaries
NRC
At NRC the discussion started by tackling the issue straight on: examining the difference between SEX, as the biological differences between male and female compared to GENDER, as the societal construct of the difference in the roles for the male and female members of society. They said that:
– A homogenous society or group will have more narrow ideas of research rather than a diverse group.They discussed the following question, if Gender does have an impact, what type of impact do women have in shaping research directions?
– Equality is not about just about numbers (50/50) but about giving equal opportunities for both genders to lead the research. More focus on the individual rather than the sex/gender of the person.And would this shaping be beneficial or detrimental to world science research?
– Men and women are different and because of that there may be different impacts in research if there were more women, different but not necessarily bad.They summarised their discussion with the following: “the play of diversity in research, including diversity in gender, race, etc., is becoming more and more a necessity when pursuing excellence in current and future project demands.”
UBC
The discussion at UBC came from a different angle, looking at the impact of women researchers on the environment research is performed in and the feel of doing research. They said that changes would come in the form of:
– More accommodating work schedules allowing for family and childcare concerns – More networking and collaborating leading to new areas of research and new ideas – A stronger focus on topics related to women – An acceptance of women as researchers without labeling them as bossy or bitchy when they are successfulParticipants felt that when more women are in research and in higher positions, change will be easier to facilitate and will positively impact everyone.
Canadian scientists help discover molecular oxygen in space
WATERLOO, Ont. (CP) – Outer space may not be a black void after all.
A team of scientists from Canada and other countries have discovered molecular oxygen in interstellar space. The team of Canadian, Swedish, French and Finnish researchers has been seeking the elusive oxygen molecule with an orbiting space observatory.
Michel Fich, a University of Waterloo professor of physics and astronomy, says the molecule was found in a dense gas cloud in the constellation of Ophiuchus, about 500 light years away.
Astrochemists have long argued that the basic molecules of life – water and oxygen – are abundant in the denser regions of the interstellar medium.
The Canadian members of the team include Fich, Sun Kwok and Rene Plume of the University of Calgary, Christine Wilson of Hamilton’s McMaster University, and George Mitchell of Saint Mary’s University in Halifax.
The team’s findings are reported in the current issue of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
Discussion Panel - Women In Digital Media - It’s not just a guy thing! - May 15, 2007
There are only 10 Women CEO’s of Fortune 500 firms and even fewer involved in the technology sector. In an industry that can hardly boast of having only 30% of females make up it’s workforce we are left begging the questions… Why? Why? and Why?
Join our distinguished panel as they discuss their unique perspectives on working in the dynamic sector of Digital Media. What drew them to the industry? What opportunities and barriers they’ve encountered in fostering their careers? What insights do they have to make this industry more appealing to women?
Stay after the discussion panel for some prime networking. Light snack provided to stave off those afternoon grumblies.
Tuesday May 15th
Doors at 4:00 PM
Panel Discussion at 4:30 PM
Networking until 7:00 PM
Our Host:
Bell Canada
6th floor, 550 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC
Please note that the office tower elevators are locked off at 5:00 PM so late arrivals post 5:00 PM are not possible to accomodate at this time. Sorry.
Our Panel:
Kiana Mohseni – Producer at Electronic Arts
Emma Payne – Founder and President of At Large Media Ltd
Alissa Antle – Assistant Professor, School of Interactive Arts & Technology at SFU
Event Organized by: New Media BC, Wired Woman and SCWIST
Registration Deadline: May 14, 2007
Registration Details: Please use on our online registration system to reserve your seat today by following the link found here.
Thank you SCWIST volunteers and sponsors!
In honour of National Volunteer Week, on April 18th we hosted our first annual Volunteer Apreciation Night. Fifteen women attended and a good time was had by all.
A special thanks to the following retailers for donating door prizes:
Cineplex Odeon
Festival Cinemas
Plum
Powerex
Starbucks
T Tearoom
Urban Fare
Vancouver Aquarium
Vancouver Art Gallery
SCWIST member Karen Kavanagh co-publishes world’s tiniest book
Nanoscientists Li Yang and Karen Kavanagh from Simon Fraser University, together with independent Vancouver publisher Robert Chaplin and author Malcolm Douglas Chaplin, presented their minimasterpiece this month: Teeny Ted from Turnip Town. At 0.07 by 0.10 millimetres, it’s so small you’d need an electron microscope to read it. At thirty pages, it’s still pretty substantial for a dream book about a turnip tale. Small, but powerful, this book has made headlines around the world.
SCWIST Newsletter - April 2007
Read the latest edition of SCWIST News: SCWIST-News-2007-April.pdf
BrownBag Series - April 2007 - Hard science doesn’t come naturally to women - Summary
Groups of women discuss provocative topics at locations in academia and industry throughout BC. The April topic is: Hard science doesn’t come naturally to women – Discuss.
While trying to put together this month’s summary, an article I had read about Carnegie Mellon’s new approach to attracting students, in particular women, to the computing science program, kept coming back to me. In the end I couldn’t find the original article, however I found another one with a particular quote that struck me. It relates well to this question of whether women are suited to “hard science”.
