Science Gender Equality in Germany: Soapbox Science Berlin

In recent years, we got used to seeing movies where scientists have become no less than superheros, saving humanity from natural disasters and alien invasions. Whether it is the super engineer Tony Stark (Iron Man) or the nuclear physicist Bruce Banner (The Incredible Hulk), scientists are usually portrayed by males who lead their teams to that great discovery or solution that will ensure the survival of the human species. Is it any coincidence that studies have shown that children aged 5 to 11 tend to draw scientists as men, not women [1]? 

 Only 30.9% of German scientists are women

In part, this gender stereotyping seems to be promoting the (incorrect!) reasoning that professions requiring higher cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills (like the scientific ones) are not for girls. Accordingly, recent research has demonstrated that girls as young as 6 tend to divert from novel games said to be for bright children, as they see ‘genius’ and ‘excellence’ as male traits [3]. Further, the number of women scientists holding a PhD in academic disciplines believed to require higher levels of ‘brilliance’ (e.g. physics, math, philosophy) is lower than the number of men [4].

Rain or Shine, Female Scientists Are Here to Stay!

As an attempt to overcome these implicit biases instigated by gender inequality in the scientific world, Nathalie Pettorelli and Seirian Sumner (ZSL and UCL, respectively) founded the Soapbox Science platform, an initiative that gives visibility to women scientists through open-air public events that foster scientific discussion and public learning. On June 4th 2017, Berlin hosted its first Soapbox Science event at the Tempelhofer Feld. Twelve female scientists from all over Germany took part of the Soapbox Science Berlin (SSB) 2017 and talked about the science they do in the fields of psychology, biology or engineering. Despite unexpected rain and wind, the first Germany-based Soapbox Science event had over 150 participants from different nationalities and educational backgrounds, whose contribution enabled a dynamic exchange of ideas between female scientists and the public. 

 SSB promotes science gender equality in Germany

Yet, the lively scientific discussions and the number of participants were not the only predictors of this Soapbox Science event success – the Berlin team was invited to organize another event as part of the Berlin Science Week 2017. This second event took place at the Sony Center, Potsdamer Platz and brought together 8 women scientists from various research areas: biomaterials, neuroscience, ecology and biomedicine. This time, 256 participants (12 to 89 years) craving for scientific knowledge showed up. Given the goal of eliminating the biased generalization that only boys can be scientists, the Berlin team invited high school students to attend the event with the objective of empowering teenagers of both genders to pursue scientific careers.

What's Next for the Team

After two amazing and successful events, the SSB team is preparing for the next happening and for further integrating the Berlin team into the worldwide network of Soapbox Science summer initiatives. Join the 2018 speakers in Berlin, June 1st (from 2 to 5pm; location TBD) and challenge your scientific knowledge with some sun and fun! Besides promoting science gender equality, the SSB team hopes to broaden girls’ views about their future career choices and increase the number of German women scientists. Even though the proportion of female researchers in Germany has already increased from 28.2% in 2010 to 30.9% in 2014 [5], the gender gap is far from being closed. Soapbox Science Berlin aims to close the gap and empower young girls to be the scientists of tomorrow.

by Ana I. Faustino, Postdoc AG Judkewitz

Former Soapbox Science Berlin Co-head

Want to find out more? Get in touch with us!

Facebook: @soapboxscienceberlin 

Twitter: @berlin_soapbox

Email: soapboxscience.berlin@gmail.com

[1] Chambers, Sci. Educ., 1983

[2] Mead and Metraux, Science, 1957

[3] Bian et al., Science, 2017

[4] Leslie et al., Science, 2015

[5] http://bit.ly/1RytgHf

Conference Announcement: I, scientist

https://www.iscientist.de/

Sex Matters - My Winter School Experience

'Sex, Hormones and the Brain' was the title that convinced me to head off to southern Germany and participate in a conference [1].
Being part of it turned out to introduce me to a vibrant research landscape, in Tübingen and beyond. The winter school was organized by the Materiki Network of Universities (MNU) [2], connecting universities across Europe, America and Australia. One of its foci is integrative neuroscience, for which the Center for Integrative Neuroscience (CIN) in Tübingen was a perfect match. The city itself is very picturesque and worth a visit on its own. 

