Preconceptions of a Scientist

Whenever people ask me what I study at University and I tell them I'm a chemistry student, I usually get responses along the lines of:

 'Wow, you must be really intelligent!' or 'Ooh, aren't you a clever girl?', (which is possibly the most patronising comment ever).

My own personal favourite is 'Oh, but you're so pretty!', simply because it's unrelated to my field and I still can't figure out whether it's a compliment or an insult.

I've recently discussed what people perceive scientists to 'look like', however my experience has told me that these preconceptions of scientists are much more complex than simply appearance. I've even had medicine students ask me what I study and when I tell them they respond with something like 'Eww really? Chemistry's so hard. You must be so clever.' I wanted to remind them that they study medicine, the most competitive University course there is. People have this idea that all scientists are genius' (what is the plural of genius?!) and we sit at desks all day scribbling down complex equations. This may be true of some scientists, who are extremely intelligent and probably make the rest of us look a little dim, however we're not all Einstein and I think this is where the preconceived idea comes from. Einstein is the most well known scientist on Earth and probably the first person people think of when they imagine a scientist. Therefore I think people's thought process is something along the lines of:

Einstein = Scientist, therefore if you are a scientist you must be on the same level as Einstein! Which I know on a personal level isn't true. I am most definitely not a genius. Sure, I have a brain like everyone else, but I am a scientist because I love science and I enjoy it and that is the reason I am good at it. Not because I have an IQ of 1 billion. (Disclaimer: I'm pretty sure you can't have an IQ of 1 billion.)

I think a lot of careers have stereotypes but those of people in STEM subjects are actually quite damaging and I think is one of the reasons there is a lack of women in these fields. Take the 'Big Bang Theory'. It's a funny show and I love it, but when I look at characters like Amy Farrah Fowler, I wonder if I would have chosen a career in science if I had grown up with her character. Probably not. Fortunately I'm lucky enough to know that most female scientists aren't like her at all. Mayim Bialik who plays Amy, is a real representation of a women in science! She's amazing and funny and beautiful with a passion for the subject; she's a true inspiration. However Amy is frumpy, socially awkward and perceived as 'boring'. Maybe I'm taking this too seriously but she really doesn't represent the majority and personally, I don't know anyone like her which makes me wonder where this stereotype comes from.

Yes as scientists,we are a little geeky but we like to have fun as much as anyone else. We love the Universe and the origin of it, we love the Earth, we love the organisms that inhabit the Earth, we love invisible forces the act on you and the atoms and molecules that make up everything. We love the chemicals whizzing around your brain as you're reading this. In general, we love life and the origins of life. How can you possibly say that's boring?

What does a scientist look like?

Whilst reading the latest issue of Chemistry World, a monthly magazine I receive for being a member of the Royal society of Chemistry, I came across an article about Martyn Poliakoff, a professor of Chemistry at the University of Nottingham. He is the foreign secretary of the RSC, meaning he has an influential role in the international business of the Royal Society. Despite this, he is most famous for his insightful and entertaining Youtube videos on the channel 'Periodic Videos'. Poliakoff and his team at Nottingham worked to produce informative videos on every element in the periodic table and have now moved on to even cooler chemistry concepts and experiments such as heating up Creme Eggs (an absolute must-see) and the classic experiment; the Iodine clock.

Heating a creme egg. 

 Professor Poliakoff himself is the epitome of  your 'stereotypical scientist', his wild grey hair and glasses make him the received idea of a scientist we've all come to know. But, as Poliakoff states 'Part of my mission is to show that not all scientists look like me'. Whilst Poliakoff acknowledges his own appearance, he makes viewers aware that there are people out there in the field of science who do not look like him at all. His team at the University of Nottingham comprises of men and women of different backgrounds and ages. It is good that he acknowledges the stereotype and recognises that there needs to be more diversity. His work in Ethiopia has been invaluable in getting more African scientists into the international community and he has said 'My long term vision is that Ethiopian scientists should go to an international conference and nobody should think it surprising'. He is truly an ambassador for diversity.

