Laura M. Langan
Michelle Bloor
Amanda Sevcik
Erica D. Bruce- 1Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States
- 2School of Social and Environmental Sustainability, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
- 3Department of Biology, Baylor University, Waco, TX, United States
Editorial on the Research Topic
Women in environmental toxicology
Women are underrepresented minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Maths (STEM) fields, in addition to “leaking” from academia at higher rates than their male counterparts. At every career stage, generally irrespective of discipline, the proportion of women decreases in academia, which is a phenomenon termed the ‘leaky pipeline’ (Blickenstaff, 2005). Worldwide, 33% of researchers are women (varying substantially by country) and only 12% of national science academics are women (UN, 2024). Deepening this issue, smaller research grants are often awarded to women compared to their male colleagues (Jebsen et al., 2022) and women’s research is underrepresented in high-profile journals as they submit fewer scientific papers to top journals compared to their male counterparts (Ross et al., 2022). These issues are frequently overlooked, requiring collective visibility and capacity building to eradicate the gender gap. UNESCO has acknowledged that the gender gap is an issue that is hindering progress towards attaining the sustainable development goals (SDG), where science and gender equality are essential to ensure sustainable development.
The field of toxicology is intrinsically linked to these goals, contributing to the protection of the world population through various activities including improving public health, access to clean water, and the sustainable consumption and production of safe food. As a multidisciplinary field, environmental toxicology explores how chemicals affect human health and the environment, through principles of biology, chemistry, and epidemiology. While the exact number of female researchers in the field of environmental toxicology is unknown it can be predicted that women are underrepresented, as is the case of most STEM fields. Long-standing biases and gender stereotypes, accumulated over decades, are discouraging girls and women away from science-related fields. This Research Topic represents a timely, if not the first, platform for the promotion of women scientists across this subfield and joins Research Topic highlighting women-led research in toxicology (Bryant-Friedrich et al., 2023), regulatory toxicology (Ågerstrand et al., 2022), biosensor research (Cristea, 2023), nanotechnology (de Bettencourt-Dias and Hahm, 2018), in addition to physics (Ponce Dawson, 2023), and glycoscience (Roman et al., 2023).
As part of a drive to highlight female leadership, a recent new phenomenon, we wish to highlight that the authors of the papers within the Research Topic are at various stages of their scientific careers, from doctoral students to established leaders, working around the world with a common goal. Representing a snapshot of women-led science, the papers herein provide a glimpse of some of the recent and diverse contributions, made by women, to the field of environmental toxicological sciences. We proudly present this Research Topic, and we hope that it will inspire the next-generation of female scientists while also offering some thoughts on how to dismantle and lower the real and perceived barriers within STEM. The five contributions, written by 18 authors of which 12 are women, include 5 original research articles, and 1 review, and all the papers explore different aspects of environmental toxicology.
The first, second and fourth article provide important information from both field and laboratory studies to feed into ecological risk assessments. Focusing on fish, Rojo et al., provides important information about the bioconcentration kinetics to human pharmaceutical active ingredients in several understudied neotropical fish species in Brazil, while Jeninga et al., contributes to our understanding of chronic exposure to mixtures of neonicotinoid insecticides in fathead minnow larvae. In Pihlaja et al., 16 human pharmaceuticals in different therapeutic classes were examined for P450 inhibition via CYP1A and CYP3A-activity using the rainbow trout liver S9 fractions, adding important toxicological information for which environmental effects and fate data is currently very limited. The third article written by Cheng et al., highlights the association between ambient air pollution and the occurrence of thyroid cancer. The study used certified diesel particulate matter as a proxy for fine particulate matter to expose and examine functional response using human thyroid cancer cell lines. Their results suggest that fine particulate matter induces augmented collective cell migration in thyroid cancer cells. Finally, the review article by Solan and Park, explores the current literature Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure, with a specific focus on their inhalation, the adverse effects on lung health, and the mechanisms underlying tissue- and cellular-level adverse outcomes.
While this Research Topic highlights the diverse areas where women-led science is benefiting and enhancing our understanding of environmental toxicology, we must as editors highlight some of the difficulties encountered during the formulation, recruitment and submission process for this Research Topic, including in the timelines for submission, but also in the identification of female editors in senior positions in this field, combined with the small pool of researchers led by a female PI or have a female lead researcher. While stark, this is not surprising. Starting early (i.e. 10–12 years), multiple social, educational and personal aspects are contributing to perpetuate STEM stereotypes (Guenaga et al., 2022). Sidelined, isolated and sometimes discriminated against, women are balancing societal expectations and caring responsibilities with career progression (McKinnon and O’Connell, 2020; Carter et al., 2024), in addition to contributing to invisible work in the labour market (Kaplan, 2022).
