 Good morning, everyone. Welcome to day two of our workshop on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the chemistry and chemical engineering fields. And I'm so excited to have you all back for those who did not attend yesterday. My name is Jeremy Mathis and I am the director of the board on chemical sciences and technology here at the at the academies. And yesterday we heard from a fantastic group of speakers who shared their ideas and their progress that they've made about established programs that focus on building D I in the chemical sciences. And today we're going to hear now about emerging programs and also dedicate time for productive conversations about the I in chemistry and chemical engineering with this community over slack. And as a reminder, there is an extensive slack guidance document on our website for you to reference as you join the slack workspace and participate in the conversation and if you're a slack novice like me, certainly use that document for your guidance and also ask any of our staff that we have on the zoom for help if you need it. And please note, as we go through all of this the event is being both broadcast and recorded and that by participating, you agree to have your questions and your thoughts relayed into perpetuity. And additionally, there will be a proceedings in brief published later this year that summarizes the conversations and the things that we talked about at the workshop. So therefore by submitting any questions or engaging in the conversations on zoom and slack, you are agreeing to have those comments published. And so now I'm going to move to our first talk of the day. Our second keynote speaker is Dr. Geraldine Richmond. Dr Richmond is the presidential chair in science and a professor of chemistry at the University of Oregon for teaching and extensive research efforts have focused on science communication and building a strong and inclusive workforce. She is the founding director of COACH, a grassroots organization that has helped over 25,000 women scientists and engineers and career advancement in the United States and over two dozen developing countries. Unfortunately, Dr Richmond wasn't able to join us live today. However, she was able to pre record her talk for us earlier this week. So although she won't be able to take questions afterwards we encourage all of you to share your thoughts and engage with one another on the slack platform using hashtag keynote to for the discussion. So with that, I'll turn it over to our video. I want to thank you all again for participating. We had a great event yesterday and we're hoping to continue to build on that today. So thank you all, and enjoy the keynote. Well, hello to everyone. I'm Jerry Richmond from the University of Oregon, and I'm so delighted to be part of this really important symposium, having to do with diversity, equity and inclusion in the chemical sciences. Today what I'm going to do is tell you about some recent research that we've done, funded by the Department of Energy, which just look at the views and career plans of all graduate students in chemistry and but particular emphasis on women and underrepresented minorities. This project is in collaboration with Gene Stockard, an amazing social scientist who's worked with us for many years, who is professor emeritus at the University of Oregon, and also my dear friend Celeste Rolfing, who was at NSF and then was at LAS and is now retired but working very closely with coach. So I want to, I want to give a shout out though to one of the most important women in my life. And that would be Mary Ann Fox, and who we have just lost recently, the last week, but she was an incredibly powerful and special woman in chemical sciences. In particular, I want to go back to 1996, where she had an incredible influence on me as well as the development of coach. So she and I were on the board of the Basic Energy Sciences, the advisory board of the Department of Energy. And in that particular meeting, one of the speakers had had that was speaking was not paying attention to a question that a woman on the board had asked me. And Mary Ann Fox, with her strong voice told him that he needed to answer my question and not ignore it. So it cost a little cost a little bit of a fluff in the meeting, but it was right on. So afterwards we got together for lunch, the two of us, and because I wanted to learn a little bit more about what she was thinking about at the time. She was in her career. And as we were talking, and she was telling me that, you know, she was very frustrated about the fact that that she was feeling that that she was not. She was being held back in her career by strange sort of I considered what she was telling me kind of jealousy issues with regards to her career. And said that that she was thinking of making a move because it was very difficult for her under her current circumstance. And that really hit me hard. Because here is a woman who is a member of the National Science Board. She was in the National Academy of Sciences, and weren't we beyond those gender issues at this point, but obviously not. And so that conversation really struck me, really struck me. But then I started to collect additional stories from other women that were sort of mid career that I thought that were tenured that I thought would be beyond this gender thing. And we start hearing stories such as these, passed over, accomplishment seemingly ignored, and also voices being ignored. And even more heartbreaking is that our women of color, African American, what few women faculty, we had at that time, felt that they were being trotted out in the department to show the department's diversity, but otherwise not paid much attention to. And women that were having children, but somehow it seemed like having that child changed people's views of them or their aspirations to be successful. And all of those then led to the initiation of