TheĀ Hubble Space Telescope has a gender problem. For at least the past 16 years, female researchers have hadĀ their requests to use the worldās most important telescope accepted atĀ significantly lower rates than theirĀ male colleagues. But a switch toĀ reviewing anonymised proposals isĀ changing that, showing that selection processes can be biased against women.
Every year, astronomers around theĀ world respond to an open call for proposals for time using Hubble. There can be up to 1000 proposals, with only 10 to 20 per cent given the green light to make observations.
In 2017, 27.5 per cent of the major proposals put forward were led by women. Of these, 13 per cent were approved, whereas proposals led by men had a 24 per cent approval rate. Previous years saw a similar disparity.
Advertisement
Time on the telescope is a coveted resource. āThereās a real premium onĀ getting Hubble time, and a lot of observational astronomers have built their careers with it,ā says Priyamvada Natarajan at Yale University, who led Hubbleās 2018 Telescope Allocation Committee (TAC).
Access to space
It is particularly important for astronomers that donāt have the funding or institutional backing to useĀ other major telescopes, which have more restricted access. TheĀ gender disparity meant that under-represented researchers faced an additional disadvantage.
So the Space Telescope Science Institute, which oversees the selection proceedings for Hubble, decided it was time for a change. In 2017, it brought in Stefanie Johnson, a leadership and diversity expert from the University of Colorado, to observe TAC meetings andĀ advise on ways to mitigate the apparent bias.
Johnson says she was surprised at how little the discussions focused on the science at hand. Instead, she says, the committee often talked about the researchers themselves, their teams and their past work.
āWhen theyāre talking about the scientist then I think they can be a little more influenced by not just their gender but their age or their race or their school,ā says Johnson. āThe differences may be small, but over time those little things add up.ā
She suggested that they review anonymised proposals instead, with all identifying information removed from applications. The first such review has just finished and proposals led by women had an 8.7 per cent success rate and those led by men had an 8 per cent success rate (the lower success rates were due to a rise in submissions).
āIt was immediately apparent in theĀ tone of the discussion that this was a fundamentally different kind ofĀ evaluation,ā says Natarajan. āItĀ wasĀ much more fair, much deeper and more focused on scientific considerations.ā It may not seem huge, but it was a big shift towards equity and fairness, and Natarajan says that the process will continue in future.
Hubble is the first major instrument in physics or astronomy to switch to reviewing anonymised proposals. ItĀ might be the start of a reckoning, because telescope proposals arenāt the only place where selection processes are biased against women and other under-represented groups, stunting their career opportunities.
āOnce you see these results from Hubble, I just donāt see how there could be any other way of doing things,ā says Johnson. āIt just seems soĀ clear that we need a change.ā
