Being WISE

Posted on October 5, 2025 by Athene Donald

When I set off for University, I wasn’t surprised to find there weren’t many women on my course: there were only three Cambridge colleges that admitted women back then (i.e. no coeducational colleges at all), so of course I would be in a tiny minority. That recognition that I was the only woman in the room – for instance in an undergraduate practical class – was only to be expected. However, at the WISE Conference I attended this week, it was dismal to hear that for some women that still seemed to be their experience at work. Unlike many of the talks I have given on the subject of women in STEM, the audience here were largely engineers in industry, but their experiences seem disappointingly similar.

 WISE Conference 2025 - WISE

One panel discussion opened up this topic: how do you cope with that sense of difference in the room? The answers seemed to align with my own strategy of using it as a superpower (albeit that’s not a phrase I’ve ever personally used), by stressing that people will remember you over the bunch of identikit men, so you should use that difference to your advantage. I’ve written previously about how I’ve given up worrying about my dress causing me to stick out, but, instead, likewise use it to my advantage. Typically, this has led me – consciously or otherwise – to choose something red, although not on this occasion, when I was in a much more sober hue.

But using difference as a superpower still costs personal energy, and sometimes the cost is too great. Watching others in your organisation flourish while your own career stagnates for reasons that look suspiciously like bias, can be painful. Being expected to do the legwork, yet not get the credit or benefit from the resulting positive outcomes can lead to any worker wondering why they are sticking around. On the first panel discussion it was clear all three women (Lucy Davies, Lily Davies-Dobbs and Mamta Singhal) had thought about leaving a position because, basically, they’d had enough. Possibly if you had a panel of three men discussing their lot in life you might get the same result, but possibly not for the same reasons: of being passed over, ignored and not treated seriously.

To me, at my stage in life (viz: retired), it is depressing to realise that things may have moved on, but not nearly far enough. There are so many ways that women can feel excluded and overlooked for reasons that don’t seem legitimate. I was once given the advice, by an extremely supportive colleague, to get voice-coaching lessons to drop my voice. It may have worked for Maggie Thatcher – or at least she thought it would – but I deplore an attitude that suggests nonsense spoken in a low, gravelly voice is worth more than sense uttered in a typical female voice. Of course, I’m assuming I do talk sense when I make that rebuttal, but the fact remains the timbre of one’s voice should have nothing to do with whether or not one is listened to. I’m sure those who speak with a regional or foreign accent may feel a similar sense of disadvantage (see the reports of how class amongst undergraduate students rears its ugly head due to the ‘wrong’ sort of accent, in this case creating an apparently toxic atmosphere at the University of Durham).

But, to feel that one has to leave an organisation because its culture is toxic is such a waste, but may be necessary for one’s wellbeing. When I found Cambridge becoming toxic to me, I thought hard about leaving. My friends encouraged me to seek pastures new because it was getting painful and sapping my energy. But – and I remember writing a letter to this effect to one of these friends very clearly – I felt if I left, I would be letting the next generations of women down. Here I was, a professor and an FRS, what message would I be giving the early career women by quitting? So I stayed, in due course in 2010 (although in an almost accidental way) I became the University’s Gender Equality Champion and so was able to have some influence on the culture. In my case I’m certainly glad I stuck it out, but everyone has to make their own decisions.

One key message I personally took away from the WISE event, was not to be apologetic (although I’m ‘sorry’ to say, I can’t remember which of the three panellists I mention above offered this particular piece of advice). How often I – and I’m sure many of my readers – have started a conversation or an email with an apology. I’m sorry to disturb you, I’m sorry if I’ve misunderstood you, I’m sorry this email is a slow response….there are so many variants of the apology. Sheryl Sandberg may have started ‘ban bossy’, but I think a movement to stop unnecessary apologies would also be helpful for women in STEM. The need to reject bossy from the (male) lexicon of our world, of course, must remain a goal too.

It was heartening to see so many women come together to share experiences, both good and bad, and to reinforce their determination to continue to fight the good fight in the world of women in STEM.