The article talks about how Carnegie Mellon noticed a decrease in enrolment in their computer science program and decided to make changes in order to attract new students. The associate dean for undergraduate science in the school of computing science, Allan Fisher, was instrumental in shaping many of the changes at Carnegie Mellon. One of his comments cited in the article struck me as one of many pointers as to why it may be perceived that women are not suited to hard science. His comment is as follows:
Women will experience a problem or not understand something and they will blame themselves. Men will experience a problem, not understand something, and they will blame you. The women are far more likely to conclude that they just don’t have what it takes, lose interest and disappear.
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990820compwomen4.asp
This sounds very much to me like a self-realising scenario. If women conclude they “don’t have what it takes”, i.e. “hard science doesn’t come naturally to women,” then they will not pursue this hard science and the numbers will continue to support the false idea that women don’t have what it takes, exactly the attitude that women in science and technology-related fields all over the world are fighting to counter.
This month there were discussions at BC Hydro, NRC, Douglas College and SFU. One of the common themes from the various locations was that women still take on more family responsibilities and therefore don’t have the time to pursue “hard science” as much as men. My favourite comment was that women went into science fields based on not conforming to societal expectations. (This is something I like to do frequently!)
Finally this quote from NRC covers the most important aspect of women in science and technology; we can all do more.
The consensus was that hard sciences are equally difficult to women and men but that there are other external factors that influence a woman’s decision to enter the field of hard science. We can all do more to encourage and support girls and women to study the sciences.
BC Hydro
- attendees: 9
Factors that influence choosing science as field of study:
• Innate ability
• Family expectations
• Teacher’s viewpoint
• Societal trends
• Role models
The influencing factors came mostly during middle school or high school. These included both positive influences from role models as well as negative ones from society.
NRC
- attendees: 20
Societal expectations of women:
• Most participants agreed that women feel the pressure to juggle their own desires with what society expects of them.
• Cultural differences play a role. Some cultures are more accepting of women in non-traditional roles whereas others consider a woman’s place to be in the home.
Career choices:
• Women make some career choices based on family considerations rather than just interest or ability.
• Fewer women employed or studying hard sciences should not be interpreted as support for the argument that hard sciences do not come easily to women.
External pressures:
• A lack of sufficient day care can influence a woman to opt out of studying or working in hard sciences. Again, this has nothing to do with ability.
Research on the topic:
• Studies have been done that show the calibre of women who are at the top levels of academia or research is higher than that of men.
• It was suggested that this was perhaps because it is only the “top notch” ones who make it past the obstacles or who decide to sacrifice other areas of their lives to focus on a career in the “hard sciences”.
Douglas College
- attendees: 2
1. They dispute the argument that hard science doesn’t come naturally to women.
2. And they argue that even if hard sciences do not come as easily to women as it does to men, this should not be a basis for discrimination.
SFU
- attendees: 7
• According to a researcher at SFU, Dr. Doreen Kimura, there are physical differences in the brains of women and men which influence the way that each think/function. However, this doesn’t imply that hard science is more difficult for women.
• Suppose men and women think differently or approach hard science differently. Who is to say that the way women think or do things is wrong? The framework for hard science has been established by men, so women may be at a disadvantage but that only means that hard science needs women’s perspectives even more.
• The book The Mind has no Sex, argues that the links sociologists make between the structure of the brain and how women and men do things differently is actually very weak. And that those arguments if evaluated using “hard science” would probably never be used as conclusive.
UBC creates Research Fund in name of honorary SCWIST member Dr. Martha Piper
Martha Piper Research Fund
At his installation, UBC President Stephen Toope announced the establishment of the Martha Piper Research Fund to provide seed funding for collaborative research projects with an emphasis on interdisciplinary international activities. A $5M portion of the Trek Endowment has been dedicated for this purpose for five years which will provide $250,000 per year to be awarded in semi-annual competitions to UBC faculty. The objective of this program is to strengthen UBC research by supporting the creation of teams of talented researchers in two or more disciplines, as well as to establish new international links. Awards should enable researchers in the NSERC, CIHR and SSHRC communities to collaborate and integrate their expertise and research activities within Canada and/or with international partners.
Guidelines and Conditions
• Teams of two or more individuals may apply; one applicant must be identified as the Principal Investigator for purposes of administrating the grant if awarded.
• Applications are expected to be interdisciplinary in approach. For instance, teams containing members holding funding from more than one of the tri-council sources would be appropriate. International links are encouraged.
• Teams may hold only one Fund award in the first five years of the program.
• Applications must request between $8K and $25K
• Term: 18 months maximum
• Output: the major goal of the program is to develop new research areas and build interdisciplinary capability that will lead to the award of major funding such as a tri-council award or possibly a Peter Wall Institute Major Thematic Grant for ongoing aspects of the project.
• The project cannot overlap significantly with projects funded from other sources. In particular, awards may not be held from the Hampton and Martha Piper Research Funds at the same time.