As the first symposium ‘Sex hormones and mood‘ started, I could immediately sense the open-minded and supportive atmosphere. Here, researchers were facing a part of science that often is overlooked elsewhere. I learned how important sex hormone fluctuations and the hormone-brain interface itself can be for mood disorders, cognition, memory and even brain connectivity. Talks and posters ranged from sex differences to gender dysphoria, and from basic brain functions to clinical implications. Not only the topic, but also the participants were open-minded and fostered a warm and welcoming spirit that really showed at a museum dinner party that featured nice food and live music and offered the possibility to closely interact with the speakers.

Their talks were inspiring and included some very well-known scientists like Inger Sundström Poromaa (Uppsala), Ute Habel (Aachen) or Niels Birbaumer (Tübingen). Of three parallel ‘Meet an expert‘ sessions, I chose 'Women in Academia: the path to a successful career and work-life balance'. It offered the wonderful opportunity to meet three successful female scientists at once. Getting to know such role models motivated me a lot and once again pointed out how important it is to help each other in science, rather than to compete.

So, what should you take home from this?
1)   Whenever you start a new project: consider sex and hormones as a crucial influence.
2)   As soon as you see an upcoming neuroscience winter school in Tübingen: register!

by Annika Reinhold, MSc Student MedNeuro


[1] http://bit.ly/2EKn16w
[2]http://bit.ly/2o8syJC

The Commission on the Advancement of Women

Perspective by a Member of the Commision, By Carmen Infante-Duarte

Carmen Infante-Duarte, senior scientist and leader of the research group "Experimental Neuroimmunology" is a member of the Commission for Promotion of Women at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin and will tell us about the structure and tasks of this Commission.

When considering the careers of women in science and academia, Berlin, and the Charité in particular, are exceptional: already in 1912, Lydia Rabinowitsch obtained the first professorship of a woman in Berlin; in 1913 Rahel Hirsch became the first woman in Prussia to be appointed as a Charité professor in medicine; and currently, the faculty of medicine at the Charité is the only German medicine faculty that has been chaired by a female Dean, Prof. Dr. Annette Grüters-Kieslich since 2008. Nevertheless, the situation of women in leading positions at the Charite is far from being optimal. While about 60% of the students at the Charité are female, only about 17% of the professors are woman. Thus, the institutional promotion and support of career of women remains an essential task of the faculty.
The Commission for Promotion of Women at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Kommission für Frauenförderung, KoFF) was established by the Faculty Council in autumn 2009 and is composed of 8 female full professors (including chairwoman and deputy chairwoman), 8 scientific associates, 4 students and 2 non-scientific representatives. The KoFF works very closely with the officer for Women and equal opportunities at the Charité (Frauen- und Gleichstellungsbeauftragte, http://frauenbeauftragte.charite.de/) and meets once a month, usually the second Tuesday of the month.

The primary goals of the Commission are:

1. To encourage the establishment of equal opportunities for women and men at the Charité at all professional levels.
2. To support the career of female researchers by advocating the establishment of a family friendly Charité.
3. To promote gender studies within medical research and teaching. The first accomplished objectives of the KoFF were the establishment of a regular dinner-meeting (takes place 3-4 times per year) of female Charité professors, including the Dean, to improve scientific networking, and the creation of a comprehensive and informative homepage (http://koff.charite.de/).

On the KoFF homepage, you can find information and links to:
 -         Research and teaching: including extend information on gender-sensitive research and teaching at the Charité.
-         Funding and fellowships: including information on internal and external funding possibilities for women.
Particularly relevant Charité fellowships and programs are the Rahel-Hirsch fellowship, to promote Habilitation of female scientist; the Lydia Rabinowitsch fellowship, to support (re-)integration of female scientists in the Charité, in case they had to reduce or cease their scientific activity for family or social reasons; and the mentoring program, a personal development strategy to support young female scientists in their career planning and development.
-         Family issues: here you will find links to offices and offers at the Charité that should guaranty a framework for a successful balancing of work and family obligations for all students and employees at the Charité. Very important are the links to the "family office" and internal and external child care services.

 In summary, the KoFF is a recently re-established Commission that aims to make the work of women at the Charité more visible, to promote their networking activities and to improve the presence of women in all professional fields in which they are underrepresented, principally in clinical, scientific and also administrative leader positions.

This article originally appeared 2011 in CNS Volume 4, Issue 1, Neuroenhancement

Why women leave academia and why universities should be worried

Despite the high number of female undergraduate and PhD students, most higher positions in academia, namely professorships, are given to men. A recent study in the field of Chemistry aimed to enlighten the underlying reasons [1].