When you picture a scientist you probably think of an old man with crazy Einstein-like hair and glasses, wearing a white lab coat, not unlike Professor Poliakoff. Whereas if you look at real people who have careers in STEM fields, they come in all shapes and sizes, different ethnic backgrounds and of course, different sexes. I believe that challenging the stereotypical image of a scientist is the one of the most effective ways to introduce more diversity into the fields. If you have this view of what someone in a chosen career path 'should' look like then you are alienating everyone who doesn't look that way. Therefore, girls and ethnic minorities may be less inclined to take up science if they are unable to see how they 'fit in' and if there is no one who they can relate to. The image of a scientist we have all grown up with is an ageing white man, yet first and foremost, a scientist is a person, someone with passion and curiosity. That's it. These preconceptions of what a scientist is, damages the opportunity to diversify the scientific industry. I am glad that there are people like Martyn Poliakoff in the world who want to confront this out of date vision.

I'm a scientist! No grey hair to be seen!

Obviously, I am passionate about getting more girls into STEM subjects and I just wanted to let any girl reading this know that you can be a scientist/engineer/mathematician, regardless of your appearance. Science doesn't care about how you look, it cares about your mind and how you think and your passion for the subject. People shouldn't be scared of following their dreams because they can't relate to the image of what they should be. There are so many fabulous female scientists and organisations, such as the Stemettes, who promote diversity and gender equality in the field, so why are we still stuck on this grey haired character who is so obsolete in today's society? The days of balding men in suits sat round a table discussing gravity is long gone. It's time to make way for a new 'face of science', one that represents all cultures and backgrounds.

When Science meets Art

Anyone who knows me can guarantee that I would happily spend all day in an art gallery. Now, I'm not really a fan of contemporary art, I think the meaning behind it is often far too vague and you struggle to see the links between what it says the artwork is about and what it actually looks like. It's really not for me. This was until I saw Mariner 9 by Kelly Richardson, a conglomeration of contemporary art and science.

Now on show at the Laing gallery in Newcastle upon Tyne, Mariner 9 depicts a panoramic image of what Mars will look like 200 years in the future. It is unequivocally striking and a real sight to be seen. But this isn't just an imagined landscape thought up in the artists head, the exhibition was created using data from NASA. Actual scientific knowledge went into the production of Mariner 9 and I think that's what makes it so breathtaking. Richardson worked alongside NASA and used real imagery and technical data from them. She then used a scenery generation software named Terragen to create the hyper-realistic scene of Mars. She even went as far as to replicate the geology and weather found on the red planet.

So what does it look like? The scene depicts the surface of mars, rocks and rovers dominate the landscape and the wreckage of rusting spacecraft lie off into the distance. Light and sound play an important part in the exhibit and the sounds of  rovers moving and the wind howling make the experience feel almost real. As the sun sets on Mars, you feel like you're almost there, alone with only pieces of machinery to keep you company.

MARINER 9 - An interview with Kelly Richardson from Northern Stars on Vimeo.
An interview with artist Kelly Richardson about her work Mariner 9.

Planetariums, Stars and Spacecraft..

In today's society, we spend a significant proportion of our lives staring at television and computer screens trying to keep up with the world. By doing this we often forget to look at our own planet, especially the sky. If you're new to physics and all this space-y stuff (as I am), then a planetarium is a great way to explore the skies and learn about the feats of mankind in exploring the planets, whilst remaining warm.

I was lucky enough to visit two planetariums whilst on a recent trip to Newcastle and both were equally fabulous. First, I visited the Centre for Life which I have mentioned in a previous blog post, where I watched a short film titled 'Back to the Moon for Good'. The film faded in to millions of stars and you felt like you were floating in outer space, miles away from civilisation. Amazing graphics took you on a journey through the cosmos and told you the story of the first moon landing and why no one has been back since.

Google Lunar XPRIZE

Debts and austerity mean days of exploring planets are the last thing on governments minds as obviously getting to the moon isn't the most cost-effective enterprise. However, the Google Lunar XPrize, initiates the  race to the moon once again. 33 teams from all over the world must build a spacecraft which can successfully land on the moon, travel 500 metres across the surface and send images back to Earth. The best part? The teams expenses must be no more than 10% government funded, meaning getting to the moon on a budget! Who knows, one of these teams may revolutionise rocket building as we know it and design a cheaper way of sending spacecraft into orbit, meaning more missions could take place. Exciting stuff. The deadline of the competition is December 31st 2015 which really isn't that far away. It's brilliant that people from all over the world can have a go at sending something they have designed themselves into the skies. Many teams rely on volunteers to aid the success of their project, and it gives a chance for people not originally from the field of physics to get involved. The film showed that one team member was a neuroscientist who compared the building of a rocket to the human brain and all the processes that go on are delicately intertwined. I cannot convey how much it made me want to be a physicist (and this is coming from a chemist). The winning team will receive the grand prize of  $20 million and I imagine will go down in history. Since watching the film, I've been reading a lot about the respective teams and all of them have chosen different ways of approaching the challenge and comprise of different scientists and engineers from different fields; it's truly inspiring.