coach, the committee on the advancement of women chemists, which we were initially renamed. And so I brought together G Pemberton I brought together a group of women scientists in our chemists, and you'll recognize many of these names here that in their original institutions. But they were really formative in having a discussion about what is going on. That's really slowing down the leadership of those women that aspire to be the best in their fields. And so we had a discussion about this and found that we needed to do something. We needed to do something. And that's where it was actually Janet Austria, who suggested the acronym coach for the committee on the advancement of women chemists. So from that, then we created a series of workshops to help women be have the kind of skills to advance in their careers in leadership in negotiation and communication, and started offering those to the community with the funding of NSF first the Griffith Foundation, Bob Lichter, NSF, and then NIH and also DOE. And so with those workshops, we that we start giving to the community ACS meetings. We base the popularity of them has now spread beyond chemistry to a lot of different deals and that's where we mostly just go by coach, but up to this point over 25,000 women have attended these workshops and we have researched that shows what the impact it's had on their lives. Now beyond that then about 2012, we started adding to that working with women scientists and developing countries, not only with the workshops that helping the network in their particular fields. And so that's been a wonderful experience also that still continues today, although many of our workshops are virtual, but please if you're interested in and what we do please go to the coach website. So the kind of kinds of things that major projects that we have going on is certainly the coach career really workshops such as I have here. But we also then have our research on STEM workforce issues that Jean has been leading all these years and that's what this talk is about. And then also working with organizations we've just had a big project with NIST to help them on issues of diversity and inclusion. And we've also been working with the DOE national laboratories to do survey research to help them understand what issues are at their laboratories, especially for women getting into leadership positions but actually men too, and also underrepresented groups. And then also as I mentioned working with women in developing countries at this point now I've worked with a couple of dozen different countries, a lot of them in Africa and Asia Central Asia, and also in Latin America. And, and, but that's a whole topic in itself but one that's been extraordinarily gratifying as we've taken coach to those women and those countries. So let me now focus on this talk and particularly our coach research team in which we conduct climate issues studies on climate issues, but also challenges for underrepresented groups. And the kind of need to understand what kind of additional programs, we can put together for the new generation of women coming up to help them in professional development. And then we also do assessment of the impact of our programs which we have done for 20 years now. And in fact, we are still surveying the cadre of women that took our coach workshops back in 2000. To see how they have progressed in their career and if they can even remember what is the workshops and what were in them. And it's amazing how much they remembers, you know for someone that doesn't have much memory. It just is stunning how, how grateful they are for what they learned and many of them now are in positions of power, whether it be presidents of universities or provost and they continue to say how valuable it was to have the kind of coach training that we gave them and would continue to give today. Okay, so what I want to talk about in particular is this, the paper that we put out in PNAS in January, and that has to do with the factors contributing to the lower retention of women and your students in US chemistry departments and again, based on the ACS data. So this is really to try to understand through the survey data, the kind of experiences that they have in graduate school, and how that might differ by gender or their identification factors that might moderate or help explain these differences also. And again, Mary Kirchoff, my hats off to you and your colleagues for doing this incredible survey that's so rich that allowed us to go deeper into some of the issues that followed their report, designed to understand the student graduate students views and long term goals of reducing more positive and receptive graduate students. Okay. So our analysis is a multi regression used to examine the association and experiences of these different graduate students, whether it be gender for gender, or identification of your M or the first generation status here in the program and actually also the status of their department. So we took a deeper dive using Gene Stockard skills to be able to unravel some of the nuances in the data that gave us a lot of really valuable insight, which I will tell you about. So we had two studies. The first one is really looking at the full cadre of PhD programs across the country. That would be as you see 2,500 chemistry graduate students, most of them in PhD programs. And sample two is really restricting it to just the top 10 US chemistry top 100 US chemistry departments, and this is the focus of the PNAS paper. And the sample one is the one that we've written up for special issue of journal chemical chemical education. That's just being submitted. Now, most of the talk that I will give will be on this sample two, but I will come back and talk about sample one as we go forward. Okay, so we brought this up into four issues. One was to understand the relationships that the graduate students have with their advisor, including their