First, it is important to look at the pool of applicants from which universities recruit their top staff. In a prior study, PhD students were asked about their career plans at different stages of their PhD [2]. At the beginning, obviously, both men and women are enthusiastic about pursuing a career as researcher, both in academia and industry: This intention is expressed by 61 % or 72 % of first-year male and female PhD students, respectively. However, in the third year of their PhD, women changed their mind dramatically. Whereas 59 % of men still see research as a career option, only 37 % of women do so.
If one separates between a career intention in industry and in academia, only 12 % of women and 21 % of men see their future in academia. In other words, 88 % of female PhD students and 79 % of their male fellows don't want a career in academia. Curt Rice describes this as an alarming result for universities, as they may no longer be capable of attracting the best and the brightest minds [3].
Both genders, but especially women, regarded an academic career as all-consuming and competitive. First of all, the short-term nature of most post-doctoral positions implies frequent relocation and a lack of security about future employment. The level of competitiveness to achieve a permanent position is seen as very fierce and the impression of young scientists is that it has become harder to get a first foothold on the ladder, especially under the circumstance of a constant hunt for funding [1].

female PhD students felt more affected

However, there are several issues that affect only women keeping them away from academic careers: There is a lack of positive examples, as most women feel that female professors often show a quite masculine behavior and are, in many cases, childless. They do not want to sacrifice their personality and their plans for a family, to an academic career. Whereas both male and female PhD students report poor supervision, frustrating experiences in the research process, and problems within the research group, women feel more affected and restricted by this and are more likely to see this as a personal failure. A relevant number of women also report that they were told that their gender might be a problem for a future academic career [1].
Although these studies were focused on Chemistry, it seems to be likely that it is not much different in other subjects. Obviously, the pool from which universities can recruit their lecturers and professors shrinks, and especially women are not attracted by an academic career. Universities should ask themselves if the working conditions and career paths they offer are suitable to encourage talented young researchers staying in academia. Without young and innovative researchers, cutting-edge research at universities is endangered. But considering recent headlines about the German Max-Planck-Society and its plans to cut PhD students from social security system [4], a fundamental rethink has not yet begun.

By Odilo Engel, PhD Student Medical Neurosciences, AG Clinical Neuroscience

This article originally appeared 2012 in CNS Volume 5, Issue 4, Fat Gut or Fat Brain


References
[1] Jessica Lober Newsome: The chemistry PhD: the impact on women's retention - A report for the UK Resource Centre for Women in SET and the Royal Society of Chemistry. London, 2008. http://bit.ly/JC2T5m
[2] The Career Intentions & First Employment Destinations of Chemistry PhD Students: A Gender-Based Quantitative Analysis, Royal Society of Chemistry: London, 2008.
[3] Curt Rice: Why women leave academia and why universities should be worried. The Guardian - Higher Education Network, May 24, 2012. http://bit.ly/MTWaB9
[4] Sven Grünewald: Forschungsstipendien - Schwarzarbeit in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 10, 2012. http://bit.ly/Lrvd7A

Gender Bias Prevails in Academia

It is still an upstream battle for women trying to reach the top of the career ladder in academia. In Germany, 44 % of all doctoral candidates are women, but this number drops sharply down to 25 % at the post-doctoral “on their way to tenure" track. In leadership positions within academia, only 13 % are women [1].

The Council of Canadian Academics reports slightly higher number with 32 % women in faculty positions [2], but the pattern is the same: there is a staggering decline in the percentage of women in higher positions, while the trend is reversed for men. The highest-ranking positions are still being filled by men, and the skewed composition remains discouraging.
One might set aside the choice of lifestyle issue for a moment – that some women simply choose to stay away from the leadership role in order to play a bigger role in family life – and simply consider the matter of how individuals with hiring power perceive one gender over another. Shocking is the statistical evidence that there is still a laden gender bias within our current system: a new study by Moss-Racusin and colleagues has announced that there are prevailing attitudes amongst faculty members when making hiring decisions to fill managerial posts. The study, led by Jo Handelsman from Yale University, looks at academic biology and physics and questions current faculty members' perception of individual candidates in terms of their hireability and starting salary [3]. The surveyed faculty members, a mixed group in terms of gender composition, were shown application materials for a management position. The applications were randomly assigned male or female names. The results were shocking: across all parameters – competence, hireability, inclination to mentor, and salary -- the applications with a male name were ranked significantly and consistently higher. Even female faculty members held these beliefs based on the name of the applicant being either male or female.

Source: Council of Canadian Academies, 2012. Strengthening Canada’s Research Capacity: The Gender Dimension. The Expert Panel of Women in University Research, Council of Canadian Academies. 