Numerous initiatives are being carried out to address these issues including female role model mentorship programs, where children, teenagers and women are paired with role models locally, regionally and nationally are showing some beneficial outcomes. Such programs and other initiatives are available through schools (González-Pérez et al., 2020; Guenaga et al., 2022), scientific societies (e.g., Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Society of Toxicology), higher education institutions (e.g., United Kingdom Advance Higher Education) and research councils (e.g., UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council), and there is evidence that visibility and mentorship contributes to uptake and continuation of STEM vocations. Yet, more action is still needed to support women in STEM. Women now account for 44% of all PhD’s but only 33% of researchers, with a trend towards female graduates now opting not to pursue careers in research, an unsurprising dilemma. If we want to see more women remaining in research, effort and resources must be concentrated to achieve this goal, especially in dealing with unconscious bias.
Unconscious or implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. Early seminal research by Wennerås and Wold (1997) identified sexism, and nepotism impacts in medical research fellowship’s reviews such that for a female to receive the same competence score as a male, a female needed to exceed his scientific productivity by three extra Science or Nature papers or 20 extra papers n lower-impact professional Journals. With his field representing biology and medicine, two fields where gender balance was perceived to have attained more gender parity, this study was one of the first to document the impact of bias through the examination of genuine peer-reviewer evaluation sheets. In STEM fields, more recently, there has been some improvement in unconscious bias recognition through efforts to raise visibility and awareness, resulting in rigorous efforts to avoid it. However, there are still biases in the field of environmental toxicology that can impact women in several ways. This bias is visible in several different ways, for example, the lower number of women reaching full professor in comparison to men, grant funding, recruitment, evaluation and recognition (Larivière et al., 2013; Carr et al., 2017; Kozlowski et al., 2022; Ioannidis et al., 2023) and leadership roles within toxicology (Spyres et al., 2019; Swanson, 2022). However, also more general bias among managers which can manifest in feeling ‘judged’ or bullied and even harassed for juggling careers with home life and children as well as dealing with gender prejudice in the workplace (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2022). Saturating evaluation metrics, these biases can impact hiring and promotion, funding and research opportunities, recognition and awards, peer review and publication for academics and career progression in general across STEM fields (Carr et al., 2017; Witteman et al., 2019). Addressing these prejudices requires a multifaceted approach, including awareness training, policy changes, mentorship programs, and initiatives to support diversity, equity and inclusion (Melo, 2021; Kozlowski et al., 2022).
By recognizing and actively working against unconscious biases, using a combination of the above-mentioned approaches, the field of toxicology can become more equitable and supportive for women. To change the status quo, and traditional mindsets, gender equality in science must be funded, prioritized and encouraged. Promoting our fellow women colleagues, extending collaborative networks by sharing, being visible but also actively being aware of conscious and unconscious bias are just some examples of what can be done to contribute to a more diverse and inclusive workforce. Improvements have been made, but progress is slow and there are still gaps to fill. We offer our thanks to the authors and reviewers who contributed to this Research Topic, and also helped us to shine a light on the challenges faced by women in environmental toxicology and wider STEM fields.