Posted in Careers, Women in Science | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Being WISE

Honouring Sir Richard Friend

Posted on October 1, 2025 by Athene Donald

I’m essentially a year into retirement and, being the age I am, it is not surprising that I get invited to attend other people’s retirement celebrations. Of course, not all academics want such an event in their honour, and for some it is hard to know when retirement actually happens, now few universities in this country still have a formal retiring age: some professors may want just to work more flexibly or part-time, rather than hang up their boots completely.

Last week it was the turn of Sir Richard Friend to be the subject of such an event, although he is most certainly not stopping doing his research. Under Cambridge’s then rules, he had to give up holding the Cavendish Chair (the senior chair in my department, the Cavendish Laboratory) in 2020, but he continues to hold grants and supervise students as a Director of Research. Richard and I are exact contemporaries, meeting for the first time just before our undergraduate lectures began and subsequently (after we each spent a few years abroad) long-term colleagues and sometimes collaborators. We co-authored a handful of papers together, although none recently.

A day long symposium was held in his honour. It was extremely well attended, with ex-group members coming from around the world. He has trained up many PhD students who have gone on to have fantastic careers in Europe and the USA in particular, as well as in this country.

But how do you give a talk to honour a man of such stature? At my own retirement conference, much was said about impostor syndrome, which Richard (if I recall correctly) admitted to suffering from himself when he spoke there. The topic did not arise at this recent event. The talks ranged from the purely scientific, with just a nod towards how Richard had influenced or supported them, to much more personal talks. There were frequent references, at least shown photographically, about the winter schools his group went on in places where skiing fitted into the agenda too. So, we had multiple photos of Richard looking suitably tanned, relaxed and begoggled, with snow in the background.

Of course, much was also said about the science underlying generations of the novel materials – their chemistry and their microstructure – of devices and potential devices developed in the group. No doubt Richard, like every other scientist, might have wanted more papers, more citations and more funding. Perhaps in his case he would also have preferred to have more patents and more companies to his name – surprisingly little was said about the companies he set up during the symposium. For many years he was a rare example, certainly in the Cavendish, of a scientist who was also entrepreneurial and set up spin-outs from his work which thrived for many years before being bought up by industrial giants, or the technology licensed to such companies. He was proof that you could do cutting-edge science and get stuck in what at the time (early 1990’s) was still being seen as the dirty world of patents and entrepreneurship. He was publicly lauded, although I’m sure many of my colleagues continued to wonder secretly about the legitimacy of doing this as an academic physicist.

I recall, before his first company CDT became a reality, how he quietly mentioned to me over a cup of tea in the Cavendish canteen, that he and Jeremy Burroughes had seen photoluminescence in a test tube from a solution of one of the new conducting polymers they were studying. He had to say this very quietly, and swear me to secrecy, because this would have been before the first patent was filed in 1989. But the lighting up of the test-tube was obviously matched by the lighting up of his eyes as he grasped the significance of this observation. Jeremy went on to become CDTs Chief Technology Officer, a role he has held for many years.

Richard’s science has been massively significant – and quantifiable. He knows how many prizes and other honours he has received. So, I wonder if actually he got more pleasure on the day, because less usually voiced, from the plaudits describing his humanity: his mentoring and nurturing of generations of students and postdocs (as an example see the text in this photo, alongside generations of Cavendish professors).

RHF and Cavendish professors

Five Cavendish Professors: a younger Richard (top left, 1995-2020), probably at his election to the Chair, standing alongside Sir Sam Edwards (1984-1995); sitting, Sir Nevill Mott (1954-71) and Sir Brian Pippard ((1971-84). The painting behind is of the first Cavendish Professor, James Clerk Maxwell and his wife, although the reflection makes it hard to see them.

Every researcher is impacted by those around them for good or ill. Sadly, it is too often for ill, when a student meets a bully or an unsupportive supervisor who never encourages their first faltering steps. Too often in that case, those steps may also be the last academic steps that that researcher takes. However, multiple times during the day speakers highlighted the help they had received in order to progress, and the kindness and generosity they had benefitted from. It isn’t that Richard couldn’t lose his temper, and he certainly had feuds with senior scientists who he felt had got the wrong end of the stick or who had otherwise stepped out of line, but there is a difference in tearing a strip off a research student and your peers. The latter should be able to defend themselves, the former much less so, as I have frequently voiced here.

