Style with substance
For a woman who has just been rejected from the Royal Society, Baroness Susan Greenfield seems as determined and focused as her persona suggets.
A senior research fellow of Lincoln College, Greenfield has a reputation as something of a media darling among the scientific community and has met fierce criticism from some of her contemporaries, who claim she is more skilled in the art of self-promotion than science.
The press obsesses over her glamorous image and staunch views on women in the work place. However, there is much more to Greenfield than this might suggest.
She twists her long blonde hair methodically in one hand, her slim frame ends in a pair of wedge-heeled black boots and as she talks she sits restlessly in her chair, her speech punctuated with knowing nods to encourage my understanding. She is the antithesis of the traditional scientist - in her own words, the standard image of a "white, middle-aged, bald, fat man in the white coat." It strikes me that this neuroscientist is surrounded by stereotypes and is refusing to conform.
In a society where it is true to say that there is increasing equality between genders in the work place, the top jobs in science remain dominated by men. Greenfield tells me that children are the main reason for this: "At a critical time in a scientific career...guess what else happens?" In research, where innovation is rapid, there is little flexibility for maternity leave, something Greenfield feels strongly about: "Until you're in your mid-thirties in science, there is no career structure...which means, What are you going to go back to if your grant is exhausted?"
She is emphatic that this view should not be misinterpreted. She never claimed that women in science should not have children. She supports choice: "If that's genuinely what they want, what I'm in favour of is promoting individualism." Personally she does not feel, however, that she could have had the same life had she had children.
These opinions are based on Greenfield's realistic approach to such issues. She tells me it is a difficult balancing act and women cannot 'have it all' in science at the moment: "but then I'd say a man can't have it all either...this idea of 'having it all' I think is a myth and I think it is a dangerous one, it raises expectations or ideas and makes you feel inferior and inadequate."
Yet the lack of women in science has deeper roots; Greenfield is scathing of the way in which science is traditionally taught in schools: "It's usually about the very big or the very small, or something very fast or very slow; these things don't fit very well into the time or space frames that we're used to in our daily lives."
She sees this as particularly challenging for women: "I do say this as a generalisation, but we do like to think about relationships...and things that relate to life. Unless science is taught in a way which relates to those things, and I think it could be but it's not, then it will be less appealing."
Although the issue of women in science is clearly important to Greenfield, she is most animated when talking about her own research field: "The most exciting area of science is the brain. Now, the brain is not taught at all at school because it's considered too hard...to me they are missing a trick; if one could mainstream the brain as part of science early on, they'd get excited."
Greenfield possesses an almost childlike quality; her energy seems insatiable and shows through her hurried speech and absolute inability to sit still. Her animation seems to be an outlet for her enthusiasm for what she talks of and she retains a youthful fascination with the world around her which she is eager for everyone to share.
Although Greenfield seems happy to accept the role of spokeswoman for women in science, I ask her if she is ever irritated by the continual references to her gender and her appearance: "It's such a non-issue...and if people waste print on the lack of inches of my skirt, that saddens me...it saddens me that if I am given a platform for the general public, interesting or important issues can't be ventilated and silly tabloid ones are."
We talk in her sparse office on the same morning the quality press has reported that she failed to make the shortlist for a fellowship to the Royal Society, one of the highest accolades in the scientific arena. Her original nomination sparked considerable controversy after news of the confidential candidates list was leaked.
So why has Greenfield attracted so much criticism from the scienctific community? "You'll have to ask them about that," she laughs. She is cagey about her relationship with the Royal Society and keeps a firm "no comment" stance on recent developments.
Yet it is perhaps not difficult to hazard a guess at why she is often lambasted by some in her profession. Success in science which finds a public arena is rare, so jealousy is probably inevitable, but Greenfield is also something of a maverick: she advocates changing the fundamental qualities of science education and is willing to speak out about the issues that interest her.
"I do what I do, I'm proud of what I do, if someone tells me, you know, that I've published something that is wrong or I am wrong about a certain fact I will defend that, but pending the moment that someone comes up with substantial criticism there's very little I can say back."
Although she has many ideas about what should be done to promote women in science, Greenfield looks forward to a future where "individuality trumps gender."
A recurring theme through our conversation is that of individualism. Her words are those of a confident person, completely comfortable with who she is: "It's stupid to compare yourself to other people. This is what I say to someone starting off a career like mine: don't try to be like me. They should try and be like themselves."
6th May 2004