involvement in the research, their availability to help them, their encouragement and also their treatment. So it was really about their, their advisor, how did they feel about their advisor or their advisor's role in helping support them go through graduate school. And the second was the degree of desired support that they received from others in the group or others in their department. So this is more peer level. Did they, did they receive the kind of support that they wanted from from those that are in their group and how did that break down with regards to their gender or underrepresented minority status. The third one, which is equally, if not more important, and that is how did they feel about their financial support. Was it adequate to me, the cost of living where they lived. And finally, whether how the students what their aspirations for what they decided to do in finishing their degree and future career plans. Now in the, the study that I'll talk about for the top 100 institutions, the average that the survey is really averaging out students so they're in their second to third year in greater school whereas the other is to use that time frame. Whereas when I talk about the second survey, it will actually have some time dependence with it from, you know, what they felt like in their first year versus how they felt thing for going on their later years. But the, the, the one for the survey which is the top 100 will be will be really focused on the second or third year. All right, so let's get into the results. So, based on 22 questions and again a shout out to the survey that was put together by the ACS. How did they, how did they read their advisors involvement as you see here in the search, their ability, their availability, their encouragement and so forth so on the average. Now you can think about what do you think that grade would be, because I put it on a grading scale as a good academic I put it on a grading scale. This is the grade, the average grade that was given. It's better than a C, right? It's better than a D. It was a 3.6 on a five point scale. But that means there's improvement that need to be made. And quite, quite strikingly, when you break down these institutions, these departments by the rankings by the amount of money that NSF gives them if that's not as one way that the ranking is done. And we divided those into quartiles. And it turned out that the top quartile institutions showed lower advisor ratings than those that went lower quartiles. So that's really, and there's one can think about what the explanation might be. But we certainly don't have an answer for that. But one might imagine, for example, that at those top quartile, you have very some research groups are very large, and maybe that's a reflection of that. But nevertheless, it is a wake up call to our top institutions who have big graduate programs, large number of graduate students and also very good graduate students in terms of their treatment of their graduate students with regards to the advisors. So, let's talk a little bit more about now how that breaks down with regards to demographics and so what I have here, this is the average Z scores, and I broken that down into. Now the plot is showing this, you are in women, you're in men, non you're in women, and then you're in the majority steward's. And so what's really striking. Well, first of all, it's great to see that are your men are feel that they're getting good support and advice from your advisors. That's really great. But look at this. This is just appalling, quite frankly, this is actually an average this line here I have here's an average. So, so this advisor thing is working so well for women, certainly statistically significant for our non you're in women, but especially for our women of color. And that comes out very strongly in the data so let me explain that a little bit further. You and in all these questions, your women are less likely to report that their advisor and I'm going to go through these that I think we need to think hard about this. Encourage them to take challenges to preview their out to pursue their aspiration advocate for them a credit for their contributions and gauge them and writing proposals and presentations, helping develop professional relationships. I'm satisfied that the students work created a fair environment, gave regular. So, but to give you a little bit of background behind this data analysis, using gene using the multi various statistical analysis, indicate that these differences could not be explained by what you're the students for a graduate program, the level of the parents, whether they were married or not, the value attached to different aspects of their careers, including the size and prestige of the department, and also the diversity of their university. So, again, really striking and I think a wake up call to to advisors that are chemists in our chemistry departments, but the sport also needs to come from further search groups. So let's look at the data from how they feel they're getting support from their research groups. And so, now you see, again, really striking result. So for the URM men for the URM women, you see, well, first of all, we'll start with the non urine women. Certainly they don't feel they're getting quite as much support as the men, but it's and it's statistically significant but it's still not that much different as you see for the URM women So you see that, in particular, and so they don't are underrepresented minority students in the group don't feel that they're getting the kind of support from their peers and colleagues in their, their laboratory as well as department but in particular, what's really striking is really that the URM men, and how they just don't feel that they're integrating into the group and getting the kind of support that they that they really need in order to be successful. Now why that's so different. I don't really