Whilst also in the North-East, I visited the Great North museum, previously the Hancock, which also blew me away with it's planetarium. You have to pay for the planetarium at this venue, but it's not expensive at all. I paid £1.95 for a film titled 'Dawn of the Space Age' which was around 40 minutes long. Not bad at all, and totally worth it! In 'Dawn of the Space Age' you relive space exploration, starting from the first time an artificial satellite was launched, through the space race where the Soviet Union and the USA battled to see who could get into space first. The Soviets won with the launch of Sputnik 1 in October 1957, and the battle continued to outdo each other, resulting in the USA's Apollo 11 landing in 1969, whereby the first humans set foot on the moon. As someone who has only recently developed an interest in space and doesn't really know much about space travel, it was enlightening and entertaining to be taken through the growth and advancements of spacecraft through the ages. Being the feminist that I am, I only have one issue with the film and that was that much emphasis was placed on the first man on the moon, but not on the first woman in space. Valentina Tereshkova was the first woman in space and was on board the Soviet's 'Vostok 6' which launched 16th June 1963. The Great North has many other planetarium shows available to watch and I thoroughly recommend visiting any planetarium. Learning about space is fascinating and opens up so many questions that you want to find the answers to. It's great if you're an inquisitive individual.

Being a girl.

As a girl, from the very first moment that you begin to walk and talk you are bombarded with images of what you are supposed to be. Toys, clothes, everything is pink. Possibly the sickliest colour known to man dominates our life and choices, even as a child. If you've ever been to 'Toys R Us', you will completely understand what I am about to say. From the moment you step into the shop, you immediately know which are the 'girls' toys and which are the boys. The shop is split into two distinct colours; one aisle bright pink, the next blue. As you wander down the 'girls' aisle it's easy to understand why girls as young as five worry about their weight [1] as stick-thin dolls line the shelves in provocative clothing.

Although these toys are not labelled as being for  'girls' or 'boys' it's easy to understand where the stance of the companies that make these toys lie. The simple message is 'Girls, if it's not pink you shouldn't be playing with it.' and for a child, that is an incredibly confusing concept. Why should your choice of toy depend on the colour of it? And since when did being a girl mean you were attracted to all things shiny and sparkly? They're girls, not magpies. To look into this I went on the 'Toys R Us' website to look at the marketing used to ploy young children and make them make choices that aren't really their own.

I thought looking at the 'dress-up costumes' might give me an idea of the gender stereotypes placed on children, and they did. This image shows a 'boys' pirate costume placed directly above a 'girls' wedding dress. I believe that these gender stereotypes effect both boys and girls, however in this case I think it's much more damaging to girls. I couldn't find one 'girls' dress-up costume of a builder or a scientist or a police officer, but there were plenty of wedding and princess dresses. Not only does it limit the roles girls think they can play, but I know first hand that if you're the kind of girl that isn't into this stuff, it makes you feel like an outcast. I went to a fancy-dress party when I was about seven where all the girls went as Disney princesses/Angels/Mermaids and I went as Lara Croft. I loved it but everyone else just thought I was a weird kid dressed all in black and wielding toy guns, including the parents who found it quite amusing and made comments about my choice of costume. This amongst other things was damaging to myself esteem.

This was the next thing I found which sparked interest. Why does the 'boy' get to wear the army costume whilst the girls wear tiaras and play with a Disney Princess kitchen. Really. A DISNEY PRINCESS KITCHEN. My seven year old self would much have preferred the army costume, but again the message is that danger and adventure are for boys and girls can um, stay in the kitchen like the good little princesses they are. There were so many other toys I found that restricted boys and girls to gender stereotypes and conveyed the message that pink is girly and not for boys. Since when can you make toys masculine or feminine? They're pieces of plastic designed to be played with, but they are capable of sending out such damaging messages. 

