Posted on by Odi · 2 Comments

Confronting the Imposter in the Mirror

This season of my life has been particularly challenging; not only was getting my manuscript out of the way difficult, but also establishing myself as a researcher has been frightening.   Part of my problem is feeling like a fake and as if I don’t really belong.

As I mentioned in SAYAS profile, I took time to be a homemaker for a few years before deciding to embark on my doctorate and I felt that I was re-entering the field on the back foot. To be honest, the processing of getting a supervisor who believed in my project was gruelling, as most people I approached were put off by the fact that there was such a large gap in my resumé. The look on the faces of several illustrious professors when they found out that I was actually a stay-at-home parent was indescribably disheartening. Many a time I was ready to give up. My lowest moment came when I was outright rejected by my intended supervisor without him even asking about my proposed project or even reading a single thing I wrote. I eventually found someone who was willing to take me on but that was just the first part of the several hurdles I would have to face — the largest being my own insecurity.

Gill Corkindale describes the imposter syndrome as being “as a collection of feelings of inadequacy that persist despite evident success”. I think her definition is pretty accurate but doesn’t capture something that is making academia a particularly unfriendly environment – the academy as a whole does not easily accommodate outsiders. And women are still the primary outsiders. I say this because I realised over the years that as a woman, you are constantly trying to prove your intelligence in male-dominated fields, and in a millisecond, the value of your contribution can be diminished by a senior male colleague making careless statements such as “the doors would fly open because there are few women in the field” or “we need a female to meet our gender requirement”. Such remarks lessen the value of your contribution and creates the impression that the only reason that you are there is because you happen to be a woman and not because you are capable. Moreover, if you are not careful, such insidious remarks bury themselves deep in your psyche and you begin to doubt your ability.

I believe the academy at times frowns on outliers. Even though universities are the supposed homes to critical thinkers, I have personally seen higher education institutions repeatedly shoving people into epistemic and behavioural boxes. It is only when you have a truly progressive dean or head of department, that you are able to explore your research and self-presentation from non-traditional angles. Without such overt support, your self-esteem will be further eroded: at the best of times it’s difficult to think in a new way, and critical thinking needs nurturing.

I recently had to present my paper to a room full of academics and policy practitioners and I spent days hoping that I would fall sick so that someone else read my paper. Luckily, I came across TED talk on YouTube by Professor Amy Cuddy titled “Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are”. She basically argued that how you carry yourself affects not only how you feel about yourself but also your ultimate performance. In the remaining 48 hours before the talk I decided to put some of her suggestions into practice, I worked on some of the power poses that she suggests and I must admit that I felt very authoritative (but still a tad nervous) when the day came. I was confident on the podium, and for the first time in a long while I felt as if I belonged. And I started to see a change in myself.

I know it will be a while before my new-found confidence will become truly part of me. But right now I’m walking the walk, and it’s really boosting my self-esteem. Call me an optimist but I do believe that there will be a future in academia where women  will not have to pretend confidence in the face of constant micro-aggression and bias. Change starts with refusing to suffer in silence.

Posted on by ScientistSim · 1 Comment

Every person mistakes the limits of their field of vision for the limits of the world

This July, Durban played host to their second International AIDS conference. This is the biggest and most publicised of the HIV conferences, with the likes of Elton John and Prince Harry showing up to support the cause. This meeting is not really recognised for its pure scientific nature, but is regarded in our lab as something everyone should attend at least once. The goal of the meeting is really to bring social issues to the fore: interventions, activism and policy to improve the lives of those affected. Ultimately for basic scientists, it’s about gaining a wider perspective about the work we do, the impact we make and to motivate us to work harder to lighten the burden South Africa has borne for so many years. But the world of activism, especially celebrity activism, is also a world that could learn from science.

Charlize Theron spoke at the conference saying several things that upset me. The media raved about her speech saying she certainly didn’t sugarcoat anything – as if we don’t know how bad the epidemic is already. I think one of the things that upset me most was this, “The real reason we haven’t beaten the epidemic boils down to one simple fact: We value some lives more than others.” I do not deny that this is a very real issue in the world today; but I truly don’t agree that this is why we haven’t beaten the epidemic. It is easy to get swept up in this statement and feel some guilt as a privileged and fairly happy PhD student who lives life with a clean bill of health (apart from sleep deprivation), but I am worried that a statement like this really works against scientists.

There are legitimate and horrifying biological challenges that we face with this formidable foe. HIV adapts so rapidly our immune systems can’t keep up. About 20% of people develop amazing antibodies that can target 90% of the circulating virus but because this only happens 3 years after infection, this doesn’t help the person at all. We have had 6 HIV vaccine trials, none of which have done any better than 31% protection. The virus integrates into the person’s DNA, which makes a complete cure very difficult. We have cured one man by completely irradiating him twice and nearly killing him and we have thought we cured one baby by giving it ARVs in the first hours of its life (it has since rebounded), with little knowledge about how it will affect it over life. Please understand that the dearth of progress is not for lack of trying or because scientists are secretly plotting against adolescent women.

We simply have not figured it out yet.  Even with incredible education, support and dedication by some truly wonderful people in this country, there continues to be a barrage of infections. While social behaviours and injustices definitely help spread the disease, the ONLY thing that will stop it is a vaccine or a cure. It sounds noble to try and reinvent social interactions (a goal that must be pursued in our lifetime) but this is not what brings about a real-world cure to a horrible disease. Polio swept the world several times throughout history. Do you know when they stopped it? When they found a vaccine! (Read about other diseases defeated by vaccines here.)

The second thing that bothered me in Charlize’s talk, “I know this because AIDS does not discriminate on its own. It has no biological preference for black bodies, for women’s bodies, for gay bodies, for youth or for the poor. It doesn’t single out the vulnerable, the oppressed, or the abused.” This isn’t true: the disease does discriminate. Women are biologically more likely than men to contract the disease (read this link for an in-depth analysis and click here for a simplified version), and routes of transmission make gay men in particular vulnerable to infection. I understand what she is trying to say, but to a scientist these statements are incorrect and are once again, making the point that AIDS is only a social disease. People will never perceive themselves to be in a socially-constructed high-risk category. Many of the people I know own cars that they drive every day (a truly high-risk activity!) and not one of them wears a crash helmet.

Charlize later went on to say that we “have all the tools to end HIV.” And we don’t. The fact is education and empowerment doesn’t work completely. We need an intervention that people will not have to think about. How seriously do you worry about Pertussis every day or dying from Mumps? Everyone has access to these vaccines and that is what we need to do for AIDS. I agree completely with Baron Peter Piot (a researcher from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) when he spoke at the same conference, “We need to stop saying that we have the tools to end the HIV and AIDs epidemic, until we have a cure or a vaccine- then we can say that.”

I wouldn’t want any young person to listen to Charlize Theron’s speech and assume that there is any lack of urgency in the scientific field because the disease is not prevalent in the white upper class. We are facing a terrible enemy and while we know a lot about it, it keeps coming up with clever ways to evade our advances. The world could always do with improvement. Young girls should think they are better than their relationships and can go on to live an HIV-free life. I applaud people trying to change this. Ultimately though, scientists are dedicated to making a vaccine for everyone. It, much like ARVs, will shape the lives of people much more quickly than changing social perceptions can. It would be easier if we could just give an injection that would bridge the social divide, but then again, I am a scientist looking out of scientist goggles, with potentially limited eyesight.