Since each individual likely judges their own worth and aptitude based on their perceived ranking and feedback from superiors in any given career field, engrained preference of a male candidate over themselves may discourage women from seeking out higher positions. The study points out powerful cultural norms, which prevail in even the most rational disciplines such as physics or biology.
The results of this study highlight the continued need to strengthen, foster and incentivize women to apply to high-level academic posts in order to counter the current cultural status quo and perception of competence.

By Gina Eom
This article originally appeared 2013 in CNS Volume 6, Issue 1, Gender Differences

[1] BMBF Report on Programme for Women Professors, 2012
[2] Council of Canadian Academics Report in Focus November 2012
[3] Moss-Racusin et al, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2012

Why women leave academia and why universities should be worried

Despite the high number of female undergraduate and PhD students, most higher positions in academia, namely professorships, are given to men. A recent study in the field of Chemistry aimed to enlighten the underlying reasons [1]. 

First, it is important to look at the pool of applicants from which universities recruit their top staff. In a prior study, PhD students were asked about their career plans at different stages of their PhD [2]. At the beginning, obviously, both men and women are enthusiastic about pursuing a career as researcher, both in academia and industry: This intention is expressed by 61 % or 72 % of first-year male and female PhD students, respectively. However, in the third year of their PhD, women changed their mind dramatically. Whereas 59 % of men still see research as a career option, only 37 % of women do so.
If one separates between a career intention in industry and in academia, only 12 % of women and 21 % of men see their future in academia. In other words, 88 % of female PhD students and 79 % of their male fellows don't want a career in academia. Curt Rice describes this as an alarming result for universities, as they may no longer be capable of attracting the best and the brightest minds [3].
Both genders, but especially women, regarded an academic career as all-consuming and competitive. First of all, the short-term nature of most post-doctoral positions implies frequent relocation and a lack of security about future employment. The level of competitiveness to achieve a permanent position is seen as very fierce and the impression of young scientists is that it has become harder to get a first foothold on the ladder, especially under the circumstance of a constant hunt for funding [1].

female PhD students feel more affected

 

However, there are several issues that affect only women keeping them away from academic careers: There is a lack of positive examples, as most women feel that female professors often show a quite masculine behavior and are, in many cases, childless. They do not want to sacrifice their personality and their plans for a family, to an academic career. Whereas both male and female PhD students report poor supervision, frustrating experiences in the research process, and problems within the research group, women feel more affected and restricted by this and are more likely to see this as a personal failure. A relevant number of women also report that they were told that their gender might be a problem for a future academic career [1].
Although these studies were focused on Chemistry, it seems to be likely that it is not much different in other subjects. Obviously, the pool from which universities can recruit their lecturers and professors shrinks, and especially women are not attracted by an academic career. Universities should ask themselves if the working conditions and career paths they offer are suitable to encourage talented young researchers staying in academia. Without young and innovative researchers, cutting-edge research at universities is endangered. But considering recent headlines about the German Max-Planck-Society and its plans to cut PhD students from social security system [4], a fundamental rethink has not yet begun.

By Odilo Engel, PhD Alumnus Medical Neurosciences, AG Clinical Neuroscience
This article originally appeared 2012 in CNS Volume 5, Issue 4, Fat Gut or Fat Brain

References
[1] Jessica Lober Newsome: The chemistry PhD: the impact on women's retention - A report for the UK Resource Centre for Women in SET and the Royal Society of Chemistry. London, 2008. http://bit.ly/JC2T5m
[2] The Career Intentions & First Employment Destinations of Chemistry PhD Students: A Gender-Based Quantitative Analysis, Royal Society of Chemistry: London, 2008.
[3] Curt Rice: Why women leave academia and why universities should be worried. The Guardian - Higher Education Network, May 24, 2012. http://bit.ly/MTWaB9
[4] Sven Grünewald: Forschungsstipendien - Schwarzarbeit in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 10, 2012. http://bit.ly/Lrvd7A

Tracing the Roots of Aggression

Many evolutionary theories explain the development of human aggression as a necessary trait for survival. However, aggression rarely has practical use in contemporary society. When exhibited, it is often in a violent and illegal context and therefore it is incriminated. Sometimes, it can even be considered part of someone’s temperament.

Aggression is thought to be the result of a complex corticolimbic interaction between subcortical neural systems, decision-making circuits, and frontoparietal regions [1]. Strong genetic and hormonal influences, in addition to the various environmental stimuli, seem to regulate these networks. This raises questions regarding the degree of responsibility that violent people bear.

