Welcome to the Glass Age

184 can change the world for the better. Different reasons explain this discrimination. Out-dated practices characterize employment selection systems and promotion procedures in academic and industrial institutions. “ Old boys’ network s” and personal invitations to occupy posts hinder and obstruct fair and effective employment procedures. Both sexism and nepotism have been documented as interfering with the peer review process. However, the causes of this phenomenon are more complex and do not come exclusively from male discrimination. There are also values deeply rooted in society, and of course in women themselves. The gender relations in scientific environments are still and often based on a lack of recognition from the masculine side of the intellectual capacities of women, this being used as a pretext to keep them in the margins of activity, without access to real decision sites. The 1957 Treaty of Rome established the principle of equal treatment of men and women, and European national legislations from the 1970s and 1980s made sex discrimination illegal. However, in the twenty-first century, men and women are still segregated in sciences. This segregation is: • Horizontal: women are clustered in certain areas of science (biology, medicine). • Vertical: women usually constitute about half the undergraduates in many disciplines, but they are a small fraction of the professoriate. • Contractual: men are more likely to get tenure, while women take more short-term and part-time contracts. Key science figures described in ETAN show an extremely narrow social base in terms of age, gender and ethnic origin. White men over 50 overwhelmingly dominate senior scientific committees that award research funds, grants and prizes. The lack of women in strategic decision- making positions is not just a matter of equity and gender balance. This will inevitably affect the drawing of the scientific agenda and the decisions about investment in research areas. The segregation and male dominance in science is far reaching and self- perpetuating, feeding back into media, education and social values cited above. How to face the segregation, arguments for change Following the UN Beijing Conference on women in 1995, the ETAN report highlighted the importance of “ mainstreaming ”, or integrating gender equality , as a main policy to be implemented in science. A subsequent report of the Directorate-General for Research of the EU [6] confirms that the under- representation of women on decision- making scientific boards implies that the individual and collective opinions of women are less likely to be listened to in policy and decision-making processes, affecting the drawing of the research agenda. Moreover, if women scientists are not visible, they cannot serve as role models to attract and retain young women in scientific professions. The report evaluates the data, identifies existing problems and the arguments for change, and proposes actions for advancing the position of women in research, contributing to equality and quality. The arguments in favor of having more women in research decision-making positions are abundant, from human rights and ethics to economics. Human rights arguments The arguments of social justice and fairness say that men and women should have equal opportunities and suffer no discrimination. Moreover, improving fairness for women improves fairness for all. Arguments concerning diversity, quality and efficiency Diversity increases creativity . Research activities rely heavily on creativity. Diverse research teams from varied