STEM

Imagine being able to edit DNA almost as easily as editing a document on a computer. While it may sound like science fiction, scientists are already doing something very similar using a technology called CRISPR-Cas9.

CRISPR-Cas9 is a gene editing tool that acts as a pair of “molecular scissors” allowing researchers to make precise changes to DNA, which is the genetic code that determines how living things grow and function. Because of its accuracy and potential, many scientists consider it one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of the 21st century. It was so important that the inventors Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the Nobel prize in chemistry in 2020 for their incredible invention.

The technology was actually inspired by a natural defence system found in bacteria. Tiny microbes create molecular memories of viruses so when they attack again, the bacteria is able to recognise and cut up the virus’s DNA to protect themselves. Scientists discovered how this process works and adapted it into a tool that can be used to edit genes in plants, animals and even humans.

One of the most exciting possibilities of CRISPR Cas9 is its use in medicine. Researchers are studying how it could help treat genetic disorders caused by faulty genes. Conditions that were once thought impossible to cure, may one day be treated by correcting the genetic mistakes that cause them. For example, it’s currently being used to treat a disease called sickle cell disease which affects the shape of red blood cells which can cause severe health issues such as breathing difficulties.

The molecule is made of two key elements: a guide RNA that acts like a GPS, locating the specific section of DNA that scientists want to study and the Cas9 protein, which cuts out a specific sequence of bases from the DNA. Once a target is found and cut, the cell's natural repair mechanisms try to stitch up the broken strands, during which time scientists are able to swap out any DNA or even completely delete it.

The technology is also being used in agriculture. Scientists are developing crops that can better resist diseases, pests, and harsh weather conditions. This could help farmers grow food more efficiently and improve food security in the future. Agriculture and medicine are often more connected than people realise, as many important medicines come from plants. For example, compounds originally discovered in the Madagascar periwinkle plant, have been used to develop treatments for certain types of cancer. This is showing how advances in plant science can ultimately benefit human health.

However, CRISPR Cas9 has also raised important ethical questions. Some people worry about how far gene editing should go, especially when it comes to making changes to human embryos. Experts continue to debate the potential risks and benefits whilst governments and scientific organizations work to establish guidelines for its use.

Despite these concerns, CRISPR Cas9 remains one of the most promising scientific developments of our time. As research continues, this powerful technology could transform medicine, agriculture, and many other fields, potentially changing millions of lives around the world.

Whether it is curing diseases or helping feed a growing population, CRISPR Cas9 shows how scientific discoveries can have a real impact on the future. The next breakthrough may be closer than we think.

Introduction  

Classical mechanics obeys Newton's three laws of motion which are predictable and exact. However, when you implement these laws at a particle level, they are no longer applicable. Quantum physicists aim to make sense of why the randomness of quantum behaviour seems to disappear on larger scales. This phenomenon we are observing in our universe is significant because it is paradoxical, defying human logic. In this article I will be exploring different theories about why the universe behaves in this manner.

Copenhagen Interpretation

      This is the most supported interpretation of quantum mechanics, developed by physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. In the microscopic world, particles exist in multiple states at one time and only when measured are they found in a definite position. The famous thought experiment Schrödinger's cat can demonstrate this in a more accessible way. Imagine a cat placed in a box with some radioactive material that would poison the cat if it decayed. However, if the material does not decay then the cat lives. According to Bohr and Heisenberg, the cat is in a superposition of being both dead and alive, until someone opens the box and looks inside to observe the outcome. When a quantum state is observed (the box being opened) the wavefunction collapses. This means that the object ‘choses’ a single definite state to obtain upon measurement. Therefore, suggesting that the universe is fundamentally quantum but because we perceive the particles all around us, their wavefunction collapses and this makes them exist in a single state. This theory is strong because it can predict experimental results extremely well, however it doesn’t actually provide an answer as to why particles behave this way. 