This video was made by 'PinkStinks', a campaign with the objective to raise awareness of the stereotyping that goes on in the designing and manufacturing of children's toys. They believe both boys and girls are at risk of the stereotyping and this may limit their future career and life decisions. Their intention is to reverse the 'pinkification' of toys and girlhood and promote positive body-image and self-esteem for young girls.  Although this video is a couple of years old now, I think it's still very much relevant today. From my own personal experience, I don't believe that marketing the shiny pink plastics toys to girls and gearing them away from science and engineering has gotten any better. In fact, I believe it's worsened as we're continually becoming more obsessed with the way women look and the roles they play in society, which impacts young girls greatly. The more focus we put on how girls look, the more we drive the same young girls away from anything that could be seen as masculine. The challenge of removing these gender stereotypes is key to increase girls confidence, get more girls into fields of work where women are vastly under represented and instil a confidence in girls whereby they have dreams and aspirations, but not just to be a princess.

There's more than one way to be a girl

[1] APPG on body image.

Kelham Island Museum

After exams had finished, my boyfriend and I decided to fully exploit the length of our accommodation contract and stay in Sheffield for a couple more weeks after the majority of people had moved out. We decided to do 'tourist' Sheffield and go to the sites that we would want to see if we were only visiting for a short period of time.

On our list was Kelham Island and specifically Kelham Island Museum. It sounds odd to have an 'island' in the centre of the steel city, but the previously the area has been home to many factories and was mainly industrial so a small ditch/trench was built that allowed water to reach the water mills. Hence the island was created.

As a lover of all types of museums and having recently covered the production of steel and metals as part of my degree course, I couldn't wait to get to to Kelham Island to visit their famous industrial museum. As you approach the museum, the first thing you see is a huge Bessemer converter outside. Bessemer converters were used to make steel from molten pig iron. Pig iron is iron with a fairly high amount of carbon, up to 4.5% by composition. The molten iron is placed into the Bessemer converter and the idea is to remove impurities such as silicon and carbon as oxides using the process of oxidation. Oxidation also heats the converter meaning the iron inside remains molten throughout the process. Other substances could then be added to the molten steel to make the desired product. 

The Bessemer converter at Kelham Island Museum (Source)

From the outside the museum looks relatively small compared to the disused and abandoned factories that surround it, and of course the Bessemer converter. However, once inside, the place really is amazing and much bigger that expected. I was surprised at how big the museum actually is and it covers everything from the origins of the City of Sheffield including the city cannons, to the stories of women working in the factories, which I found particularly fascinating. 

There is a part of the museum that focuses on the making of cutlery in the surrounding area and there are so many beautiful artefacts including a pair of silver scissors beautifully engraved and in the shape of two birds. Apart from the Bessemer, I'd say the museum's main attraction is the River Don Engine in the engine house. Several times a day, they turn the engine on for visitors to watch it in action. Unfortunately we didn't know what the loud noise and banging was until we turned the corner and the spectacle was over. :( 

The River Don Engine (Source)

I really enjoyed Kelham Island Museum, it's such an interesting place. If only I'd visited before my exam...

Science and the education system.

For a while now, people have been talking about why there aren't many girls taking the sciences at A-level, especially physics. I sometimes think that I regret not taking physics at A-level as it's a subject I really enjoy now and it would have helped me hugely during my first year of University. However, the more I think about it, I realise that I didn't choose physics because physics A-level looks extremely boring. I'm not saying that physics is boring; I find it fascinating, especially learning about the origin of the planets and why we're here but at the time of choosing my A-levels, I couldn't think of a more mind-numbing course. I think this opinion can be extended to the majority of the sciences at A-level, as to pass the exams you don't even need to understand key concepts, simply memorise them, throw in some key words and BAM, you've got full marks. Well done you.

Chemistry is obviously my favourite subject, but even I didn't find the syllabus or the way of "learning" during A-level chemistry inspiring at all. Instead of focusing on why certain complexes produce gelatinous precipitates and the chemistry behind this, you simply had to remember to write down the word 'gelatinous' in the exam and you would be fine. I knew this wasn't learning. Okay, there's always going to be key concepts and words that you need to remember because they're important, but the idea behind science qualifications like this isn't understanding, it's memorisation and that's not what science is about. How are young people and especially girls supposed to pick these A-levels when there are no real-life applications behind them? Simply saying 'This is this, accept it. Oh and remember to write this word in your answer.' is not representative of the problem-solving and creative thinking that many scientists use on a day to day basis. This is why I didn't choose physics at A-level. I really didn't enjoy it as a subject at school because I couldn't relate to it. The only part of physics I enjoyed at school was learning about nuclear fission and radioactive decay as we were given actual examples of this. I think when it comes to science, the way you learn is by hands-on experience, not sitting and memorising. Thankfully, I had a brilliant teacher who actually studied chemistry at Uni (a rarity these days) and hence was really enthusiastic about the subject and always throwing in anecdotes and random facts related to what we were learning. I don't hesitate to say that if it wasn't for him, my love for chemistry probably wouldn't have developed as much as it did.

