Q&A With Progressive Institute Leader Doug Hilton

Doug Hilton, Ph.D., is head of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Australia’s oldest research institute. He has launched innovative gender-gap initiatives many scientists say far outpace those in the US. He wrote about it in Nature, and scientists reacted in Bioscience Technology. He responds here.

BST: You are man of the hour in the US.
DH: I think that is very funny.

BST: Were there emotional reactions to your gender-gap initiatives in Australia?
DH: First off, my leadership is important given my job, but a group of passionate people here keep gender-equity a day-to-day issue. The important thing was to give a lot of license to passionate people.

And, yes, we’ve had students and post docs come up to us in tears saying that, if we hadn’t helped with child care, they wouldn’t have continued in science. That is lovely to hear. And there was a flood of emails after the Nature article. But nothing we did was earthshakingly creative. Sometimes I think it is a shame there is so much excitement about this. It is pretty simple stuff. When I took over as director I asked ten women coming through the post doc ranks what would help. They had a chat about their situations, and came up with practical things that didn’t require endless committees or soul-searching.

BST: You formed one committee?
DH: Yes, a gender equity committee of both men and women. It was important to see this, not as a problem for women, but the institution. Just as racism is not just a problem for indigenous Australians or African Americans, but for society.

Affront to decency

DH: Our view was the gender gap here was an affront to decency, and a barrier to productivity and the proper use of people we spent time training.

BST: That committee is key?
DH: Yes, its major contribution—beyond research—is keeping this issue in the forefront, challenging me, looking at what works. We are still tackling problems with appointments and promotions. But we try to do so in an open, ongoing way.

BST: Are post doc tracks faster?
DH: Yes. The previous director, when I took over six years ago, raised money for building/expansion, making it easier to recruit. We decided to reverse the trend of long post docs, of 10 to 15 years in faux-independent positions, and appoint lab heads based on potential. I think the average age of appointment is 33. We have made 40 faculty-level appointments. That is exciting. The risk is that all those we appointed for potential won’t fulfill it. And there are challenges to being in Australia, with talent a world away. But we are at a place we want.

Post docs promoted young

BST: What was the average appointment age before?
DH: The late 30’s. We lowered the age five-plus years.

BST: Many US watchers are jazzed about that.
DH: It has been exciting in a way I didn’t anticipate. Those we appointed were happy—but also students and post docs. They now see a future that isn’t 20 years away. They see people their siblings’ age moving on. Their commitment levels have accordingly increased.

BST: Is this a gender-neutral advance?
DH: Absolutely, and I think we get a lot more from our younger staff.

BST: Do the younger staff get depressed at the thought of long post doc tracks?
DH: They do. Seven years as a post doc is one thing; 17 years can be soul-destroying.

Less aid for Dad

BST: Are men happy?
DH: Not everyone is happy. We’ve had some women saying, “You are devaluing my achievements, painting a picture where second-rate women will be appointed.” We don’t believe we have done that. We’ve had some men saying, “I am juggling a family too. Why not help me?” Both are understandable. But we are a relatively small institution of 1000. I would love to support all staff juggling family, but I don’t have resources. Our gender-equity problem exists from post doc to lab head; lab head to professor. That is where we put the money. In 20 years, I hope we will be supporting all scientists.

BST: Many feel men benefit as caregivers, the idea being kids are loving and humbling, good for all. Do you agree?
DH: Absolutely, and that is the reaction here. I don’t think there is bitter resentment, more, “Hey, this is really good. You could make a difference in my life too.”

BST: You have a “hot desk” where moms can work with kids at their sides when necessary. Do you provide eight-hour on-site daycare?
DH: No. That is a big challenge. Before I took this job, there was discussion about a childcare center. It fell off the list as money got tight. Childcare in Melbourne is difficult to find. But in the next couple of years, we want to build a childcare center. It will make a huge difference. I regret we didn’t before.

BST: Even big US hospitals don’t have them.
DH: Right. We have a reasonable-sized biomedical precinct. An additional 3,000 people were added in three to four years, 70 percent women, most of childbearing age. But no new childcare place. Lack of workforce planning. We are guilty too.

Childcare and conference aid

BST: What are the most popular programs you’ve implemented?
DH: Financial aid for child care. Letting people bring carers to conferences. Providing maternity-leave research assistants. These provide incentives to come back to work, keep the career moving, and not lose productivity if— god forbid—women want to take time off when children are young.

BST: There were no female senior faculty when you came on?
DH: I had 20 professors when I took over, none women. My jaw dropped when I saw. It was a sad reflection on me as well. I was a professor, but it wasn’t visceral to me until I was the meeting chair. Our prime minister was in trouble for having one woman in cabinet. I walked in to a similar thing. It shot it home, how much we had to do.

From a “jaw-dropping” zero to five

BST: Now how many female professors do you have?
DH: Five. And I see two or three women extraordinarily competitive for promotion in a couple of years. Part of this is about encouraging women to come forward.