Many-Worlds Theory 

An alternative explanation is called the many worlds theory, developed by Hugh Everett III in 1957. He stated that when an event occurs there is no wavefunction collapse, rather an event with multiple outcomes will cause the universe to split into separate realities each presenting a different possibility. Therefore, according to Everett, the event of Schrödinger's cat causes the universe to branch off into two separate realities. One where the cat is dead, and another where it is alive. When someone opens the box and observes the outcome, then they become aware of what branch of reality they are in. This theory suggests that even though outcomes in the universe seem random, they are actually part of a much larger orderly system. The many worlds interpretation is strong as it eliminates the need for a wavefunction collapse, a process whose physical mechanisms remain poorly understood. However, this theory is weak because there is little proof for the existence of parallel universes. 

De Broglie-Bohm Theory 

Also known as the pilot-wave theory, it was developed by Louis de Broglie and later advanced by David Bohm. This theory explains that particles always have a definite position and are guided by a wavefunction, known as the pilot wave. This explains why the macroscopic world obeys Newtonian physics because particles follow definite trajectories, making their behaviour predictable. In Bohmian mechanics, Schrödinger’s cat is not in a state of superposition, as the particles making up the cat always have definite positions. The pilot wave guides this process and before the box is opened the cat is either dead or alive, even if the observer does not know which. This theory is logical as it presents particles as having definite positions and  aligns with the idea that we live in a deterministic universe which is heavily supported by science. On the other hand, this theory relies on hidden variables which makes the theory complicated as these variables cannot be measured. 

Conclusion

Currently our understanding of quantum mechanics is incredibly limited because even the most supported theories contain inconsistencies. However, I believe that our knowledge on this subject is going to continue to develop and eventually we may be able to answer this formidable question. All three of these theories offer different explanations for why certainty emerges from randomness and disorder. Whilst none have been universally accepted, these interpretations are huge scientific breakthroughs.

Introduction

The question I am addressing is “Are there unconscious biases against women in STEM?”. This question and many others like it, are ignored by the members of our inherently patriotic society. Although there is no one answer to such a complex question, we can evaluate and understand the issues in our society for women in STEM.

To answer my question I will first define our key terms:

Firstly, one term we use is STEM. STEM is the acronym covering jobs in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths, arguably the most complex, innovative and exciting industries. Traditionally they are male-dominated areas, covering all core sciences chemistry, biology and physics as well as tech and mathematics.

The second term being unconscious bias, which is the automatic and unfair judgements that people make without realising it. This bias, good or bad, can affect people's decisions and attitudes without them being aware. In this case I'm referring to a bias against women, which includes sexist and misogynistic views like the belief that women shouldn’t be involved in STEM.

Gender Pay-Gap

The gender pay gap refers to the difference in the amounts paid to men and women in the same roles and at the same level of seniority. This is wrong as people should receive the pay that they work for regardless of their gender. In STEM there is evidence that the effect of this is more pronounced than in other career pathways. Women often earn a lower percentage of a man's wage. On average, in mathematics women earn  90% of what a man would, in Engineering that figure falls to 85%, and in Technology it falls again to 80% and finally, in Science, women earn 74% what men earn. The Gender pay gap can be seen as startling figures because of the societal pressures and stereotypes which are hidden under the blanket of normal and expected behaviours. 

It is often a necessity when starting a family that a woman takes between 9 to 12 months paid leave, otherwise known as maternity leave. This absence from work disrupts a woman's ability to gain work for extended periods of time. Therefore, some argue it is not fair to consider a man and woman with the same career lengths to have equal experience, as a woman's time within work might have been disrupted and as a result less effective, if she started a family. This however only further supports a thesis that an unconscious bias toward women being ‘homemakers’ exists and that they are penalised unfairly for having a family. Workplace changes and missed time results in 34% of women in STEM careers, ultimately leaving their full-time job within 4-7 years of having their first child, while only 23% of men do the same.