The tributes to Richard were many and heartfelt, and I heard more stories in the margins of the meetings to add to those formally expressed. In the past, during my time championing women in the sciences in the university, I heard similar stories from women comparing their time working in the Cavendish’s Optoelectronics group spearheaded by Richard, with other places they had gone on to work. In one case they found this comparison with their then department (where they held a fellowship) in another university, so upsetting they burst into tears.

We need leaders who are humane, as well as brilliant and entrepreneurial, and Richard has shone on all fronts. I hope he enjoyed this symposium in his honour.

Posted in Research, Science Culture | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Honouring Sir Richard Friend

Science Education, Disadvantage and Teacher Burn-out

Posted on September 20, 2025 by Athene Donald

While we wait for the Schools White Paper and the report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, other bodies have been busy, reporting specifically on the state of science education in (predominantly) English schools. Over the last few months, both the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the Institute of Physics (IOP) have produced significant reports looking at the, not entirely happy, state of the teaching profession. The annual report from the Royal Society of Chemistry, brought together responses from nearly 2000 science teachers in their Science Teaching Survey. The Institute of Physics report, The Physics teacher shortage and addressing it through the 3R’s: retention, recruitment and retraining (England), focussed on the need for more specialist physicist teachers and ways to counter the loss of so many teachers during the first five years on the job. Their recommendations, although directed at Physics, will apply across the sciences more generally.

The shortage of Physics teachers is of long-standing and is certainly not improving. What this means is that the subject is often taught by non-specialists, certainly up to GCSE. Science teachers are frequently just that: in terms of how a school uses them, they are often seen as interchangeable between disciplines, something that is convenient not least for timetabling purposes.  When the RSC refers to science teachers, they are not distinguishing between those with different specialisms. When it comes to teaching Combined Science, a school does not even have to record this as non-specialist teaching. Yet the IOP’s report shows clear evidence that the fewer specialist Physics teachers (naturally, their area of focus) a school has, the lower the progression rate to A Level Physics. Whether this applies to Chemistry and Biology hasn’t been studied in the same way, but with (according to the IOP) around half of science teachers being biology specialists, this may be less of a problem, for that subject at least.

The IOP go on to highlight that science teachers end up with a very heavy teaching load. As one recently qualified teacher with a Physics background, working in a severely disadvantaged area, put it to me:

I have to prepare lessons each week covering all three subjects for each year group whereas other subjects (e.g. computer science) only prepare a single lesson for each year group each week.

This person was not best pleased to have to teach GCSE biology because they felt they themselves were weak in the subject. Furthermore, they pointed out that some of the people they had trained with were ‘scared’ of physics (coming from chemistry or biology backgrounds) and might well be passing that fear on to their students.

As the IOP points out, significantly more early career Physics teachers leave the profession within the first five years of qualification than the overall average rate, and this requirement to prepare so many lessons, many of which will lie outside their area of expertise, will be a key factor. (Salary may be another, as Physics graduates are often much in demand in highly-paid sectors.) The IOP recommend a different approach to the utilisation of teachers, in which early career teachers teach simply within their specialism, while they get to grips with all the other demands a teaching career places on them. Furthermore, in order to make best use of the Physics specialists they do have, they want to see the sciences treated explicitly as three separate sciences, taught by specialists, at KS4 (i.e the two years up to GCSE). Their report has many other (costed) recommendations, demonstrating that if more Physics teachers could be supported to stay in the profession, over ten years the long running deficit of Physics teachers could be wiped out at a very moderate cost.

Another aspect of science teachers’ heavy workload is highlighted in the RSC report, namely the shortage of technicians to assist with practical work, as well as insufficient funding to buy the necessary equipment and consumables to make practical work feasible, alongside the more general shortage of cash across any given school.  This under-resourcing of laboratory work means little opportunity to excite young people with hands-on experience. In the most recent Science Education Tracker, published by the Royal Society, the analysis showed:

Reduced frequency of hands–on practical work was accompanied by rising levels of unmet demand for this: 68% of year 10–11 students wanted to do more practical work.