Aggression Is a Male Phenomenon
According to statistics, the ratio of crimes committed by males compared to females is greater than 10:1. The more aggressive behavior of males starts to manifest itself even before adolescence, with boys being more likely to be involved in some kind of antisocial conduct [2].
Hormones are among the first suspects for male aggression. Exposure to androgens in the early stages of adolescence is thought to constitute a possible cause. However, according to a recent meta-analysis, the association between testosterone levels and antisocial behavior is weak [3]. Next is the stress hormone cortisol, whose action is regulated through the hypothalamus and adrenal axis. Lower cortisol concentration was found in the saliva of males with antisocial conduct [4]. Finally, low levels of the serotonin metabolite 5-HIAA and low blood sugar are other messengers implicated in the regulation of aggressive behavior.

Is It You Y?
More than four decades have passed since males with XYY syndrome, known also as supermales, were associated with criminal behavior. A higher percentage of XYY men was found in prisons and in institutions for criminally insane people than was found among the normal population. This hypothesis has been significantly weakened after the publication of epidemiological studies that suggested otherwise [5], although it has not been totally refuted as emerging evidence still supports the initial claim [6].
Taking a closer look at the genes, recent knockout studies in mice have excluded any contribution of the Y-linked loci to aggression [7]. Nevertheless, the investigation of other chromosome loci revealed genes that might explain the sex-related difference in aggression and should be interpreted along with the hormone hypothesis. A shorter GAG repeat in the Androgen receptor in Swedish and Indian males accused of aggressive behavior has been associated with it [8]. Certain polymorphisms of the monoamine oxidase (MAOA, MAOB)-coding genes have been linked with functional differences in expression. A plethora of enzyme-coding genes (COMT, dopamine-β-hydroxylase and tryptophan hydroxylase) has been linked to male aggressive behavior [9].

Environmental Interactions
Stressful events, especially in the first years of life, confer a higher risk for manifesting antisocial conduct. Interestingly, it seems that stress triggers aggressive behavior in males with a “vulnerable” genetic background and more specifically a low-activity polymorphism in the MAOA gene. The causality in this case is not clear yet, as evidence suggests that an initial stressful event down-regulated the activity of the MAOA genes later on [2].

The Role of Recreational Substances
Substance use is closely related to offending behavior in both sexes, with alcohol being the most common culprit. It is not only widespread alcohol use, but also its high correlation with violent behavior that make it one of the most significant perpetrators of aggression. Drug users on the other hand, rarely exhibit such behavior, with cocaine users being the only exception [10]. 
Aggressive behavior, like every behavior, is difficult to approach and explain with molecular and genetic mechanisms. However, there seems to be a notable interaction between the environment and one's genetic background. This requires further investigation, as the potential implications for preventing the development of an aggressive behavior, even in a small portion of the population, could improve dramatically the fabric of our societies.

[1] Coccaro et al, Biol Psychiatry, 2011
[2] Craig and Halton, Hum Genet, 2009
[3] Book et al, Aggress Violent Behav, 2001
[4] Shirtcliff et al, Dev Psychopathol, 2005
[5] Noël et al, Clin Genet, 1974
[6] Stochholm et al, BMJ Open, 2012
[7] Gatewook et al, J Neurosci, 2006
[8] Rajender et al, Int J Legal Med, 2008
[9] Pavlov et al, J Appl Genetics, 2012
[10] Lammers et al, Tijdschr Psychiatr, 2014

by Andreas A. Diamantaras, MSc student
This article originally appeared in CNS Volume 7, Issue 3, Nature vs Nurture

Follow Up: Child/Family Space at Charité

On November 1, 1848 the first US women's medical school opens in Boston. Since then the rights for women changed a lot: In our society it is common that women can study and be doctors just like men. However, as nature can not be changed, it is still the woman who has to carry the baby and breastfeed. Unfortunately this can be an obstacle when a mother-to-be or a breastfeeding mum want to combine motherhood an work.


In our March edition of the newsletter (Vol. 10, Issue 1), we included a series of interviews with female members of the Charité research community. One of our participants mentioned the lack of a room in the CCO for breastfeeding women, or staff members who need a room to rest during their pregnancy (read the full interview here).
Kimberly Mason from the NeuroCure office pointed out that such a room equipped with a couch or mattress for anyone needing a rest was initially planned. Unfortunately, when the Charité highrise renovations began, the CCO had to absorb several groups and services. There was an intense scramble for space and the resting room got repurposed.