The way A-levels are taught kind of sets you up for failure when you reach University. All of a sudden you have vast amounts of information thrown at you and you quickly realise that memorising it all will be impossible and that's where I suddenly realised that I didn't know how to learn. Thankfully, there are a lot more practical sessions at Uni and these are what most helped me learn the concepts we were introduced to in lectures. My scores in my lab sessions have been consistently high throughout both semesters, simply because I enjoy them and I get to 'do stuff' whether it be carrying out a recrystallisation or playing around with chlorine gas (I use the word 'playing' loosely. Please don't play with chlorine gas.). All in all, the way A-levels and even GCSEs are taught makes science seem like very boring fields, when actually they are amazing and I can't imagine doing anything other than a science degree.

My favourite females

As you've probably guessed by now, I'm all for getting more girls into STEM subjects and science outreach is something I'm really passionate about. It's obvious that throughout history, women in science and technology have been overlooked and their ideas and achievements not seen as important as those of their male counterparts. Whilst referring to women who happen to be scientists as 'female scientists' doesn't exactly help with striving for equality between the sexes in STEM fields (afterall we don't refer to men as male scientists), there have been some pretty damn good women in science and I thought I would share my favourites.

This is a list of women from STEM fields who inspire me. I've purposely left Marie Curie out of this list because in case you didn't know, she's not the only women who has played a role in pushing science into the 21st century. Also, some of these women are living today and that's just fab; these women are role models for girls like me and inspire me to continue in my field and make a career out of it in the hope that one day, I'll achieve great things too. So here it is, AWESOME WOMEN ALERT.

1. Hedy Lamarr
In my opinion, one of the most beautiful women ever, Hedy Lamarr also happened to be extremely intelligent. She and George Antheil invented an incredibly sophisticated piece of electronic engineering which they called the 'Secret Communication System' whereby frequency hopping was used to prevent infiltration of signals from radio-controlled missiles. Simultaneously, the radio frequencies of  missiles would change, preventing enemies from detecting the signals.

Hedy Lamarr

Most people would say that she 'doesn't look like a scientist', however she proved that it's possible to have beauty and brains. As a woman, you can have it all, you don't have to choose between being intelligent and being attractive.

The woman who was one of the most popular Hollywood actresses of her day also had a room in her house reserved for drafting ideas and the shelves filled with engineering books. I find the fact that she was extremely creative both inspiring and fascinating because as well as being an actress, she also applied her creativity to engineering and problem solving and helped pave the way for modern day technologies mobile phones.

2. Dorothy Hodgkin
Dorothy Hodgkin won the Nobel prize for Chemistry in 1964 and quite rightly so. X-ray crystallography is a common method used by chemists today and Hodgkin advanced this and discovered the 3D structures of some of the  most important biomolecules. I learnt about Dorothy Hodgkin in one of my lectures about medicine and chemistry. She found the structure of penicillin, a chemical so often used in treatment and therefore made a significant contribution to both chemistry and medicine as often in science structure determines function. She also discovered the 3D structure of insulin and also taught students, notably Margaret Roberts (later Margaret Thatcher).

Dorothy Hodgkin

3. Rosalind Franklin

Rosalind Franklin

When people think about discovery of the structure of DNA, most people associate James Watson and Francis Crick with this amazing feat, after all they were awarded with the Nobel prize in 1962. However what allowed them to recognise the 'double helix' as DNA's structure was the x-ray images of DNA produced by Franklin. She practised x-ray crystallography techniques many times and had received a doctorate in physical chemistry. Unfortunately she died before the Nobel prize was awarded to Watson, Crick and Wilkins (another scientist involved)

.







4. Helen Sharman 
I love Helen Sharman. It might be because I'm following in her footsteps by doing the same degree at the same University, but nevertheless, she is truly inspirational. She also deserves to be on this list because she was the first British person in space. What's cooler that being an astronaut?

Helen Sharman

5. Natalie Portman
Okay, so when you think of Natalie Portman, you don't automatically think 'scientist' but this woman has serious brains. As well as being my ultimate woman crush and all round Hollywood beauty, she's been published in scientific journals, as well as a writing a paper titled "A Simple Method to Demonstrate the Enzymatic Production of Hydrogen from Sugar." Basically, I want to be Natalie Portman.