This is a real issue when it comes to inspiring students to consider future careers in STEM, since this same Royal Society report showed how practical work was considered the most motivating aspect of science lessons at school, especially for students in years 7–9 (KS3). Yet the pipeline of talent in the STEM arena is as important as ever when it comes to the Government’s growth agenda and fulfilling the aims of the Industrial Strategy.

The schools that struggle to attract good science teachers, in whatever discipline, and whose finances are likely to be most fragile (not least because their parents are less likely to be able to offer support, financial or otherwise), will inevitably be those in disadvantaged areas. These issues over teacher shortages will exacerbate all the other problems these schools and pupils face, carrying over from their early years. The statistics are depressing, as revealed in the Social Mobility Report from 2024. Their findings show that, whereas 52.4% of non-disadvantaged pupils got a grade 5 or above in both English and Maths (they don’t specifically look at science), only 25.2% of disadvantaged pupils reached the same level.

However, there is a further knock-on effect for schools which are unable to find sufficient specialist science teachers, and that is whether they offer separate science qualifications (i.e. covering all three separate sciences) or Combined Science, when the three subjects are squeezed into a double GCSE qualification. And, for those schools that offer both, who is making the decisions about which qualification a given student is entered for?  As mentioned above, schools can get away with referring to a non-specialist teacher as ‘specialist’ in Combined Science. The IOP estimates a figure of somewhere around one third of science lessons in Combined Science are taught by actual specialists, as opposed to the figures the Government suggests of 94% when ‘science’ is regarded as a specialism in itself, without distinction between the disciplines. The consequences for the pipeline are profound: again, using IOP data, students who take Combined Science at GCSE are three times less likely to proceed to Physics A Level. This may be as much about their school as their capabilities or interests.

The Government is committed to opportunity for all, but there is clear evidence that disadvantaged pupils, particularly those in overall disadvantaged schools, continue to suffer within the school system. Teachers, particularly those early in their career and in any of the three sciences, are stretched to breaking point by being expected to teach outside their speciality. This means that students are too often taught by non-specialists, particularly in Physics where the shortfall is greatest. The net outcome is that the STEM pipeline into A Levels and beyond is directly impacted and many pupils lose out; simultaneously teachers burn out.

Posted in Careers, Education | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Science Education, Disadvantage and Teacher Burn-out

Can the Civil Society Covenant Work?

Posted on July 20, 2025 by Athene Donald

This past week I attended what struck me as an extraordinary event. Held at the Science Museum in London, it brought together multiple ministers and Secretaries of State plus many senior representatives of the Voluntary Sector/Civil Society organisations, plus some hangers-on like myself. Described as a Mission Summit with the aim of launching the Civil Society Covenant, it was addressed by the Prime Minister himself, colleagues from the Cabinet and several other ministers. I was struck by how many of these parliamentarians had worked in the voluntary sector prior to becoming MPs and it did make their contributions feel very personal and committed.

Kier Starmer Launch Civil Society Covenant July 17 2025

As Lisa Nandy (Secretary of State at the Department of Culture, Media and Sports which is leading the initiative) put it in her introduction to the event, this covenant is meant to mark ‘a new chapter in the relationship between this government and the remarkable civil society organisations that form the backbone of our communities’. The buzz in the room, and the enthusiasm with which the speakers from the organisations present engaged in conversations with ministers, suggests there is high level of support for the initiative. Seen as a way of bringing local organisations into both decision-making and delivery across the different missions – safer streets, opportunity for all and so on – there was a belief that bottom-up provision is every bit as important as Whitehall top-down imposed solutions to the manifest problems.

You may be wondering why I was there at this invitation-only event. After all, I’m not known as a leader in the voluntary sector for good reason: I’m not one. But I am involved with the Opportunity Mission through my work with the Department for Education, as Chair of their Scientific Advisory Committee. What I see there is the importance of education not just sitting in a silo, but being closely tied in with other departments. Health for instance: a child can’t thrive if their eyesight is weak, let alone if they should be in receipt of an Education, Health and Care Plan, EHCP, the cause of so much public angst about SEND provision. There’ll be no thriving if their family is homeless, something that may fall under any or all of the Department for Work and Pensions, Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and Ministry of Justice as well as Education. And so on.