have any information on that, but it is food for thought. But again, you know, oftentimes we put the blame of graduate students not completing their degrees on the advisor and maybe seeing the data that that's warranted or the institution. Well I graduate students in your own group, your own peer group, you can really make a difference to reach out to someone that maybe you're uncomfortable with because they're a different color than you are a different race but this is really really important to make it more of a family environment a supportive environment, an inclusive environment in all aspects of how you operate in the laboratory and in our search groups. This is really really important. So a little bit more down that line. Those that proceed they did not receive putting it in different numbers other than the disease scores, 24% of the men said they did not receive the kind of support that they would hope they would get. And you are in women 16%, but then also, it's not everyone and it's not they alone, at least one in 10 feel that they feel kind of an outsider to the group or not getting the support. Those that, but they, they're a significant number that do believe that they received as our support and so that's kudos to those groups that these numbers represent. And that would be 50% of the URM men, because I'm focusing now on the difference between the men, and, and two thirds from the non URM men, but there's a lot more to go for all of us to create more inclusive graduate environments and I think, you know, I do think an advisor plays a role in setting the culture for the group and making it clear that their expectations are that everyone in the group operates in a collaborative manner supporting each other in a way that can move forward. So that's also a role of the advisor to set the culture of the group. Okay, now, another big one. Adequacy of financial support. And the question to this was the funding for my graduate studies is adequate to meet the cost of living where I live. So, again, we go back and we look here at our data, and we have URM women, URM men and our majority students. Again, really striking difference, really striking difference. Just to just shows how different financial situation can be. For those, as we know, many underrepresented minority students come with less family resources to be able to backstop any kind of expenses. But also higher likelihood that they have loans. So you see there's a large difference in URM students indicating insufficient financial support in these years. And also the sort of two or three years are averaged over graduate program. And also the data shows that the percentage of support of the resources, getting your own, having your own, needing your own personal resources, whether that be family or our other, even other pickup jobs was twice as large for URM students as for other students that they needed, they needed to be able to what to be able to survive to live. They needed to have that was very difficult they had to rely on other personal support, more than the majority of students. So, and going to this again looking at these top 100 schools. This difference between URM and majority students perceived adequacy is a financial support was by was really not moderated by marital status or having dependence, the extent to which they receive TA RA or fellowships, or the composition of the department faculty or diversity of their institutions. So, you know, there's been a lot of data. Here's a lot of data out this about student debt, and how it hurts it, it hits many of our underrepresented minority students. And this is really a very serious issue. But I think this is a serious issue, not just for our top 100 schools, but I think for all of our schools and I'll come back to this a little bit later. I'm going to talk about some other issues we found with regards to all of the, all of the schools. But this is an issue that I've been pushing really hard on as a member of the National Science Board, because I think it's so critically important. It's so critically important that we get these stipends up. So now looking at all schools. The number of percent of all students felt that's adequate, but only 30% but again, there's still a third that didn't feel it was adequate. In this case, 37% of the master's students felt they had adequate funding, which is not very many and at the MSI MSI is the minority serving institutions. The number was even lower. For the first year for all these schools, the URM students were more likely to say that they got adequate funding with a larger portion from official sources such as RAs, TAs, or fellowships. However, after the first year, they were many more reported funding, more coming from their personal resources loans and family. So it may be that the TA shifts pay more or they might be special funds to bring the students in. But that falls by the wayside or loans that become due, that falls by the wayside very quickly as they enter into their second and third year. But again, the results reflect the inadequacy of graduate students' grants. Now, if you do just a simple calculation, if your graduate students are working, if the expectation is that your graduate students are working really hard, and they're working 50, maybe 60 hours a week, they're certainly making less than minimum wage. They're certainly making less than minimum wage. And if you have a family to support, you can imagine how difficult that would be the alone taking care of your own situation. Keep in mind that, you know, I don't think I need to remind you that these are in the students are in their 20s, maybe early 30s. And in those years, then we're asking them for five, six, seven years to make 10, 12, maybe $14 an hour and work really, really hard at a time where if they were going out and going to a company or get another job, they might make enough money to even save some. So they can buy a house