However, such a space does actually exist: on Campus Mitte you find it in Hufelandweg 9, Level K1, Room 006. There is also a parent-child room on the Virchow Campus. For details see: https://familienbuero.charite.de/charite_mit_kind/kinderbetreuung/kinderzimmer/

Since one room does not cover the needs of all pregnant women and parents with their children for the whole campus, maybe there is something we can do. We want to explore creative alternatives and would like to hear your opinion.

Thank you Kimberly for the helpful information!

by Claudia Willmes, Post-doc AG Schmitz

This article originally appeared September 2017 in CNS Volume 10, Issue 3, Spirituality in Science

Brain-gnacy: How Giving Birth Changes Your Brain

If I asked you for the most apparent change in a pregnant woman, you would probably not answer ‘the brain’. Looking at all the physical changes in a woman’s body during pregnancy, it is understandable that the brain seems to be a supporting rather than a main actor in the 9 month-long play called pregnancy. Here is why – surprise – the brain is important for pregnancy and child birth.

The pregnant brain needs to coordinate physiological changes that on the one hand allow the baby to grow and on the other hand prepare the mother for the challenges of giving birth and motherhood. Female sex steroid hormones, like estrogens and progesterone are elevated during pregnancy and can act on the brain to induce changes that favor pregnancy, like increased appetite, a reduced stress response or the inhibition and accumulation of neuropeptides until they are needed [1].

Adapted from http://bit.ly/2dlW1si

Hungry All the Time? 

Growing new life inside one’s body means that a lot more energy is needed – to supply the fetus with nutrients and to build up energy reserves that can be used in the period of lactation after the child is born. Appetite is usually regulated so that energy intake is in balance with energy expenditure [2]. To allow for increased food intake, changes in the brain that suppress the sensation of satiety take place. While satiety is normally signaled by the hormone leptin, the pregnant brain develops a central resistance to leptin, which ultimately increases appetite and food intake [2]. So, in a sense, your brain acts like your grandma, stuffing you with food for the bad times!

 

YOUR BRAIN MAKES YOU HUNGRY

Stressless Superwomen

Since exposure of the fetus to high levels of stress hormones increases the risk for cardiovascular, metabolic and psychiatric diseases in later life, it is necessary to minimize the exposure of the fetus to stress [3]. This means that either everyone has to tip-toe around pregnant women, or we need to change the mother-to-be’s physiological response to stress. If only it were possible to reduce the levels of circulating stress hormones! Wait – that is exactly what’s happening. In pregnancy, changes in the maternal hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis occur which render mommy hyporesponsive to stressors. This process involves changes in several HPA components, but also higher brain regions and is reflected by reduced secretion of adrenocorticotropic hormone following stress [3].

PREGNANCY MAKES YOU (ALMOST) IMMUNE TO STRESS

Just On Time!

A normal pregnancy is estimated to last around 268 days, and more often than not, the due date is not too far off from what the gynecologist predicted. To prevent premature birth, the brain has to coordinate the availability and action of labor-inducing factors. For example, the neuropeptide oxytocin stimulates contractions of the uterus during birth. Throughout pregnancy, the hormonal environment changes in a way that keeps oxytocin-secreting neurons quiescent, while oxytocin continues to accumulate and its receptor expression increases [1]. This accumulation of oxytocin is believed to facilitate synchronized firing of neurons that then secrete pulses of oxytocin during birth. In concert, these stimulate contractions of the uterus and ultimately facilitate childbirth [1].

How to Be a Mommy

Let the brain do the job. Many mothers-to-be might have wondered at some point if they are capable of being a mom. Maternal love seems to be somewhat natural and unconditional everywhere in the world. You might have guessed it already, it is indeed the usual suspect who pulls the strings for maternal love: your brain.

After birth, maternal behavior needs to be initiated to ensure survival of the newborn. The medial preoptic area (mPOA), which has some control over the reward circuitry, has a central role in the regulation of maternal behavior. Priming of the mPOA by the changed endocrine environment during pregnancy is necessary for the fast initiation of maternal behavior right after childbirth [3]. During delivery, oxytocin is released and acts on receptors in the mPOA and other brain regions – and maternal behavior is induced [3].

Your Kid Lives On In You 

During pregnancy, cells from the fetus can cross the placenta and remain in the mother’s body – sometimes for decades. These cells are mainly found in the bloodstream during and right after pregnancy, but can be found anywhere in the body as well. Some studies have even shown a migration of fetal cells to the maternal brain [4]. Different studies found positive or negative effects on maternal health, ranging from increased risk for autoimmune disease [5] to improved wound healing [6].