Government by mission is a wonderful concept, but probably harder to deliver than anyone would like. Minister after (Cabinet) Minister expressed their wish to see cross-departmental working to deliver on their goals, but a sense of frustration that department staff have been too conditioned by working in silos under the previous Government to embrace this new style swiftly. Clearly, culture change takes time.

One of the passionate speakers, totally brave and honest, was Jess Phillips. She was talking about something very close to her heart, and something she knows a great deal about: violence against women and children. She was in discussion with those working, for instance, in women’s refuges. She was explicit in her determination to change the focus of the work from looking after victims to dealing with predators so that safe spaces like refuges are no longer needed. (Sadly, that may be a while away.) There was a recognition of how much things have improved since the earliest refuges were opened. I am old enough to remember when Erin Pizzey set up the very first shelter for domestic violence victims, and the uproar such action provoked.

This particular panel pointed out that everyone has a duty to look out for those suffering at the hands of family members, but were clear that in the latter case this should not just be another burden to add to the work of teachers. Phillips called on everyone in the room to do their bit. I sat there feeling guilty thinking, when have I ever helped a victim in this way? Then felt a little reassured that by my work championing women in my own University, by helping to raise issues around lower-level harassment and predation, I had been active in my own sphere. I reiterate, anyone who sees bad behaviour and does nothing – in whatever situation – is complicit and should be aware that, if it is safe to act in the moment or thereafter, they should do so.

It was an extraordinary day because the sense of ‘we’re all in this together’ was palpable. One felt a sense that a healthier relationship between Government, in both Whitehall and  local town halls, and the committed individuals who carry so much of the burden of looking after the vulnerable and those with no voice of their own, was not only possible but going to be delivered for the good of us all. I’m sure many readers will be used to a feeling of disbelief that things could change for the better, when listening to the average politician, or a lack of confidence that the politicians themselves had conviction about the words they use. But, on this occasion, I did come away feeling positive, that mission government could  be made to work for everyone and to make this country a better place for those who currently struggle through no fault of their own. Fingers crossed.

Posted in Equality | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Can the Civil Society Covenant Work?

Upping the Engineering Talent Pipeline

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Athene Donald

The Government’s recently published Modern Industrial Strategy has a lot to say about skills. For instance, it commits to

‘enhance skills and increase access to talent by reforming the skills and employment support system to create a strong pipeline into the IS-8’

and it specifically identifies the need for

‘an increase in technology training and boosts for engineering, digital, and defence skills’.

There are many aspects that Skills England will need to get right if these aspirations are to come to fruition, and these will need to be implemented across all the different stages of the education system.

One of the problems facing an area such as engineering is that it is not in the school curriculum and neither students nor teachers may be well informed about the breadth of opportunities the discipline offers. Careers advice in schools remains distinctly patchy, A 2022 review of careers guidance for the Sutton Trust found that of classroom teachers in state schools, only 40% were aware of the Gatsby benchmarks, the framework for careers guidance. Although the figure was significantly higher (94%) for senior school leaders, this suggests effective guidance is not making its way into the classroom. It needs to and work has to be done to make sure this happens in both primary and secondary.

A further challenge for engineering and computing is that they both have some of the largest gender imbalances in both qualifications and the workforce. Early years stereotyping is endemic in our society, and too many young girls cannot imagine that they could fit in and/or be welcome in these fields. Much more effort needs to be put in to countering these stereotypes in the classroom from the earliest years (although that’s no quick fix for the problem across wider society). Teachers need to be aware of the pitfalls casual stereotyping creates.

As Alex Knight, the winner of the Royal Academy of Engineering’s 2025 Rooke Award for excellence in public promotion of engineering has said

‘Children form beliefs early: about themselves, about the world, and about their place in it. By the age of seven, many have already decided what’s ‘for boys’ and what’s ‘for girls’. Engineering is still seen as a man’s world, so girls start to believe they don’t belong there….. But when a young girl meets an engineer who is a woman she can relate to, something extraordinary happens. That girl begins to imagine herself in the same role. Engineering becomes not an abstract discipline, but a human one.’