by the time you're 30 or have children. So I think we have to take really seriously this issue of low financial support, and I'll bring this back again but certainly already being in stock. I think that Stanford and myself have been working really hard and I think the National Science Board is taking this up seriously too, but there's got to be some levels, levers higher that are really that are concerned about about having the talent that we need in to solve the issues that we have ahead of us, whether it be employment or health or overpopulation, we need the best talent possible and if we're losing a lot of students because they don't feel that it's financially viable for them to do it, then that's talent we can't afford to waste. Okay, let's shift gears a little bit and we're going to talk about commitment to finishing the PhD and remaining in the chemical sciences. This data is now for the top 100. And so looking at this data, and this is for women are in blue, orange men, and I'm going to look at the highest quartile. The women are significantly less likely to finish and to believe that they will finish their PhD and remain in the chemical sciences. As you go in this highest quartile as you go to the second quartile, you see that becomes more equal as you go to the 50 to 100 right schools. So again, a serious issue, because this is statistically significant on the scale of three, three being strongly agree versus disagree. They're significantly less likely to be committed to completing their PhD and remaining in chemistry and particularly in our most prestigious institutions. What about commitment to tenure track professorship. Now this is an academic salary so those of you in industry or government laboratory don't I don't want you to think that I think that's that the research was the only career path by any means but this is what the survey was designed to do. And that was to interest in completing a postdoc and become an oppressor with research emphasis. And they were, and interestingly, those that were more likely to aspire to do this were really our first generation students college students that's great. But I don't think this is so great but those that attached less importance to a job that allowed them to have family time and have other interests. But also, the other side of that is the students that had more supportive and fire advisors then also were more likely to say that they would go on to complete and go to a postdoc and take on that professorship and with research emphasis. This one in particular is interesting because I don't think that we really want to have a populace of professors, a celibate professors, male or female having a wide variety of interests beyond the science as well as families is really important. So I think it's important for us to to make sure that it looks normal to have outside interests and also a family and not just wait till you're tenured and and later stage of your career in order to to be able to to do that. Okay, now, this is also important result. So what's the effect of at least one URM faculty in the department on your career plans. Interest in completing a postdoc and becoming a professor. Okay, so you are am students for more likely than others to express aspirations to a postdoc and a professor. If there was at least, and there was at least one URM faculty member in the department, just one, just one. For example, this is for the non URM students. And this is the case where for the non URM students where you have no URM faculty versus at least one. Oh, it's a little bit of a difference, but not not all that much. However, look at this for your students having one faculty member in the department, at least one in the department. Look at how that shot up. So this just emphasizes the importance of the diverse need for diversity in our departments. You know, I think we've seen this for in general for women as the number of women in chemistry departments have gone up. That we, I think it encourages more women to go in while the same thing can be said for underrepresented minority students and a shout out to ACS, and also to oxide for working this putting this data out there so the departments can see how they're working with regards to women and underrepresented minority faculty. But this, you know, it's going to happen. We're going to get more diverse departments, but not as not if we continue to have largely minority, majority faculty members in Now, just a little bit about levels of support from advisors and peers in minority serving departments. In this case, that there's that was very similar. There wasn't that much difference between support from advisors is very similar as I just said to in minority departments But also, the students reported less likely to report adequate funding as opposed to the majority institutions now these minority serving institutions they're only one or two that are in the top 100 so now we're into the other ranked institutions but and as I mentioned before they do show a lower level of adequate funding. The students reported lower level of adequate funding. And, but the amazing thing is, and this is why our MSI institutions are so important to the system, and to our students, our communities, and that is, they're more likely to complete a degree that's an undergraduate degree in stem, as well as produce a PhD and pursue postdoctoral studies. If they come are working in a minority serving institution and just this few days ago, the National Science Board, we organized a session that highlighted the importance of a minority serving institutions and the kind of unique support system and environment that they provide for students. So that's online I encourage all of you to see that, because it really points out just the unique environment that meant environment that many of our minority serving institutions, give to their, give to their students, but they do it with a penny in