When I first read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez, one message stayed with me long after I had finished it. The book explores how the absence of women in data, design and decision-making has shaped everyday life in ways many of us rarely notice. In fields ranging from healthcare and transport to workplace design, much of the modern world has been built around a default male experience.
That same pattern has shaped STEM for generations, and it affects far more than questions of fairness. It influences our ability to solve the biggest challenges facing society.
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics lie at the heart of many of the challenges we face today. From developing cleaner sources of energy and protecting the environment to improving healthcare, strengthening infrastructure and feeding a growing global population, the solutions will come from scientific discovery and engineering innovation.
If we are to meet those challenges successfully, we cannot afford to draw upon only part of the available talent. For too long, STEM has been shaped by a culture that has lazily viewed men as the go-to gender. Science is objective; it’s laws, immune to all forms of unconscious bias. Gravity could not care less who discovered it, only about the equations that define it.
History, however, tells a different story: Women have routinely had to overcome barriers simply to enter scientific fields, and many who made extraordinary discoveries were denied the recognition they deserved.
Women in STEM have always shaped the world
One of the most striking examples is Lise Meitner, whose work was crucial to explaining nuclear fission. The 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry went solely to Otto Hahn, although many historians of science believe Meitner’s contribution deserved equal recognition. She was far from alone. Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray diffraction images were fundamental to understanding the structure of DNA, while Jocelyn Bell Burnell discovered the first pulsars as a postgraduate student, only to see the Nobel Prize awarded elsewhere.
Other examples of great achievement include Chien-Shiung Wu, whose experimental work reshaped modern physics, Katherine Johnson, whose calculations helped make the American space programme possible, Marie Curie, whose pioneering research changed both physics and medicine forever, and Emily Warren Roebling, who played a vital role in the completion of the Brooklyn Bridge after her husband became seriously ill. These women were exceptional because the quality of their work was exceptional. Their achievements deserve to sit alongside those of any of the other great names we routinely celebrate.
The more we tell these stories, the easier it becomes for girls to picture themselves following similar paths. Role models do not create ability, but they help young people recognise possibilities that might otherwise go unnoticed. A girl who learns about women scientists, engineers and mathematicians is less likely to see STEM careers as belonging to somebody else.
Why are women still underrepresented in STEM?
When I studied my initial bachelor’s degree in the 1980s, women made up only around 2–3% of my course’s cohort. Whenever I visit university open days now, I make a point of asking about the proportion of women studying STEM based courses. The answer is often somewhere between 10% and 15%, which represents real progress.
That progress deserves recognition, but it also prompts an obvious question: If women make up roughly half the population and possess every bit as much intellectual ability as men, why do so many STEM subjects still attract far fewer women than men? There is no convincing reason to believe that curiosity, discipline, creativity or mathematical thinking belong more naturally to boys than girls.
We therefore have to look at culture, expectations and the subtle messages children receive as they grow up. Those messages are rarely delivered deliberately. They accumulate gradually, shaping confidence long before important educational choices are made.
Common myths about girls in physics and engineering
Some ideas persist despite the evidence. One is that science and engineering somehow depend upon physical strength. That image may have suited heavy industry a century ago, but it bears little resemblance to today’s world of research laboratories, software development, renewable energy, robotics, aerospace engineering or medical technology.
Another myth suggests that boys are naturally better at mathematics and physics. After many years as a physics tutor, I have never seen any evidence that supports such a conclusion. I have taught outstanding students of both genders—and have been very proud to see many students move on to successful careers in STEM. Success comes from curiosity, careful thinking, work ethic, and the willingness to wrestle with difficult ideas until they begin to make sense.
There is also the lingering belief that science has always been a man’s world. History tells us something rather different. Women have always been there, even when their contributions occupied the footnotes rather than the headlines.
STEM careers improve life for everyone
One explanation that is often offered for the gender imbalance in STEM is that men are generally more interested in things, while women are generally more interested in people. Whether that observation is accurate is open to debate, but I think it leads to a very different conclusion from the one that is usually drawn.
Science and engineering are deeply concerned with people, communities and the environment we all depend on. Engineers design safer bridges, cleaner water systems, medical devices, renewable energy technologies, better transport systems and infrastructure that is better able to withstand the effects of a changing climate. Scientists develop medicines, understand disease, improve food production, protect natural habitats, study our changing environment and expand our understanding of the universe. Technology supports hospitals, connects communities and provides solutions to problems that affect millions of lives every day.
Viewed through that lens, STEM careers are profoundly people-centric professions. They exist because people have questions that deserve answering and problems that need solving. The more talented women who enter science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the wider the pool of ideas we can draw from, and the better our chances of building a future that serves everyone well. This is to say nothing of the much needed economic growth that growing our talent pool would inevitably result in.
How parents can encourage girls into STEM
One of the most interesting patterns I see as a tutor has very little to do with academic ability. Many girls arrive at lessons exceptionally well prepared. They understand difficult concepts, work methodically and produce excellent answers. And yet, somehow, they are often more inclined than boys of similar ability to doubt themselves.
That confidence gap rarely begins in the classroom, but starts many years earlier, through hundreds of little events that most families hardly notice. When a bicycle needs repairing, who is invited to help? When flat-pack furniture arrives, who gets handed the screwdriver? When the family car needs a simple maintenance job, who is encouraged to watch, ask questions and have a go?
Whilst imparting useful practical skills, experiences like this also teach children that understanding how the world works is something they are perfectly capable of doing. A daughter who grows up believing that machines, technology and practical problem-solving are perfectly ordinary parts of life is more likely to approach STEM subjects with confidence rather than hesitation.
The same principle applies to hobbies and everyday activities. Construction sets, coding projects, model engineering, science experiments, electronics, gardening, baking and repairing household items all encourage children to ask questions, test ideas, solve problems and learn through experience. Those habits of mind form the foundations of scientific thinking.
The future needs every capable mind
I am not suggesting that every girl should become an engineer, physicist or mathematician. Young people should pursue the careers that excite them and allow them to make their contribution in their own way. What I hope is that no bright young woman decides against STEM because she has absorbed the notion that somebody else belongs there more than she does.
Parents, teachers and schools all have a part to play in preventing that from happening. We can introduce girls to the remarkable women who have shaped science. We can encourage curiosity, welcome mistakes as part of learning and create opportunities for practical problem-solving from an early age.
The next great scientist, engineer, inventor or mathematician may very well be sitting in a classroom, wondering whether STEM is really a place for her. If she grows up surrounded by encouragement, inspiring examples and enough confidence to realise that it always has been, we all stand to benefit. The future will need ingenuity, compassion and determination in equal measure, and the more young women who bring those qualities into STEM, the better that future is likely to be for everyone.