Page 7 - T-I JOURNAL19 4
P. 7

Technology and Innovation, Vol. 19, pp. 655-657, 2018          ISSN 1949-8241  • E-ISSN 1949-825X
             Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.                    http://dx.doi.org/10.21300/19.4.2018.655
             Copyright © 2018 National Academy of Inventors.                 www.technologyandinnovation.org












                                  THE GENDER GAP IN INVENTION


                                           Florence P. Haseltine
                                                Alexandria, VA, USA




            This issue of Technology and Innovation (T&I) high-  their inventions and receiving recognition for their
            lights an area of our innovative economy in which  work was not the “low hanging fruit.”
            women and minorities are under-represented. With    During this same time period, there was a group
            the current recognition of the existence of economic  of academics who were pursuing intellectual activ-
            bias and the under-utilization of a large part of our  ities in minority studies programs and women’s
            population, some major intellectual movements are   studies programs. Both of these fields have had a
            changing our thinking about how sex and gender   major role in highlighting disparities among groups
            influence our country’s ability to innovate. This is   as well as building a philosophical base for arguing
            related, in no small part, to the fact that women   for change. This issue of T&I belongs to this tradition,
            are entering fields of science and technology at an   and, for those readers who are interested in change
            increasing rate. In the 1970s, when I started my career,   and advancing innovation utilizing the full range
            I was either the first woman to do something or, if   of available talent, the series of articles in this issue
            not the first, the only woman who was doing it at the   should be of value.
            time. Just getting a position and learning the aca-    The issue starts with an article by Sandra S. Park
            demic rules were what was important. Salaries were   exploring the litigation to invalidate the patents on
            not the same for men and women, but that was not
            the main issue; getting the position and the promo-  BRCA1 and BRAC2 genes—genes important for iden-
            tions were the focus. By the early 1980s, that attitude   tifying breast and ovarian cancer risk. Park reveals
            started to change as the emphasis shifted to getting   that the lawsuits were remarkable in two major
            more women into graduate programs and then into   ways: They highlighted women as key stakeholders,
            academic positions. Salary discussions then started   and they used feminist analytical methods in the
            in earnest and now are a major topic. In academia,   prosecution of this litigation. In pursuing this line
            publishing was and still is a major requirement for  of argument, Park reveals that feminist advocacy is
            promotion. Since women were focused on their career  not only effective in promoting the development of
            paths and what it took to be promoted, it is not sur-  women inventors but also in understanding and mit-
            prising that other areas, such as prizes and patents,  igating the broader impacts of intellectual property
            were not factored into their aspirations (1). Patenting  decisions on women’s lives.

            _____________________
            Accepted: March 1, 2018.
            Address correspondence to Florence P. Haseltine, Ph.D., M.D, Emerita Scientist, NIH, Founder, Society for Women’s Health Research, 2181 Jamieson Ave
            #1606, Alexandria VA, 22314. Tel: +1 (240) 476-7837. E-mail: florence@swhr.org


                                                     655
   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12