In a nutshell, your brain needs to adapt during pregnancy and changes a lot of processes in the body. Being the perfect host, the brain does everything in its powers to make pregnancy and being a mother possible.

[1] http://bit.ly/2deNVll

[2] http://bit.ly/2d9Cuju

[3] http://go.nature.com/2d9Du7q

[4] http://bit.ly/2e0f7sg

[5] http://bit.ly/2dVr4hV

[6] http://bit.ly/2dgM4fx

by Juliane Schiweck, PhD Student AG Eickholt

this article appeared December 2016 in CNS Volume 9, Issue 4, From Cradle to Grave in the Brain

Boys' Day: New Horizons for Young Men in Germany

Yesterday was not only Girl's Day, but also Bay's Day. First introduced in 2011 in follows the thought of gender Equality and acknowledges that there are also vocational fields dominated by female workers and seldom seen as career options for male jobseekers.

It’s a well-known fact that women are underrepresented in many STEM professions, but it turns out that societal expectations can go both ways: while a girl may shy away from a technical career because it is not perceived as “feminine” enough, boys may avoid many jobs traditionally held by women for fear of not seeming “manly”. Enter Boys’ Day, a German initiative that aims to introduce boys from grade 5 to 10 to skilled professions less commonly practiced by men.

Image source: gfairchild via flickr

One Small Step for Boy-kind…
Did you know that more than half of all male teenagers choose to pursue less than 20 careers [1]? Interestingly, these careers skew heavily toward technical work, such as being a car mechanic, and almost none have a social, caring-oriented focus. In a country with an aging population such as Germany, this is a serious problem. When entering the Boys' Day program, boys can choose from a list of 30 different professions to try out. Some of these “rare” professions for young men are also linked to (neuro)science. For example, boys can try out being a biologist, psychologist, nurse, or health researcher.

Future Payoff?
Since the program started in 2011, more than 194,000 boys have taken part in the program in Germany [1]. As the program is younger than Girls’ Day, it’s still hard to tell whether the impact will be as great. However, judging by success stories on the website [1], many young men have found their way into non-traditional careers that they turn out to love.
Working in life sciences means a challenging, but ultimately rewarding life. No-one should have to miss out on the opportunity to do science because of tradition or societal expectations! Boys’ Day serves as an important reminder that building a diverse scientific community means confronting our expectations about both men and women.

Many important jobs are not seen as "manly"
Boys’ Day takes place this year at the same time as Girls’ Day, on April 27^th.
For more information, please visit https://www.boys-day.de/

by Constance Holman, PhD Student AG Schmitz

[1] http://bit.ly/2kDGVUn

Girls' Day – Future Prospects for Girls

Tomorrow is Girl's Day in Germany and many other countries! A great opportunity for young girls to peek into jobs that are not typical "female jobs".

On Girls' Day, female students from grades 5 to 10 can get an insight into vocational fields that girls seldom consider as careers. Primarily technical enterprises, companies with technical departments and technical training facilities, universities, and research centers organize an open day for girls.
On average, girls have better grades than boys [1]. Still, in scientific or technical study programs and professions such as engineering or computer sciences, females represent the minority. Girls' Day encourages schools, media and employers to change their common attitudes towards vocational orientation.

In 2001, the first Girls' Day was initiated by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research and the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. The idea came from the American “Take Our Daughters To Work Day”, in which since 1993 schoolgirls in the US visit the workplace of their parents or acquaintances for a day.

Girls' Day Is Effective
Since then, Girls' Day has become the largest career orientation project for female students. In 2016, nearly 9,600 institutions offered about 100,000 places for female students.
The vocational choices of girls are influenced in a very positive way. For companies, Girls' Day has evolved as an important instrument of their recruitment policy. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in female professionals in technical fields. Now, the growth in employment of women is stronger than that of men in almost all scientific and technical professions.
Want some solid numbers? 40% of the girls would like to do an internship or get training in one of the participating companies. 33% of the participating organizations get applications for internships from women who participated in Girls' Day as a student. One in every five participating organizations ends up employing female candidates [2]!  

International Girls' Day
Meanwhile, Girls' Day takes place in more than twenty different countries, among them many in Europe, but also Japan and South Korea, and more recently Ethiopia and Egypt.
For more information, visit http://www.girls-day.de

[1] Voyer and Voyer, Psychol Bull, 2014
[2] www.girls-day.de

By Claudia Willmes, PhD Student AG Eickholt / AG Schmitz

Female Voices of the Charité Research Community - part 3

What does it mean to be a female scientist at the Charité? We set out to interview researchers at all career stages, learning about their challenges, hopes, and unfiltered thoughts on being a woman in science. As you will see, not everyone shares the same opinion or experiences...