• Application forms will be available shortly but the proposal narrative should not exceed 3 pages and should include a (maximum half-page) project summary and key references. In addition a budget and a summary of research funding held over the last five years or applied for at the date of application will need to be included as well as an up-to-date c.v. of 5-7 pages in a tri-council format.
• Reporting: At the completion of the term of the award a final report of up to 5 pages must be submitted. A submitted tri-council or similar external grant application or, if appropriate, a Letter of Intent to the Peter Wall Institute for a Major Thematic Grant based on the work performed with support from the Martha Piper Research Fund may be substituted for the Final Report.
DEADLINES FOR APPLICATIONS ARE APRIL 15 AND OCTOBER 1 ANNUALLY FROM APRIL 2007 THROUGH OCTOBER 2011. Applications for the April 15, 2007 competition should be sent electronically to the .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Results will be announced no later than May 15, 2007. Expenses incurred in the period April 1, 2007 – September 30, 2008 will be eligible to be charged against the Fund.
Female scientists at UBC involved in breakthrough
Researchers at the University of B.C.’s Biomedical Research Centre including student Marcia Graves and Dr. Julie Nielsen, have identified the protein that enables breast cancer cells to spread to different parts of the body. That means, they say, that pharmaceutical companies will now have a specific target to go after when they develop new drugs to fight the disease.
“We believe we’ve found a new important culprit in metastatic breast cancer, which opens up an entirely new avenue of cancer research,” said Calvin Roskelley, an associate professor of cellular and physiological science at UBC. “The culprit is hiding in plain sight on the surface of tumour cells, so we are now developing ‘smart’ molecules to block its function.”
What he and his co-investigator, Kelly McNagny, an associate professor of medical genetics, mean by the culprit is a protein that occurs on the surface of breast cancer cells that makes it possible for them to move around the body and attach themselves to different organs, such as the lymph nodes.
Researchers have known for two years that this protein, called podocalyxin, was always present on the cells of tumours that were particularly virulent and likely to metastasize. In other words, if podocalyxin was present in the tumour, it always was a signal to doctors and diagnosticians that the tumour was an especially serious one that needed to be treated aggressively with chemotherapy.
“The tumours that progressed to a really bad outcome were always the ones that had turned on this protein,” McNagny said.
But until now, he and his colleagues didn’t know why it was there or what it did.
Now they do.
With funds from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance, McNagny and Roskelley have discovered that podocalyxin blocks or shuts down the molecules on the surface of the breast cancer cells that these cells use to adhere to normal cells in the body.
When the adhesion molecules are blocked, cancer cells are then free to migrate around the body.
Almost all cells in the human body have adhesion molecules, McNagny explained. It is these molecules that enable individual cells to remain where they’re supposed to according to the purpose they serve. This way, liver cells remain in the liver, and kidney cells in the kidney.
In their initial stages, cancer cells also affix themselves to different parts of the body. This is how tumours become localized.
Cancer is always dangerous, but tumours are cause for particular concern when they spread or metastasize. And it is podocalyxin that makes this metastasis possible in breast-cancer cells.
Most ovarian cancers also express the protein, McNagny says, and it could be present on certain types of liver and pancreatic cancer as well.
The next step, he says, is for pharmaceutical companies to take the knowledge he and Roskelley have uncovered and use it to develop a drug specific to podocalyxin.
Such a drug could work in one of two ways, he says. Either it could shut down the protein itself or it could affix itself to the protein—that is, use it as a kind of docking device on the cell—and then kill the cancer cell from that anchored position.
“They could either find a way to block it or use as a bull’s eye,” he explained. “Since it’s on the [cell’s] surface, if we could come with a binding drug, we might be able to target toxins to these tumour cells.”
He cautions that drugs like these could still be several years away, but there is a bright side. “At least now we know how they would work.”
(From Vancouver Sun March 21, 2007)
SCWIST President Amanda Smith featured on CiTR’s My Science Project podcast
Zoom a little zoom on the My Science Project rocket ship, piloted by hosts, Julia and Anne, as they navigate eccentric, under-exposed, always relevant and plainly cool scientific research, technology and poetry.
My Science Project 08-Mar-2007
A Show for International Women’s Day
A look at the genetics of sex and the effect of negative stereotypes on women’s performance in math. An interview with Amanda Smith, president of SCWIST.
SCWIST member Laurel Schafer receives prestigious Sloan Fellowship
This year, for the first time, 2 women from UBC have been awarded Sloan Fellowships for 2007. Sloan fellowships are “are intended to enhance the careers of the very best young faculty members in specified fields of science. Currently a total of 116 fellowships are awarded annually in seven fields: chemistry, computational and evolutionary molecular biology, computer science, economics, mathematics, neuroscience, and physics” (from the Sloan Foundation Website).
These are highly competitive awards, for example, the last Sloan Fellowship awarded to a faculty member at UBC in the department of chemistry was approximately 25 years ago, in spite of 3 faculty members being nominated each year. It is amazing and gratifying that this year, two members of the department won in the same year, Ruth Signorell and Laurel Schaffer. This may be the first time that women from UBC have ever received this award.
