I could not agree more with Dr. Poodry's call to use the scientific method when we try to assess whether our approaches to improving diversity in the STEM fields are working or not. For minority scientists who could be viewed as the subjects of the social experiments taking place around the country, it is disappointing when we see the continuation of failed approaches and the neglect of the obvious.

Each intervention that seeks to improve the numbers of a given underrepresented group must, at the onset, critically declare the assumptions made regarding the particular circumstances the target group operates under. The barriers to a PhD in any of the STEM fields can vary widely, depending on the population and along that path. In engineering, we refer that as being a function of many variables. The solution to the problem, I'm afraid, is also unsteady, meaning that it varies with time. The obstacles that I faced as a young High School student in the Los Angeles Unified School District are quite different from those I face as an Assistant Professor of Engineering at a predominantly white research institution in Upstate New York. These differences are significant, not only because of their nature but also because of what is at stake.

In response to the comment regarding the open nature of science and "...some great 'truths' need to be challenged before they become 'scientific', and that includes both the alledged need for cultural change and the benefits it is alledged to bring", I would also like to offer my opinion.

Although I have only been at my institution a few years, I am confident that my approaches to both teaching and research have a very distinctive flavor. The very problems I choose to tackle in my lab and the type of students I hire can tell you of my commitment to the needs of certain populations and my commitment to solving the diversity problem. It can also tell you of my personal struggles to survive in an environment where financial success may give a skewed view of professional and personal success.

In the classroom, my willingness to embrace new methods and technologies are nothing but an expression of my innate ability to take risks and be willing to put everything on the line for what I believe could be a much better way. I have taken many risks in my life and I have concluded that without risk, there is no gain. I have been fortunate many times, but above all, I have been willing to risk a lot to find a better path. With time, my family has come to accept my way of life but it is still foreign to most of them. That does not change our love for each other and thus my ties to my community are still as strong now as they were when I was among those millions of Spanish speakers in LA. What has changed is that people listen to what I have to say and the idea of my nieces and nephews achieving a college education is no longer in question. That is a change that benefits our country, not just my community.

As I face the very real stresses that come with being in a tenure-track faculty position and finding funding for my research endeavors, I compound those to my personal need to reach existential relevance. As a mother of two small children and a member of a 2-faculty couple, there is no end to the complexity of my life. What remains clear, however, is that none of the intangibles that make me the very special person that I am ever show up in any of the deliberations of the review panels that consider whether my contributions to the body of knowledge are worthy of support or not. I may even dare to suggest that in some instances, my very name and gender can actually hurt my chances of getting funded. Such is the sad state of our "merit" system.

In spite of all the bad news, I am hopeful of the future and my own prospects for making a difference. All along the way, there have been good people and good opportunities. Those of us who have survived this far have learned to identify both, even when they come in disguise. Every time there is a glimpse of hope, we hold on to it for our lives and make it last because the reward can be so great. I am already enjoying the sweetness of seeing my students open their minds and hearts to new ways of learning and looking at the world. While my struggles for funding continue, I am also hopeful that once again, I can figure out a way to meet the institutional standards without compromising my own.

This article points out the underrepresentation in science of minorities and women. While these problems are well-known and in need of consideration, this article fails to recognize (or perhaps to acknowledge) the underlying harsh economic realities of a scientific career which are in fact the major contributors to driving women and minorities (as well as white men) away from this career field. I can explain this best by laying out the "career path of a scientist:

1) Get good grades and enough money to go to a top-level undergad institution - TIME - 4 years

2) Go to a top-level graduate school and get a PhD - TIME - averages 6-7 years; 70-80 hour work-weeks on a graduate stipend of about 20K/year...often in overpriced urban centers like San Francisco, New York, etc.

3) academic post-doc - TIME - about 3-4 years; stipend or salary of about 35K/year; almost always involve moving to a new university in a different city; sometimes you get health insurance; you NEVER get retirement plans or benefits; 70-80 hor work weeks and tremendous pressure to build a publication record

4) academic appointment - depending on the field, you have about a 10-20% chance of EVER getting a tenure-track appointment. IF you do, expect to work 80-90 hour weeks for years as you move up the tenure track. Grants are the main financial support, and each grant you write has only a 10-20% chance of being funded. If you A) get sick or injured for a few months or a year, B) you have a child, or C) anything goes wrong politically or with your research area, then you WILL NOT make tenure. This is because, for every faculty position opening up, there are usually 200-500 applicants...all qualified, many happy to work 100 hour weeks, and many who have chosen not to have spouses and families in order to "devote themselves" to a scientific career.