University women’s representative 

Why do we need woman’s representatives?
As women, we have come along way from not having any rights at all to being members of society that are acknowledged as such, with rights and potential that can be used. But there are still some improvements that need to be done, especially concerning the underrepresentation of women in leading positions- including in academia. Women's representatives are the conscious voice that demand these improvements and make sure that our progress doesn't come to a halt when we are getting close to equality. 
Do you feel that you are treated equally?
I feel treated equally and I cannot say I have encountered any discrimination due to my gender. I believe this is thanks to the hard work of generations of women who fought for their rights as women in society. However, I believe there is still some inequality when it comes to letting women advance to leadership positions and certain disadvantages that come with the biological role of women in having children.

GENDER EQUALITY IS NOT A TRADE-OFF FOR EXCELLENCE!

What needs to be improved?
We need to improve the opportunities of women to reach the top steps of the career ladder. This can be done by improving the compatibility of career and family, by increasing the acceptance of family as something that is a normal progression in life- even at competitive workplaces- and by making people aware that women are as capable as men. We need to stop thinking that gender equality in science can only come at a cost. Gender equality is not a trade-off for excellence!

by josemiguels via pixabay

Postdoc, mid 40s, one child

Do you have a female scientist role model?
Not really, because I do not differentiate between man and woman with respect to intellectual capabilities. And I never had the opportunity to talk to a female professor in this private way how she managed to get there and what she thinks is necessary and one has to leave aside to get there.
Do you feel that you are treated equally?
When I was younger I thought that yes, we are treated equally  But looking back now there are some occasions where I think that is just wrong.
My PhD was rather equal even though my supervisor was a bit more outspoken with his male students. During one of my postdocs I had one supervisor who was borderline sexist. Later on, I also had female bosses, who were far more research-focused and gender-neutral. One was a mother and the other wasn’t, but both welcomed women who decided to start a family. The most sexist man I encountered was when I applied for a postdoc and he asked me if I wanted to start a family and and so on. I reconsidered and retracted my application. However, there are also female professors who have an issue with female postdocs. It always boils down to whether you want to have a family or not. This is the most important fact in regard to gender equality: it is the woman who bears the child. It is almost a biological disadvantage. We have to welcome women who want to start a family. I always found it very strange that many bosses do not welcome children.
What did you struggle with most as a woman in academia?
I guess it gets more difficult the more you advance in your career. It is really difficult to have a break from academia for several month to raise your child – like I did when I became a mum. You are out of the job, out of contact with your colleagues, and out of the progress that happens in the lab. Despite being on maternity leave, the women need to come to the lab every now and then to keep up to date because science will not wait. This is hugely important.
What needs to be improved?
Both sides have to improve. Young people have to honestly ask themselves, "What is my capacity and strength"? The earlier you start thinking where you want to go in life, the better. Also, it is absolutely necessary that young people get more advice from experienced researchers.
What needs to change is the attitude of how we look at young mothers: For example, I remember an Icelandic politician who was in front of a congress with her baby, and breastfeeding while giving an important speech. I think this is so cool- they do not make a fuss about it at all. Another thing: This building (CCO) is great, but it does not even have a room where a pregnant of breastfeeding mother can go to and rest for a moment. There is not even a kindergarten here. The Charité is just starting to build one. Organizations like Charité need to make childcare easier for parents who want to return to their jobs.

Tell yourself every day that you are smart.

 
Another point is finances: The situation is bad in research. It's an insecure job in itself, because we don't know what comes out of our experiments. These short-term contracts are a disgrace for smart and ambitious young people. As women, we really need to consider whether we want to go the whole path from PhD to Professor. It is very difficult, and could be a waste of time.
Your advice for a female scientist?
Go for it! It's tough, it's rough, and it's a fight every day. The best one can do is find colleagues who you can rely on, and who you can collaborate with. Ask yourself "Where do I want to go?". "What kind of restrictions can I live with?". Tell people like your boss what you are willing to deal with and what you are not. Be more self-assured. Women are equally smart as men, but they tend to be more insecure and humble in the way they interact. This is not the right attitude. Tell yourself every day that you are smart.



by Claudia Willmes, AG Eickholt/Schmitz
These interviews have been edited lightly for quality and content.

this article originally appeared March 2017 in "Diversity in Neuroscience"