a coin. Many of them are under resourced and the hope is with the, with this administration will see more attention to support of minority serving institutions because they are so important. And that includes, let's not forget about our tribal colleges, because they, in particular, our students want to be able to continue to practice their culture to be in their culture, and the tribal colleges provide the ability to do that, while they're also getting their experience so shout out to our tribal colleges both for undergraduate as well as graduate school. Okay, comments student views of how to better support them. Well, better health insurance. Oh, big surprise. So this is a whole series of comments that they put out word affordable housing. As you can see here better maternity and paternity leave increased access to childcare and boy has COVID made a difference here right I mean these things are just glaring right now. We see story we hear stories of a woman teaching her class out of a closet with her three year old outside she locked the door so she could teach her course but the kid figured out how to unlock the door and, and came into her to her classroom. In the closet, but I think it's really important that we take this more seriously but also financial help they say they certainly need the higher salaries, lower tuition costs and student fees need to be reduced and also help with her development. Okay, so recommendations going forward let me just wrap this up with a few recommendations so. So, official policy should make it clear success of graduate students is the key to success of faculty, your research, the department and institution. Policy need to make that very clear, because our graduate students are the lifeblood of our research institutions. I believe. I'm pounding the table on this one that graduate programs that receive further funding should be required to make public the retention and success rates, including demographics of PhD and master students in their stem departments. I believe that that's we need to be assessing this we need to be monitoring this so students can have a choice as to whether they should go to one graduate program or another, based on whether they, they think they will succeed and complete the PhD program. Let me give a shout out to the ngl s coalition. This is a group that has that UCSF, and also Johns Hopkins, that's put together this is next generation life sciences coalition, and what they are doing is they are having institutions graduate programs to report the data and then they put it on the website and I think they're, maybe a couple of dozen institutions that have done that anywhere from Michigan Tech to MIT. And that's what we need to have we need to have this be nationwide, because they've worked out a lot of the bugs, but we need to have a reporting mechanism for departments to show who's doing a good job. We need to see who needs to improve departments, leaderships must take every opportunity to develop their commitment to equity and inclusivity. And that means not just one meeting a year, but that means messaging needs to be interwoven throughout all the messaging that diversity and inclusion and the supportive environment is important and reward excellence and faculty mentoring and advising. It's a great place to monitor student experience and need and review and address financial support of students and make aggressive efforts to increase faculty. So graduate students other last couple of ones graduate students and postdocs have a really important role to play in creating a supportive and inclusive environment. So I think we need to stop and take ownership, graduate students and postdocs of welcoming everyone that works in your laboratory. And I think policymakers and funding agencies must work together to address inadequate graduates type is the funding levels for grant proposals that we operate on at our universities, merely asking our institutions are particularly our research grants to be able to something like $40,000 a year would mean that you have less graduate students and you can support. And so what this means is that we actually have to increase the amount of money that's out there for research that are done by our graduate students at our academic institutions and also our postdocs. But that means that there must be a serious recognition for the fact that we are losing talent, because they financially cannot afford to go to graduate school. We need to take this seriously because it is our future. And with the myriad of problems that we face today. With COVID infectious diseases, climate change, and having clean water, you could go on. We need all the talent we can get from all segments of our society. So with that, I thank you very much for watching this video I apologize for not being able to be with you today life's gotten a little crazy these days. But I'd also like to point you to look at the coach website to get more information about the programs which are continuing. Thanks to ACS for sharing the data, and also the US Department of Energy for funding us for all of these years to do our research. And then I've also shown here the PNAS article. And again, thank you very much, and I wish you the best as we all go forward on this mission to make everything. I would like to thank Dr. Jerry Richmond again wholeheartedly for pre recording that talk for us and sharing this morning that keynote talk, we wish we could have had her in person but we feel fortunate that we were able to hear her remarks. In any case, I would like to encourage all the participants who are watching to continue to engage in conversation via the Slack workspace, especially throughout the upcoming break, specifically focusing your conversation in the channel named hashtag keynote to we will now take a 30 minute break. We ask that you come back to the zoom by 1220pm Eastern time so that we can begin session to thank you.