摘要：其中有白人的问题，也有华人的问题。例如，会员超过3万的美国神经科学会理事会收到信后，几个月内在十几个委员会任命华人为委员。此后，华人委员应该继续保持，但有些华人只享受他人带来的结果，不继续维持，导致2021年美国神经科学会下属的十几个委员会的华人委员少于200
2005年，我给美国科学媒体、部分科学学会、科学刊物以下电子信件，于2005年10月28日《科学》报道的主要内容。
在英文学术刊物就同类问题发表过文章， 2021年，梅林的儿子Jimmy Meixiong（《临床研究杂志》）。
2022年，詹裕农老师在《细胞》发表文章。
2005年，因为那封信，有一些学会和一些刊物当时有所改进。
二十年后的今天，哪些有改进、哪些没有改进、哪些更糟糕？
其中有白人的问题，也有华人的问题。例如，会员超过3万的美国神经科学会理事会收到信后，几个月内在十几个委员会任命华人为委员。此后，华人委员应该继续保持，但有些华人只享受他人带来的结果，不继续维持，导致2021年美国神经科学会下属的十几个委员会的华人委员少于2006年。
（我当时的信有几个版本，分别加入少量对不同学会、不同刊物针对性的内容，附件1是给美国生物化学与分子生物学会的英文原信，附件2是2005年《科学》对此的新闻报道，很多不同意见，今天看来也很有意思。例如，白人教授一般在被批评种族歧视时比较不好意思，而正在上升期、或者自认为被白人接受的华人，却积极反对歧视的说法。其实，迄今为止，没有一位旅美华人教授是免于被歧视的，是否自己承认并不能改变事实）
生物医学界对华裔科学家的歧视
饶毅
过去四分之一世纪以来，科学研究的地貌重要的变化之一是中国来源的科学家贡献增加。现在，很难，如果不是不可能，在任何美国研究型大学的院系找不到中国学生、博士后，打开科学刊物看不见华人作者。在生物医学界，华人研究人员如此普遍以致于很难有一个从未有华人的实验室。
但是，如果火星人要比较美国生物医学上层的今天和二十五年前，他就看不到华人科学家的增加。例如，他可以看看每个生物化学与分子生物学学会（ASBMB），拥有超过11900成员的生物化学和分子生物学最大的学会。它有26个理事会成员，无一华人。它有11个委员会，193个成员，无一华人。从1907年到2005年大全部历史，它有过78任理事长、32位秘书长和财务总监，无一华人。这非常奇怪，因为早已有一些领先的分子生物学家，如Robert Tjian，是华人。
事实上，很少华人科学家被提名参选这些职位。火星人可以再看看精英的生物化学系（如斯坦福医学院生物化学系、哈佛医学院生物化学系、华盛顿大学医学院生物化学系），它们全部存在的历史上要么从未雇用过华人科学家（如斯坦福和华盛顿大学）、或极少雇用（如哈佛医学院）。今天，全美国最好的二十所研究型大学的生物医学系，无一系主任为华人。在美国前100所研究型大学多于一千个生物医学系，低于十位华人系主任。
依据于精英大学或学会这些统计数字，火星人会认为华人科学家并非生物医学研究的重要力量。
如果火星人看研究论文，图像非常不同。很容易看到《自然》、《科学》、《细胞》、《自然遗传学》、《分子细胞》、《分子和细胞生物学》、《生物化学杂志》等刊物的文章，至少百分之十到二十的第一作者是华人。
我们试试看如何把这些归因于歧视之外的原因。
会不会是管道泄漏？这是被用于解释女性在学术轨道上越走越少的常见借口。这一借口假定研究生涯的关键期与生殖期重叠。当然，这一点不可能用于解释男性华人与白人的差别（虽然它也被质疑是否能被用于解释女性科学家的差别）
是因为地理原因吗？也不像。加州有最多的华人。加州大学的亚裔学生超过百分之40，但教授和学术领导继续相对缺乏代表。斯坦福大学，位于华裔美国人聚集的旧金山附近，其生物化学系从未雇华人教授。斯坦福医学院只有三位华人教授。因此说明，与华人社区或学生群体近，不能解决教授层的歧视问题。
是时间问题吗？在有些大学是，其他大学不是。哈佛大学校本部的分子和细胞生物学系有一位华人教授（王倬，James Wang），他是三十年前被雇的，其后一个都没有增加。斯坦福大学医学院基础医学系科在1987年有两位华人科学家 ，其后二十年只多雇了一位。康奈尔大学有一位华人生物学家（吴瑞）出任其分子生物学系主任后，其后三十年没有增加。斯坦福医学院有一位华人（钱永佑）出任系主任后，其后二十年没有增加（近年钱永佑去纽约后，重新归零——2021年译注）。在华人生物学家担任美国精英大学系主任人数下降的同二十年的时期，美国全国精英大学中国研究人员增加如果不是上百倍，也是上十倍。在美国其他大学华裔系主任的增加也低于工作人员增加的比例。
可以用年资来解释吗？不容易。以生物化学和分子生物学为例，我们比较两种需要年资起作用的情况：《生物化学杂志》（JBC）编委会和ASBMB委员会。目前JBC有703位编委，26位为华人（3.7%）。虽然JBC的华人编委也可能有问题，但至少它远高于ASBMB的委员会（0%）。
我们现在只剩两种解释能够调和这些统计数字：要么华人就是智力低于标准的努力只能在白人领导下工作，要么种族歧视压制了华人。
白人科学家通常对针对华人的种族主义无动于衷。有些教授招聘委员会有意无意限制招聘、面试华人申请者，或给他们更高的要求（饶老师说他在华盛顿大学工作期间，楼下细胞生物学系十年没有面试过一位华人申请者—2021年译注）。有时，委员会成员竟然在招聘委员会或系的教授会上说“已经太多中国人了”。更多时候是更微妙的做法。有个著名研究型大学的系主任否决华人候选人时说，他不会教学，而该系无教学要求，而且候选人的材料和推荐信并未显示候选人有语言问题。这种做法其实是带着薄面纱的种族歧视。
有些人怪罪华人不会接网络，但不说出原因。部分原因当然是起诉。因为华人科学家没有clout，即使其中有人做出重要发现，白人科学家也并不热衷与他们接网络。所以歧视减少华人接网络。
有人指出华人实验室主任（PI）雇华人研究者很多，似乎华人PI歧视白人、或近亲繁殖。真实的原因正好相反。白人学生通常避免华人实验室，部分原因是学生歧视华人、部分原因是学生担心华人PI缺乏网络帮助其今后生涯升迁。怪华人PIs缺乏多样性是怪华人歧视自己。这有如白人怪非裔美国企业家领导的企业有较多非裔美国人。
这些现象被冠以各种称呼，如玻璃天花板。无论如何浅层描述，深层问题是种族歧视。
生物医学的歧视问题当然是种族政治问题冰山的一角。华裔美国人倾向于不出声，部分原因是没人听其声音和关心。但是，这意味着对歧视的服从应该永远存在吗？科学研究共同体能否改变现状？
作者为伊利诺60614，芝加哥，西北大学Feinberg医学院神经内科学教授。
附件1 致美国生物化学与分子生物学会的英文原件信
Discrimination against Chinese Scientists in Biomedical Sciences
Yi Rao
A major change in the landscape of scientific research in the past quarter century is the increasing contribution of scientists of Chinese origin or descent. By now, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to find a department at any US research university that does not have Chinese students and postdocs, or to open a scientific journal that does not contain research articles with Chinese authors. In biomedical sciences, Chinese researchers are so prevalent that it is difficult to find a lab that has never had a Chinese.
However, if a Martian was to compare the upper echelons of US biomedical sciences of today to those of 25 years ago, he would have failed to see the growing presence of Chinese scientists. For example, he can look at the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), the largest organization for biochemists and molecular biologists with more than 11,900 members. It has 26 council members, none of whom are Chinese. On its 11 committees with nearly 193 members, none of them are of Chinese descent. In the entire history of ASBMB from 1907 to 2005, there have been 78 Presidents, 32 secretaries, and 22 treasurers, not a single one was Chinese. This is striking in the context that there have been some leading molecular biologists such as Robert Tjian, who are of Chinese descent.
In fact, very few scientists of Chinese origin have been nominated to run for these positions. The Martian can also look at some of the elitist or historical Departments of Biochemistry (such as those at Stanford, Harvard Medical School, Washington University School of Medicine) and will find that it has never hired a regular Chinese faculty in its history (at Stanford and Wash. U.) or very few (at HMS). At the present, there is no Chinese chairman in any biomedical sciences department in the top 20 research universities and less than a handful Chinese chairmen in more than 1000 biomedical sciences departments in the top 100 research universities in the US.
Based on the statistics in elitist institutions and decision-making bodies of academic societies, the Martian will believe that scientists of Chinese origin or descent are not a significant force in biomedical research.
If, however, the Martian looks at the publications of research articles, the picture is very different. The first authors of 10 to 20 % of original papers in Nature, Science, Cell, Nature Genetics, Molecular Cell, Molecular and Cellular Biology and the Journal of Biological Chemistry are easily recognizable as Chinese.
Let’s see whether one can try to explain away the discrepancy or to attribute it to factors other than discrimination.
Can it be a problem of a leaky pipeline? This is the most frequent excuse when some want to explain that there is no discrimination for women while statistics show that females decrease along the academic ladder. This excuse is based on the presumptive conflict when the age critical for a research career overlaps that for childbirth. Naturally, this excuse can not be applied to the difference between Chinese and Caucasian male scientists (its validity for female scientists has also been questioned).
Is this a problem of geography? The answer is apparently not. California has the largest population of Chinese Americans. The Asian student population at the University of California has exceeded 40%, but the situation with faculty and academic leadership still shows the same underrepresentation. Stanford University, located near San Francisco, the hub of Chinese Americans, has never hired a scientist of Chinese in its Biochemistry Department. There are only 3 Chinese scientists in all basic sciences departments at Stanford Medical School. So proximity to a large Chinese community or student population does not solve the problem of discrimination at faculty levels.
Is it a question of time? In some institutions, it is. In others, it is not. There is only one Chinese faculty member (James C. Wang) in the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology at Harvard: he was hired nearly 30 years ago. At Stanford Medical School, there were only 2 scientists of Chinese descent (Gilbert Chu and Richard Tsien) in 1987 in all basic sciences departments, and only one additional Chinese has been hired in the past 20 years in those departments. 30 years ago, Cornell had one Chinese biologist (Ray Wu) as the chair of its Department of Molecular Biology. 20 years ago, Stanford had a scientist of Chinese descent (Richard Tsien) as the chairman of its Physiology Department. But the number of Chinese chairmen in biomedical sciences at elite universities across the country has only decreased over the same 20 year period during which the number of Chinese researchers have increased tens, if not hundreds, of fold in the same universities. The number at other universities has not significantly increased, remaining still far from being proportional to the increase in the workforce.
Can it be explained by seniority? Not easily. Taking the example of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, we can compare two situations where seniority should play similar roles: the editorial board of the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) and the committees of the ASBMB. There are 703 members on the current JBC editorial board, 26 being Chinese (3.7%). Although it is possible that Chinese biochemists are underrepresented at the JBC, it is much more than the number at ASBMB committees (0).
We are now left with two possible explanations to reconcile the gap of these statistics: either that the Chinese are just slaves who are intellectually substandard and can only work under Caucasian leadership, or that there is racial discrimination that holds down the Chinese.
Caucasian scientists are usually complacent about racial discrimination against the Chinese. Some faculty search committees are worse in consciously or unconsciously limiting the number of interviews of Chinese candidates or setting a high bar for them. Some departments have never interviewed a single Chinese even though there are an abundance of qualified candidates. There have been occasions when a committee member objected to Chinese candidates because “there are already too many Chinese” in the interviews or in the department. But often it was done more subtly. One department chair at a major research university vetoed the interview for a Chinese candidate by saying that the candidate could not teach, when there was no teaching requirement in that department for any research faculty members and that there was no evidence from materials submitted by the candidate or his referees suggesting problems with language. The superficial argument about teaching is a thinly veiled statement of racial discrimination.
Some blame the Chinese for lack of networking, without identifying the reason. Part of the reason is discrimination. Because Chinese scientists have little clout even when some of them happen to be well-known for making important discoveries, Caucasian scientists often shun Chinese in networking. Discrimination therefore reduces the participation of Chinese scientists in networking.
Some points to the prevalence of Chinese researchers working in the labs of Chinese PIs as if the PIs are discriminating against Caucasians or breeding nepotism. The true reason is the opposite. Caucasian students tend to shun labs with Chinese PIs, partly for discrimination on the students’ part and partly for being afraid of the exclusion of Chinese PIs from the network which would affect their future careers. To fault the Chinese PIs for the “lack of diversity” is blaming Chinese for discrimination against themselves. This is similar to Caucasians blaming African American businessmen for leading businesses that have more African Americans.
The phenomenon has been called various terms such as glass ceiling. Well, however it can be described superficially, the underlying problem is related to discrimination.
The problem of discrimination in biomedical sciences is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg in racial politics. Chinese Americans tend to be quite, partly because their voices and concerns are not listened to. But should that mean obedience and subordination in front of discrimination forever? Would the scientific research community be able to change the status quo?
The author is a Professor of Neurology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, IL 60614.
附件2
2005年《科学》的新闻报道
Science, Vol 310, Issue 5748, 606-607 , 28 October 2005
[DOI: 10.1126/science.310.5748.606]
News Focus
U.S. WORKFORCE:
A Glass Ceiling for Asian Scientists?
Jeffrey Mervis
Asian scientists are a major presence in U.S. biomedical research labs. So why do so few hold leadership positions?
Virologist Kuan-Teh Jeang always thought it strange that his employer, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), would celebrate Asian Heritage Week each year with a cultural fair. "We're not known for being great cooks or dancers. We're known for being great scientists," says Jeang about an ethnic group that, according to 2000 census data, comprises 14.7% of U.S. life scientists despite being only 4.1% of the nation's overall workforce. So last year, he and the NIH/Food and Drug Administration Chinese American Association launched a new tradition: inviting a distinguished Asian researcher to give a scientific talk.
This May, as Asian Heritage Week approached, Jeang and his colleagues had another idea: Why not use the occasion to examine the status of Asian scientists within NIH's intramural program? Jeang had already collected some disturbing numbers about opportunities for career advancement at NIH, and he was eager to see whether his numbers squared with an official tally by NIH officials.
To his chagrin, they did. Whereas 21.5% of NIH's 280 tenure-track investigators (the equivalent of assistant professors) are Asian, they comprise only 9.2% of the 950 senior investigators (tenured researchers) at NIH. And only 4.7% of the roughly 200 lab or branch chiefs are Asian. (For this story, the term "Asian" includes all scientists with Asian surnames, regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. The group is dominated by scientists of Chinese, Korean, Indian, Pakistani, or Japanese origin.) Within particular institutes, the numbers were even more sobering. As of this spring, just one of 55 lab chiefs at the National Cancer Institute, NIH's largest, was Asian. At the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, where Jeang works, none of the 22 lab chiefs was Asian.
To Jeang and others, the numbers point to a glass ceiling for Asian life scientists seeking to move up the career ladder. Asians are welcome in most labs, the numbers seem to say, and those who prove themselves can earn a permanent position. (Taiwan-born Jeang, who holds both an M.D. and Ph.D., came to NIH as a medical staff fellow in 1985 and was tenured in 1993.) But they shouldn't expect to enter senior management. "We feel that the field is not level," says Jeang, who has calculated that, at NIH's three largest institutes, Asians make up roughly 12% of the eligible pool from which lab chiefs are drawn.
NIH isn't the only place with a glass ceiling, say some Asian life scientists. This summer, neuroscientist Yi Rao of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, took a look at the leadership ranks of the two major professional societies in his field: the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) and the American Society for Biology and Molecular Biology (ASBMB). What he found was even more troubling than the NIH figures.
His snapshot showed that none of the 26 ASBMB council members was Asian, nor were any of the 193 members of the society's 11 standing committees. Asian scientists make up fewer than 4% of the 703-member editorial board at its top-tier Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC), and none of the 21 associate editors with decision-making authority. Asians are equally invisible among the leadership ranks of the neuroscience society, Rao found. They hold only two of nearly 300 seats on 18 committees, and none of the 15 elected officer and councilor posts. Looking back, Rao found that only a handful of Asian scientists have ever held such elective positions in the society's 36-year history.
Rao says the message is clear. "However the phenomenon can be described, the underlying problem is discrimination," he wrote in July letters to ASBMB and SfN governing officers. "Chinese Americans tend to be quiet, partly because their voices and concerns are not listened to. But should that mean obedience and subordination forever?"
Senior officials at NIH, SfN, and ASBMB don't dispute the numbers, although some say they were surprised by them. "There's an appearance of a glass ceiling, which is troublesome," says Michael Gottesman, who heads NIH's intramural research program. "It makes you wonder if there's an inherent bias."
Looking for factors that might help explain the gap, he and others tick off the relatively recent arrival on the U.S. scientific scene of Asian scientists, language barriers, and cultural stereotypes that prevent Asians from being more aggressive in seeking promotions and honors. But in the end, they say, their organizations have an obligation to try to improve the situation. "The solution is straightforward. We need to make their accomplishments better known," says Gottesman, who met with Jeang and three other Asian scientists this summer to discuss how NIH could do better.
The stealth problem
For Rao, Jeang, and other Asian scientists, the recent data-gathering exercise confirms something they had long felt to be the case. "It's an unspoken truth," says neuroscientist Joseph Tsien of Boston University, who left China in 1986 for graduate school and later became a U.S. citizen. "We don't fall into the typical minority group because we're not underrepresented, especially in science. But you see so many [Asian scientists] at the bottom of the ladder and so few in the top ranks. … It's a funny situation." In a letter this spring to NIH Director Elias Zerhouni that prompted NIH to gather the data, Jeang explains that "we want to disabuse you of the common mythology that Asians don't want to be leaders."
But the issue is also very complicated, says Yu Xie, a sociologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who has studied both the behavior of scientists and the growing presence of Asians in U.S. society. "Often people look at statistics, and they jump to the conclusion that there has been discrimination," says Yu, who came to the United States from China in 1982 for graduate school. "I haven't seen any evidence that it is the case. It might be true, but we just don't know enough to reach a conclusion one way or the other." Indeed, several Asian scientists interviewed for this article say they haven't experienced any type of glass ceiling. "I personally don't feel that it applies to me. But I'm not very sensitive," says Liqun Luo of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, who earlier this year was named a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator.
Still, Luo says others have told him that the ceiling exists and that the issue seems to be on people's minds. A Stanford colleague contacted him after receiving Rao's letter, he says, and out of the blue, Luo says he was invited to be on SfN's program committee.
Neuroscientist Eve Marder of Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, who chairs the society's program committee, says she and the society's other officials believe strongly that all panels should have diverse representation. "It so happens that this year almost none of them do, and I recommended to the committee on committees that they be more proactive." She says she also suggested to Rao a tactic that has helped women rise through the ranks: "Forward us lists of people who are interested, so that nobody can say that they don't know any Asian scientists" who are willing and able to serve the society.
The head of the committee on committees, Irving Levitan of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, says he was "stunned" when he saw the numbers. "There is great consciousness about gender and underrepresented members," he says. "But frankly, we have not paid attention to Asian Americans because they are so visible in the lab."
For some ASBMB officials, the tone of Rao's message was as shocking as the message itself. "It was a very insulting letter," says Linda Pike of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. "He was accusing us of doing something that was awful and terrible and mean without bothering to find out why. You can't just look at the numbers."
In her reply to Rao, Pike explored a question often asked when the issue comes up: How many Asian scientists are truly qualified to hold leadership positions? "How many of the Chinese authors of scientific papers are in a position to serve on ASBMB committees?" she asked. "How many choose to return to their country, and how many seriously try to obtain faculty positions in the U.S.?" In addition, she noted that "a lack of language skills could put a faculty member at a severe disadvantage" in obtaining funding and, thus, building the track record needed to move up the career ladder. "While I sympathize with your concerns, there is much more that needs to be examined before diagnosing ASBMB as engaging in discrimination."
Even so, ASBMB is taking the charge very seriously, says president Judith Bond of Hershey Medical Center in Pennsylvania. Last month, Bond says, the society decided to invite "a Chinese-American member" of the JBCeditorial board to become an associate editor, and the council plans to discuss the issue of a glass ceiling at its December meeting.
For Gottesman, inertia and a limited number of available slots are bigger obstacles to progress than the qualifications of Asian scientists. "The pool is getting bigger," he says. "But the average age of our lab chiefs is about 10 years more than it was 10 years ago. There's a need to turn those positions over more often." He says it's his job to remind the scientific directors to look at a broader spectrum of potential candidates for these jobs.
A glass ceiling doesn't mean that no individuals have risen to great prominence in the profession. Examples abound. In fact, some Asian scientists say that the critics have gone overboard in painting a bleak picture of the United States. "They are fighting for a good cause, but they are going to an extreme," says Mu-Ming Poo, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Berkeley, about those who claim that the data prove a glass ceiling exists. "The United States is the most tolerant society in the world, including China, for foreign scientists. In 10 years, Yi Rao will probably be holding one of these leadership positions, and so will many of his colleagues."
Indeed, many are anticipating a rosier future. It will come, they say, both because of the graying of the current generation of leaders and because Asian scientists will become more adept at learning how to get ahead. "This is America. And you need to embrace those qualities that are appropriate for success," says Victor Dzau, chancellor for health affairs at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who was born in Shanghai and educated in Canada and the United States. "It will require a conscious effort. But I would predict that the disparity will narrow as the next generation moves forward."
Jeang also believes that change is coming. Last year, he says, he was on the brink of leaving NIH when a senior colleague convinced him that history was on his side. "When I was growing up at NIH," the colleague confided to Jeang, "every chief of medicine and every director was a WASP. But all their right-hand men were Jewish doctors. Now all our right-hand people are Asian. It just takes time." That pep talk, plus a recent meeting with Gottesman, has persuaded Jeang that NIH means business. So he says he'll stick around and wait for a time when the disparity disappears.
来源：时空探险家
