 In medicine, we have had over 50% of women graduating from medical schools for at least 10 years now, and yet if you look at the trajectory through the faculty, we lose women at every state in the career stage. And so we cannot blame it on an inadequate pipeline but rather a leaky pipeline. So what's happening is that as women advance through the career stages, they somehow lose interest or academic medicine loses them because of a number of reasons, including cultural ones. So we found that in some fields, like in engineering, there's a clear pipeline straight from school into really good jobs, but then we found that in a lot of scientific fields, particularly in biology and in physics and in chemistry, there isn't a direct translation of how you use your major into the labor force. And so some of the transition rates are really, really low. But even worse than that, we found out that for women in particular, even when they make it into the science labor force, they tend to drop out very, very fast, and it's usually within the first five or six years of employment. So that kind of bleed from the pipeline needs to stop because that is our science and technical workforce of the future. So we want to keep more of them in. And the problem is also acute for men. It's just not as bad. But we're losing a lot of men who are trained in science and technology fields as well. We've figured especially that women who have made additional investments in their careers in training would be the most likely to persist for long periods of time. And instead, we found that they were the least likely to persist over long periods of time. So the long period of time is the training period. But when they're done with that training period, they finally enter the labor market and there's something about it that's just not compatible with how they want to live their lives. There's research that at a university, people were randomly assigned an introductory science course. If a woman was assigned a female instructor, she was more likely to get a STEM degree. So if her introduction to science was from a woman, she was more likely to pursue that degree. Whereas it had no effect on a male probability, they were equally likely depending regardless of seeing a woman or a man. So who's teaching the class matters? If you see someone who looks like you, it's going to affect your choices. We have some provocative clues that we want to kind of explore further. It was an existing survey and it followed a cohort of women and men longitudinally for over 25 years. So we really have a good sense of how their careers unfolded. And one of the really provocative things is that we have lots of information about them when they were in high school. So we've got high school through college, through labor market entry, and we can look at differences in how they express their views of the world as early as 17, 18 years of age. And what we notice is that if you look in that early period, the women are go-getters with very liberal gender ideologies and attitudes about what they're going to do. The men who are entering science tend to be very, very conservative. So the women are more feminist than average for their gender, and the men are less feminist than average for their gender. So we think there might be this clash of cultures and expectations. We hear from some women scientists that they are married to partners who also have demanding careers, but most of the men that they work with have stay-at-home wives who take care of the home front and support their careers. So we think this might be a difference in the capacities to do the kinds of demanding work that science requires, but we also think it might change the climate in ways that are not conducive to women and people of color entering the field. We really, if we're going to train young women to be leaders, then we have to have leadership slots, and I think that one of the things we're seeing is that there's, I wouldn't say a glass ceiling, but there's a ceiling because there are few, there's very little turnover, and you know chair positions are like life positions, and I, so I think that we have to think about interventions in the, in the institutions like term limits for chair positions. It's no longer a trope, it shouldn't be a trophy, how long you've held it, you know chair position, it should be that we honor those people and use them as mentors for the younger people coming along, but that they step down from those positions and allow new thought, new energy, and that's something I think that's not happening enough yet. The government makes a huge investment in the scientific workforce in this country to remain competitive globally. I mean if we don't do this we will fall behind, and our competitor nations, particularly China and India and much of Western Europe are spending lots more money educating scientists than we are. So we've made a big investment, we need to make an even bigger investment in the future, but if we invest all this money in training people and then they leave the labor force, what we've really done is we've missed an opportunity to get the skills and talents of those people that we've invested in, in basic science and applied science.