4) Alternately, you might get an industry job...better pay and hours. However, industry still cannot absorb what has basically been a massive OVERPRODUCTION of PhD's in the last 20 years.

Put the above points together, and you have a career that requires over a decade of advanced competive education, YEARS of low-paid, low-respect positions with laughable salaries and zero job security, and prospects of true success and job security that are, realistically, about 10%. Now, if you are smart and willing to work hard, here are some OTHER science-based careers you could choose besides becoming research scientist:

1) physician - comparable education time and workload as scientists - average income - 200K or more per year; chance of job security if you finish med school- >90%

2) pharmacists, veterinarians, optometrists - less education time than scientists, great job security and benefits, average salaries = 75-150K/year.

3) Dentists, orthodontists - now we're talking big money - 200-500 K/year, same school time as scientists; 35-40 hour workweeks.

This is the REAL problem with science, and it is the REAL reason that America's women and racial minorities are not entering scence careers. The same factors that make the career terrible financially and personally for white men cause even more negative effects on women and minorities. For women, having a child/family is a LIABILITY in science because it means you can't live at your lab anymore. For minorities, the educational requirements and financial hardships which already push white males to personal breaking points are likely even worse because minorites really do often have less eduationalaccess and encouragement in K-12. Ditto for the financial burden of getting an adnvanced education.
The irony is that science does in fact have an "ethnically-diverse" work-force. A close look on any research university campus reveals that 25-50% of the science work force are recent, mostly young male, immigrants from China, India, etc. Why is it that there are so few American Hispanics and blacks, but so many CHinese and Indians? The reason can be laid squarely at the feet of university faculty and the federal funding agencies that make their way of life possible (e.g. NIH). The career is so unattractive that American universities can no longer attract enough American students to fill their labor needs. Yes, I meant "LABOR" needs, NOT educational mission. So they "sponsor" foreign students desperate for green cards and the chance to get permanent jobs in AMerica. Basically, this amounts to a system of indentured servitude (look it up in the dictionary...it bears similarities to slavery) because these international scholars are A) far from home and unfamiliar with American standards of a "good job with good pay," B) forced to return to their home countries IMMEDIATELY if their job or schooling ends...a real good incentive to do everything your professor tells you to do (even unethical work hours) since
you are "back on the boat" if he gets tired of you, and C) the glut of foreign scientists can be used to create a "soft" labor market (i.e. - too many scientists for too few jobs) for American scientists. This only encourages more Americans (whites, minorities, women...everybody) to never enter this career in the first place, exacerbating the problem.

If agencies claiming to be "stewards" of this profession (e.g. - NSF) really wanted to help minorities and women become scientists, then they should take steps to make this career more attractive financially to American youth in general. I only chose this career because I love science. But I have sufferred years of hard work, career uncertainty, even relationship strife, as my college friends go on to make six-figure salaries in other professions and earn respect from society for their contributions. I can't tell you the number of times I've explained what I did for a living at a party, only to have someone turn their noses and say "but they don't make any money" or "I thought only foreigners did that." Its time to give this profession back the respect and place it once had in society. The NSF and other agencies should demand A) that universities stop exploiting postdocs and international scholars as a cheap, expendable labor force, B) that university graduate programs justify their existence in terms of producing graduates who actually get careers, C) that scientific research doesn't continue to depend on short-term survival from one grant to the next, and D) that this profession stops glorifiying the model of the lonely professors working themselves to death for a pittance, and E) that this profession rewards and welcomes those, especially young women, who (heaven forbid) choose to have spouses, children, hobbies, and a social life outside of work. Unless these things change, American science will die out (its already dying), and then the scientific research that has propelled this country to world dominance will become yet another commodity we must import from abroad.

ERic Seales, PhD

By 'diverity' we presume that what is meant is culrural diversity.

To be scientific, one has to adopt a culture which has been thrashed out within the hypercriticality of the scientific community - it is actually more monocultural that pluralistic.

Secondly, to 'scientifically' study 'diversity', one must ascertain whether diversity of cultures are by any objective means, better at helping people and serving a public remit than uniculturalism does as it is.

So, you must 'scientifically' ascertain if this issue either really exists, and is not a political fiction, and secondly whether change in this political form, is effective and desirable.

Science is an open process and some great 'truths' need to be challenged before they become 'scientific', and that includes both the alledged need for cultural change and the benefits it is alledged to bring.

Thank you.