She urges female engineers to get into the classroom, arguing that, despite the low numbers of women in the field, there would nevertheless be plenty for every primary school to have one come to talk to the children. EngineeringUK is leading a partnership with a collective mission of significantly increasing the number of girls in education pathways to engineering and technology at age 18.  But changing the whole school ethos, as the IOP has demonstrated needs to be achieved, is hard work.

Not all routes into engineering careers require a degree, and the UK is an outlier in the OECD in how many adults possess Level 4 and Level 5 qualifications. The same Sutton Review of Careers guidance mentioned earlier found that post-GCSE’s nearly half (46%) of 17- and 18-year olds (year 13) say they have received a large amount of information on university routes during their education, compared to just 10% who say the same for apprenticeships.

The incentives in the current system encourage schools to prioritise university routes. Furthermore, FE Colleges find it hard to recruit staff to teach in shortage areas such as engineering, because lecturers with relevant qualifications can earn so much more outside colleges. Here the Industrial Strategy has positive news for the sector, with promised investment in colleges – for both equipment and infrastructure – and targeted retention incentive payments for early career FE teachers in STEM. It is high time – as the 2019 Augar Review said in no uncertain terms – that FE Colleges were not seen as the poor relations in the post-16 landscape, because they are crucial for so many teenagers. Skills England need to turn the promises from the Industrial Strategy paper into a coherent strategy, taking the warm words about, for instance, launching Technical Excellence Colleges, and turning it into a landscape that works.

Somewhere in this post-16 landscape a grip needs to be got on T Levels. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) may not be an obvious feeder group of commentators into this space, but their report this past week regarding T Levels has obvious implications. T Levels were – and are – intended to be a vocational course to help students into skilled employment, higher study or apprenticeships. This is clearly of relevance to the supply of engineers of all types. The qualification’s introduction has not been smooth: their numerical take-up has been far below the original intentions, finding the required 45 day work-based placement has been a challenge for some, and drop out rates have been high as well as success rates relatively low. However, the scheme is set to grow, or at least, that’s still the wish.

One of the problems the recent PAC report highlighted was the lack of awareness of the existence of T Levels, citing that in 2023 only 50% of students in years 9 to 11 were aware of T Levels. If the suite of qualification is to succeed, schools should make sure that all students know of these qualifications – one T level is equivalent to 3 A Levels – and that pressure is not put on students to go the ‘gold standard’ route of A Levels. As a nation the vocational route has always been perceived as the poor relation in our education system. That is not necessarily to the benefit of individuals or the economy. But the potential limitation of finding a timely and local placement has caused frustration and stress amongst students. An expansion of the scheme will need to iron out wrinkles.

Finally, there is the major issue of up- and re-skilling adults. With many jobs potentially under threat due to automation and the increasing use of AI, this has to be a major focus. The still-to-be-put-into-operation Lifelong Learning Entitlement (currently due to start in January 2027) may provide some solution. However, just because a loan is available does not necessarily mean an adult with dependents and commitments will feel able to drop out of work to study. In both digital and technical (including engineering) free 16 week-long bootcamps are on offer, with the money now being devolved locally. These too have their problems. One of the key attractions was intended to be a guaranteed job interview at the end, but the Government’s own evaluation has shown many participants have found this to be illusory or untargeted. For some participants, their employer facilitated attendance; many others were unemployed at the time of signing up. Whether 16 weeks is adequate to achieve desired goals will clearly depend on both the knowledge-base of the participant and the end point of the course.

Just focussing on this one sector from the industrial strategy, it is clear that at every stage of the pipeline works needs to be done to ensure an appropriate supply of talent. Whether looking at the issue from a Department for Education, a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Department of Defence, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or a Department for Business and Trade perspective, there is work to be done. That engineering crosses so many departments and domains can only complicate the issues. But a ‘modern’ industrial strategy needs to get this right.

Posted in Careers, Education | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment