Women in Science: Problems are the root of invention

In the UK alone more than a thousand people die from falls on the stairs each year, and falls in older people cost the NHS over £1 billion per year. For me these figures were truly shocking. At the age of 16 after my teachers father suffered a stroke and was unable to use his stairs, my eyes were opened to the big issues of stairs and the limiting effect it can have on someone’s life if they are not used. For me this was the spark that got me interested in science and engineering. A journey that has enabled me to create a product, have a patent and run my own business.

I have always used the word inventor with a bit of caution it tends to bring to people’s minds thoughts of old men in sheds blowing up things (a figure like Doc from ‘back to the future’) in fact I was15 when I first started on the StairSteady, working on my GCSE resistant materials project, and unfortunately I haven’t yet blown anything up while designing the StairSteady. So you can see my hesitation to use the word inventor when describing myself.

Now I’m going to be very blunt and discuss the whole women in STEM thing. This debate has nothing to do with whether women are capable in any of these topics; there is more than enough evidence to prove that we are good at this. This debate has more to do with do with the images that we put out there and the work life balance that we allow. Firstly, I’ll address the image part. I’m sure many of you saw the ’science: it’s a girl thing’ EU advert, and if you didn’t you probably thought it was the latest Maybelline advert. I am the first person to admit I am very girly. It’s not a bad thing. I love shoes, fashion and makeup and do not hide it; however, the STEM image in the media seems to have two extremes- drab or overly glamorised with no actual substance. If you want to see real women in science then come down to Soapbox Science at the Southbank and see real women in science talk.

Next we have the work life balance aspect, STEM careers aren’t easy when you want to have children, I have a way to go and I’m hoping by then things with have changed. There are those helping to change this, a few weeks ago I attended the L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Awards, recognising the achievements of four women by awarding them £15,000 to support them in any area they wish. They could spend this money on child care, a new fridge, interns, anything that makes there life easier. We need to be encouraging these women to stay in their careers. Rant over!

Back to the topic of invention, what I actually do is ‘create and make happen’. I also have a love for business and these two go hand in hand, I love coming up with an idea, a product or project and making it happen- then making money from it is always good. Now this ‘create and make happen’ thing is very much rooted in science and from that engineering, because science is the theory and engineering is putting it into practice. One without the other just doesn’t work. I tend to start off with a theory or research, so friction is very important with the StairSteady, I then worked out how to make something practical with that e.g. a locking mechanism say, and then using more research into materials improve on that system to create an even better locking system. Each time the science feeds the engineering, often there is some practicality to consider, maybe the way that it is made or the way it will be fitted. This limitation often means that I can’t use the theory directly and so requires me to do a little problem solving.

I love problem solving; it’s a big part of what I do in business. Science is crucial to this, if I need to have a really powerful adhesive, then I need to know that this has been created and tested by the best. I then work out the best way to incorporate this into my product using engineering. Advances in the science mean advances in the engineering and so hopefully more products made and sold more efficiently, hopefully equating in more profit for the company. I know that earlier soapbox science blogs have mentioned the link between science and the economy and it’s something that I would like to echo, science and engineering is one key way in which we can improve the economy.

As I mentioned at the beginning I was inspired to create because of an everyday problem. The best science and engineering comes from problem solving. I love the excitement of thinking that I can create something that will affect people’s everyday life in a positive way. For me it’s a kind of philanthropic need to make the world a better place than before I joined it, a quest that I will be well and truly doing in my heels.

Ruth Amos was awarded Young Engineer of Great Britain for her StairSteady invention, which she has since turned into a business. She will be speaking at the Soapbox Science event, organised in association with the L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Programme and The Zoological Society of London, with the support of the Royal Society. www.zsl.org/soapboxscience“

Recent Posts on Notebook

• Justice for sale but who pays for the cost?
• The Road to the Ultra-Trail du Mont Blanc - Majorca 70.3 Ironman
• The Retail Ready People project means the future of the high street is in your hands
• Don't get mad about Amazon and make the right ethical choice
• Chagos: Conservationists are swimming in murky waters

• logrunner

  I disagree with your argument that because there is less of female science,it is all rubbish; that despite their verbal skills women make poor managers; that creativity is the only criterion for success in science despite the need for team working in an age of increased complexity; that boxing ability is an apt simile for scientific ability.

  I think that promotion in all fields of endeavour is too geared to favour stereotypical male traits. The problems in the banking industry seem to demonstrate this. We seem to think we need ruthless almost psychopathic personalities, of either sex as our leaders. The person who pushes hardest does best regardless of abilities, including creativity. Female and non-dominant males are disinterested in competing in that unhealthy environment.

  But would tend to agree that tinkering with things which are deep cultural issues unlikely to be beneficial.

  Chess is an interesting example though; women are less inclined to take it up, perhaps more likely seeing it as rather futile, and even if they do are probably less good, but only at the grandmaster level?

  Referring to a later post, I think you did say women made bad scientists as they are ’second rate’. Unless you want a semantic discussion.

  So, you lose your argument by overstating it.

• ScaaarBeeek

  Haven’t heard such egotistic nonsense in a long time.

  First of all, yes you are playing with semantics. So we need go no further on that one.

  Secondly, as for competition, guys who exhibit aggression/ambition in their industry are only doing it to be attractive to women in any case. Women, I am afraid, LOVE dominant guys (with exceptions of course of course of course).

  Thirdly, there are some rather nasty female executive types AS WELL.

  Fourthly, if women are on the whole are less inclined to compete (apart from attracting a partner, but that’s another story of course of course), it is because they don’t have the social pressures on them to compete. You’ve hit the nail on the nail against feminism. It’s the unwritten man’s role to “go out there” and negotiate with the outside world. That will mean competition. In the home, where most women prefer, there is no need to compete.

• Wittgensteinsfoot

  Don’t ya just love ‘guys’.

• Wittgensteinsfoot

  Talent?

• ScaaarBeeek

  Manginas I hate.

• Wittgensteinsfoot

  I’m sure you hate lots if things.

• ScaaarBeeek

  We’re all human.

• Wittgensteinsfoot

  That’s open to argument.

• logrunner

  Should have spotted earlier that you were a capitaliser, so had a divine right to the truth.
  Try drawing out the other person’s argument rather than resorting to abuse.
  You will be at risk of learning something other than your own prejudices.

• ScaaarBeeek

  What the hell are you on about?