BST: Do you have daughters?
DH: I have two boys who have never lacked self-confidence, much like the undergrad men at my institute. So many young men overestimate how good they are; so many young women underestimate how good they are. With my own boys, I wouldn’t change that for a second. But I want them to encourage their girl friends to take risks; tell them how good they are; make sure they are proactive about careers. The message I give to undergrad men: “You are surrounded by immensely talented peers who aren’t like you, who don’t overestimate how good they are so...be aware.”

I tell younger women to back their own abilities, to stop obsessing about one or two qualities that aren’t perfect, and focus on their eight to 10 great qualities.

BST: That insecurity may come from “either/or” choices facing most females.
DH: There are many socialization issues. One statistic that bemused my gender-equity committee: men here work longer hours after they have children. My reaction was the same after we had children, and my wife took off more time. With every fiber of my being I felt, “I have to work harder to provide for my family.” That is drummed into men with good role models, from boyhood. A visceral reaction. So I understand. Men are more willing to take risks because they feel they have no choice. Importantly, the more we get men and women to see both caregiving and provider roles can be done by both sexes, the easier gender equity will be. But I don’t think we can wait for this change.

BST: Has it helped you to be a man here?
DH: It makes it a lot easier to talk about it. I have real sympathy for my predecessor as a high-profile woman. It is difficult to stand up and talk about things that will directly benefit you. It is much easier for me to preach on about it, as (laughs) it looks virtuous.

BST: Still, very few men have done it. Hence: your admirers. Have any programs failed?
DH: Our appointment/ promotion process isn’t perfect. It is great to have warm fluffy policies to help women. At the end of the day, changes will come when policies lead to more female post docs raising their hands for jobs, and we’ve gotten more sophisticated at scouring the world for people.

The childcare facility is a huge unmet need. And we ended our “women in science” program, which was a bit hollow, and pushed harder to make sure women participate in lectures and conferences all the time.

BST: 50 percent of your people speaking at conferences and campus lectures are women?
DH: Both outside and inside our institute, within one or two percentage points: 50/50. Not even an issue now. Everyone who puts together conferences understands. We won’t sponsor conferences unless they are 50/50, or the organizing committee offers ways to get there. As they want our money, we have some leverage.

BST: Does this happen often?
DH: We get asked to sponsor conferences eight to 10 times a year. At some the gender balance was woeful, and we took our names off sites and brochures. Those groups worked harder later. We’ve aligned our values and our sponsorship.

BST: Which new policies benefit men too?
DH: Both sexes benefit from earlier appointments. Men also benefit by getting post doc women in their labs back from maternity earlier, with better support, more productive.

More tenure-track time

BST: Women are back earlier?
DH: Yes, child-care financial support tips the equation towards returning to work. They get financial support for five years of pre-school childcare.

BST: That is a long time.
DH: Absolutely, but it’s the difficult time.

BST: You provide tenure track aid?
DH: Lab heads are normally reviewed in five or six years. We give women an extra year for each child, a policy I stole unashamedly from MIT. I know Tyler Jacks pretty well. We recognize that if you are pregnant with a small child, it is bloody difficult with even the most advanced policies to keep productivity tip top. An extra year helps them build a case for tenure or re-appointment, and build the CV. Every woman does things differently when returning to work full or part time. Pregnancy and childbirth are challenging for all, even when going smoothly. An extra year helps women publish papers, solicit conference invitations, write grants: promotion-associated metrics. A year is a small thing.

Tossing paper counts

BST: You allow women to work part-time?
DH: Historically, it was felt lab heads couldn’t go part-time. But it is possible for women with children to work three days a week, manage staff, and still generate discoveries. Part of it is what you measure. Paper counting, or billable hours, such metrics will always disadvantage women who have had children. We look for papers that mean something, influential discoveries. As one only makes those occasionally anyway, it makes sense to let these women highlight one or two key discoveries, rather than just do paper counts.

BST: Does that help men too?
DH: It does. We’ve all published papers that are nicely done but don’t advance the field. This has people focusing on making a difference. A third to a half of our new policies benefit men indirectly, and make us a more-aware employer. Maybe in ten or so years after we’ve gotten to a 50/50 faculty level we’ll help men even more. Right now we address an acute need. And when our women leave, they negotiate packages that set expectations higher and promote our norm. As women post docs here take faculty appointments at other institutes, they spread the word, become evangelical, which is great. We are happy to talk. I think talk, all around, raises this issue nationally.

BST: How is gender equity elsewhere in Australia?
DH: Monash University and the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute do well with gender equity appointments. The Academy of Science, after three to four years of problems, has enlightened policies and is appointing almost as many women fellows as men. Really exciting. The National Health Medical Research Council has a more enlightened gender equity policy now. We are not responsible for all this. But open discussions change climates.