Summary: Stacey A. Bedwell examines why women remain underrepresented in neuroscience.
Source: Nottingham Trent University.
Women have long been underrepresented across the sciences, and neuroscience is no exception. In UK institutions only about one third of senior academic staff are female. While the proportion of female professors has risen somewhat in recent years—22% in 2014 versus 15% a decade earlier—the gender gap in academic neuroscience persists.
Across brain sciences the distribution of women varies. Fields closely related to neuroscience, such as psychology, tend to have a stronger female presence than more biological, lab-based areas of neuroscience. This disparity raises important questions: Are women being driven away from neurobiology by structural barriers and life pressures, or do they simply prefer other branches of brain science?
As a female neuroscientist who has worked in both biology and psychology departments, I have observed a striking difference in gender balance even within the same university. Psychology departments typically show a much higher proportion of female staff than bioscience or neurobiology groups, despite the close scientific overlap between these fields.
For example, staff listings accessed in May 2016 showed that at Nottingham Trent University 29% of biosciences academic and research staff were female, compared to 57% in psychology. Similar patterns appear elsewhere in the UK: University College London reported a higher proportion of female psychology researchers than neuroscience researchers, and the University of Cambridge listed far fewer female principal investigators in neuroscience than in psychology. The gender gap is particularly notable at higher academic ranks: professors and readers across disciplines remain predominantly male, and the proportion of female senior academics is consistently low.
Although the underrepresentation of women is not unique to neuroscience, it appears particularly pronounced in neurobiological research at researcher and lecturer levels. In general biology the gap between men and women is smaller. Given that areas like cognitive neuroscience and psychology show better female representation, the question remains: why are women less represented in laboratory-based neuroscience?
Several explanations have been proposed. One possibility is that women who are interested in the brain gravitate more toward social, clinical, and health-focused topics, whether by personal preference or through subtle steering by advisors and departments. Another factor may be departmental differences in career structure and hiring practices that make some paths more compatible with the life choices many women face.
Media coverage commonly highlights gender gaps in science, but the causes are often discussed without clear evidence about whether women actually want the senior positions they are said to be missing. Across sciences, a majority of senior roles are still held by men. Many observers assume this reflects a “glass ceiling” that blocks women from reaching the top. Yet the reality may be more complex: higher male representation in senior ranks could also reflect different career choices and priorities among women.
Do women want to be at the top?
Research indicates higher dropout rates for women from laboratory-based careers compared with men. For example, reports suggest that while about half of neuroscience graduate students are female, only a quarter of tenure-track faculty were female in some surveys. Some scholars argue that early departures, rather than active exclusion, drive the skewed senior demographics. Yet it remains unclear why women leave academia at such rates: is it a lack of desire to pursue senior academic roles, or are they being pushed out by structural and cultural factors?
Psychological studies have consistently found that men, on average, show greater competitiveness than women. This difference could translate into a stronger drive among men to pursue the highest academic positions, where competition is intense. Valian’s theory of accumulation advantage suggests that gender schemas—implicit beliefs and assumptions—lead to men being overrated and women underrated, influencing evaluations, promotions, and opportunities. If women internalize these schemas, they may be less likely to push aggressively for advancement, further affecting career trajectories.
While differences in competitiveness and self-evaluation may help explain why fewer women reach professorships, they do not fully account for why neuroscience shows a sharper gender imbalance than related brain sciences. More factors need to be considered to explain this pronounced disparity.
Making a choice
A widely discussed explanation is the tension between academic career progression and family planning. The critical phase for academic advancement often follows the Ph.D. and precedes a permanent post. During this period many researchers rely on short-term postdoctoral contracts that demand flexibility, frequent relocation, and sometimes international moves. This phase often coincides with the ages when many people are considering starting a family.
Women who become parents frequently report greater effects on career progression than men. Studies show that having children typically reduces women’s working hours while increasing men’s, producing diverging work patterns that can influence research productivity, grant applications, and promotion prospects. The instability of successive short-term contracts also complicates decisions about home ownership and long-term settlement, adding practical pressure that disproportionately affects women due to biological fertility timelines.
These realities make academic careers, especially in lab-based neuroscience where multiple postdoc positions are common, harder to combine with family life. In contrast, psychology departments sometimes offer clearer routes from Ph.D. to permanent lecturer positions, making early stability and family planning more compatible. This structural difference in career trajectories could be a key reason for the higher representation of women in psychology compared to neurobiology.
The pressure to choose can prompt many women to leave academia for more stable careers that allow earlier family formation. Men face the same temporary contracts, but biological factors mean men are less often constrained by an age-related urgency to have children. This difference may contribute substantially to the gendered career outcomes seen in neuroscience.
Yes, we can have it all — in very specific circumstances
It is possible for women to reach the highest academic ranks in neuroscience, but this path often requires specific conditions: selecting a subfield with faster routes to permanent posts, securing a permanent position soon after the Ph.D., and navigating work–life balance successfully. Cognitive neuroscience and psychology-based areas tend to offer more opportunities for early permanent posts, while basic neurobiology usually involves longer sequences of temporary positions. Consequently, it is easier for women in some branches of brain science to “have it all” than for those in others.
In summary, the gender gap in neuroscience appears to arise from a combination of structural factors, career timing, departmental differences, and personal choices. Women are better represented in some brain-science areas because those fields often allow earlier stability, reducing the conflict between career progression and family life. Addressing underrepresentation requires identifying which factors are at play in each context before proposing targeted solutions.
About this neuroscience opinion article
Note: NeuroscienceNews.com thanks Stacey A. Bedwell for submitting this opinion piece for inclusion on their website.
Source: Stacey A. Bedwell – Nottingham Trent University
Image Source: Image credited to luchschen.
References
Brody, E.M. (2004). Women in the middle: Their parent care years. New York: Springer.
Dubreuil Vall, L. (2013). Where Are All the Women in Neuroscience? Women 2.0.
Higher Education Statistics Agency (2014). Staff in Higher Education 2013–14.
House of Commons Science & Technology Committee (2014). Women in scientific careers. Sixth Report of Session 2013–14.
Leslie, D.W. (2007). The reshaping of America’s academic workforce. Research Dialogue (87). New York.
Niederle, M. and Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1067–1101.
Steinpreis, R.E., Anders, K.A. and Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates. Sex Roles, 41(7/8), 509–528.
The Times Higher Education (2015). Proportion of female professors up, but still below a quarter.
Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cite This Article
MLA: Nottingham Trent University. “Women in Neuroscience – Can We Have it All?.” NeuroscienceNews. 23 June 2016.
APA: Nottingham Trent University. (2016, June 23). Women in Neuroscience – Can We Have it All?. NeuroscienceNews.
Chicago: Nottingham Trent University. “Women in Neuroscience – Can We Have it All?.” (accessed June 23, 2016).