Throughout their career Women are less likely to negotiate their salary when taking a new job. However, analysis of data from 1982 to 2015 shows that this effect is reducing over time. This perhaps supports a theory that though an unconscious bias has and still exists within those hiring in STEM, cultural changes and the rhetoric surrounding gender pay is improving because more women are speaking out against this injustice.

When each of these factors are controlled, including working hours, area of STEM, seniority, experience and education, then the pay gap reduces. However, a residual pay gap remains which can only be accounted for by unconscious biases likely held by hiring employers and women entering the field with a psychological disadvantage, conforming to views of women being domestic.

Evolutionary Disadvantages

Evolutionary disadvantages are factors relating to a woman's biological development that hinders every day people and their opinions, views and depictions of women. These enforce misogynistic standards within everyday life. 

Neurological differences between men and women can be vastly different. The most predominant contrast being the fact that women's blood flow goes mostly to the right side of the brain, increasing cortical activity, landing it with the derogatory name -’ female brain’. The right side of our brains controls attention, memory and reasoning, so women are supposedly best suited to jobs allowing creative expression like textiles. The left side of our brains are for maths and logical skills.

Contrasting with a woman's brain, a man has more blood supplied to the left side of the brain, meaning they are supposedly more suited to analytical and problem solving careers like STEM.  

Our societies believe that all physically demanding and dangerous jobs should be given to men, which is not acceptable. A study by Minneapolis Health Care found that a woman's brain processes information 5 times faster than a man's brain and uses less of the brain to complete identical cognitive performance. But a woman's brain is more susceptible to severe life-changing and irreversible damage if they are hit on the head. The male brain has evolved to be able to compensate for damage that is risked in the largest areas of the STEM industry. 

Some believe that society's unconscious biases are actually protecting the neurological efficiency of each woman. I  believe women should be able to choose their own risks and therefore it should not be an excuse for sexist behaviour. The person at risk should choose, not society. Developed PPE  and safety precautions are always in place anyway for everyone, including women. Unjust and unfair biases are constantly being placed on women for evolutionary disadvantages that we can't control and can’t change.

Interest and Inspirational Women

Over hundreds of years STEM has been a key route in our societal development and changes in lifestyle, yet most of that credit goes to men. In a study people were asked to name at least one woman in STEM, 92 out of 100 people couldn't even name one woman whose actions have shaped our society and allowed us to live how we all do now. Inspirational women inspire many young girls hoping to enter STEM make changes and developments like they have in the past.

For instance, a woman named Rosalind Franklin discovered the double helix, the molecular structure of  DNA. However, she died of ovarian cancer at age 37 and was disqualified from winning a Nobel prize. Secondly, Ada Lovelace who created the first ever algorithm called Note G, and was the first person to begin thinking about analytical engines like computers. Therefore, she is known by most as the world's first computer programmer. Finally, the first woman to become a professional astronomer in 1847 was called Maria Mitchell. She was the first American scientist to discover a comet. Although she faced many problems and difficulties in her career, it is known that her biggest obstacle was her gender and she often told her female students to think for themselves, pushing them to their full potential. These women mentioned are only three out of millions of other women who have hugely impacted the STEM industry; they are as capable, if not more capable, than most men in STEM which are remembered for less. Their work is often done hundreds of years before it is ever recognised and finally used by other people to create modern day technology, which you and I use every single day.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can not be disputed that an unconscious bias is prevalent in the STEM industry and impacts women regardless of whether it is universally acknowledged. From the actions of others, evolutionary disadvantages, lack of interest and inspiration, women are subject to bias from the very beginning of their careers. I hope that someday I will be able to confidently say that women in STEM are not subject to unconscious or conscious biases, however that day is not today and it won’t be for a long time. This won’t occur unless people like me and you acknowledge and work towards eradicating injustice, sexism and misogyny with the intention to stop this ridiculous behaviour. Women who have been successful in STEM deserve recognition for getting so far in an industry pinned against them from the beginning. To endure such harsh unconscious biases you have to be extremely resilient. So, this is why women in STEM inspire me. How could they not inspire you?