Author contributions
LL: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. MB: Conceptualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. AS: Conceptualization, Writing–review and editing. EB: Conceptualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors acknowledge the historical and continuing effort by many of our colleagues to address several of the issues outlined in this editorial, despite opposition from institutions and individuals alike. Their tireless efforts to support fellow female colleagues, researchers, family and friends to modernize institutions where they work is not unnoticed. Thank you.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ågerstrand, M., Beronius, A., Junghans, M., and Martin, O. (2022). Editorial: women in regulatory toxicology: 2021. Front. Toxicol. 4, 1056285. doi:10.3389/ftox.2022.1056285
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gend. Educ. 17, 369–386. doi:10.1080/09540250500145072
Bryant-Friedrich, A., Kraegeloh, A., and Sturla, S. J. (2023). A virtual issue of chemical research in toxicology in celebration of the international day of women and girls in science. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 36, 123–128. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrestox.3c00026
Carr, P. L., Gunn, C., Raj, A., Kaplan, S., and Freund, K. M. (2017). Recruitment, promotion, and retention of women in academic medicine: how institutions are addressing gender disparities. Women’s Health Issues 27, 374–381. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2016.11.003
Carter, L., Wolz, L., and Pallett, L. J. (2024). Researcher parents are paying a high price for conference travel — here’s how to fix it. Nature 630, 517–518. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-01571-x
Cristea, C. (2023). Special issue “women in science”—the first edition. Biosens. (Basel) 13, 438. doi:10.3390/bios13040438
Cunningham, G. B., and Cunningham, H. R. (2022). Bias among managers: its prevalence across a decade and comparison across occupations. Front. Psychol. 13, 1034712. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1034712
de Bettencourt-Dias, A., and Hahm, J.-I. (2018). Women in nanotechnology: toward better materials through a better understanding of low-dimensional systems. ACS Nano 12, 7417–7420. doi:10.1021/acsnano.8b05854
González-Pérez, S., Mateos de Cabo, R., and Sáinz, M. (2020). Girls in STEM: is it a female role-model thing? Front. Psychol. 11, 2204. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02204
Guenaga, M., Eguíluz, A., Garaizar, P., and Mimenza, A. (2022). The impact of female role models leading a group mentoring program to promote STEM vocations among young girls. Sustainability 14, 1420. doi:10.3390/su14031420
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Boyack, K. W., Collins, T. A., and Baas, J. (2023). Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors. PLOS Biol. 21, e3002385. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002385
Jebsen, J. M., Nicoll Baines, K., and Oliver, R. A. (2022). Dismantling barriers faced by women in STEM. Nat. Chem. 14, 1203–1206. doi:10.1038/s41557-022-01072-2
Kaplan, A. (2022). “Just let it pass by and it will fall on some woman”: invisible work in the labor market. Gend. & Soc. 36, 838–868. doi:10.1177/08912432221128544
Kozlowski, D., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., and Monroe-White, T. (2022). Intersectional inequalities in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2113067119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2113067119
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., and Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature 504, 211–213. doi:10.1038/504211a
McKinnon, M., and O’Connell, C. (2020). Perceptions of stereotypes applied to women who publicly communicate their STEM work. Humanit Soc. Sci. Commun. 7, 160–168. doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00654-0
Melo, L. (2021). Women in toxicology in the United States. Toxicol. Res. 10, 902–910. doi:10.1093/toxres/tfab075
Ponce Dawson, S. (2023). Editorial: women in science: physics. Front. Phys. 10. doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.1124714
Roman, M., Chandran, P. L., and Haurat, M. F. (2023). Editorial: in celebration of women in science: glycoscience. Front. Mol. Biosci. 10, 1215738. doi:10.3389/fmolb.2023.1215738
Ross, M. B., Glennon, B. M., Murciano-Goroff, R., Berkes, E. G., Weinberg, B. A., and Lane, J. I. (2022). Women are credited less in science than men. Nature 608, 135–145. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w
Spyres, M. B., Moore, E. C., Ruha, A.-M., and O’Connor, A. D. (2019). Moving towards gender equality in medical toxicology. J. Med. Toxicol. 15, 217–219. doi:10.1007/s13181-019-00737-8
Swanson, H. I. (2022). Mentoring and supporting our next generation of women toxicologists. Front. Toxicol. 4, 920664. doi:10.3389/ftox.2022.920664
UN (2024). International day of women and girls in science. United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/observances/women-and-girls-in-science-day (Accessed July 1, 2024).
Wennerås, C., and Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387, 341–343. doi:10.1038/387341a0
Keywords: environmental toxicology, gender parity, SDG5 gender equality, women in STEM fields, unconscious bias, gender bias
Citation: Langan LM, Bloor M, Sevcik A and Bruce ED (2024) Editorial: Women in environmental toxicology. Front. Toxicol. 6:1490209. doi: 10.3389/ftox.2024.1490209
Received: 02 September 2024; Accepted: 29 October 2024;
Published: 05 November 2024.
Edited and reviewed by:
Bengt Fadeel, Karolinska Institutet (KI), SwedenCopyright © 2024 Langan, Bloor, Sevcik and Bruce. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Laura M. Langan, bGFuZ2FubEBtYWlsYm94LnNjLmVkdQ==