Sciencing in a Pandemic: The Widening Divides

Disclaimer: This article is mostly from the view point of an experimental biologist.

Ever since the Covid-19 pandemic was declared and everyone has been cooped up in their houses glued to social media, there have been memes making rounds about Sir Isaac Newton and how productive he was during the great plague. Some of them funny, but most meant to be motivational, to raise you to an extra-ordinary performance level as a scientist. And every time I see one of the latter, it makes me slightly uncomfortable, like an inner version of me is slowly shaking her head. Because clearly, not everyone can make the choices Newton made, even in the 21st century.

If anything, this pandemic has made the society accept scientists as an integral and important part. Everyone is looking up to scientists to deliver them from the pertinent "nature's evil". Few have added scientists to the ranks of heroes, alongside health workers (No pressure!). This would make one think that all scientists are the same, and are equally trying to put their brains together to fight against a common enemy. Yet if you look within the scientific community, specially those not on the Anti-Covid task force, ever since the start of the pandemic the divides have widened and there's an upwards trend in the general disparity.

The most obvious and universal difference is in who can Science comfortably, while physical distancing, care taking and home-schooling, which is certainly tilted towards the male gender. This mostly has to do with years of conditioning of women to shoulder most of the care-taking responsibilities. Even in the so called 'advanced' societies, the patriarchal expectations lurk silently. Societies where individuals stay in larger families, women are bogged down with responsibilities even more. And then there are just purely patriarchal societies, which have run almost always with the expectation that women "find time" beyond the household chores, to do their "work". So how is it different during a pandemic?  It's different, because in a pandemic, the aides who help with the household chores allowing women to efficiently balance the work-home responsibilities, aren't welcome, quoting physical distancing. This topples the usual sensitive balance made by the working women in patriarchal systems. There could be many counter arguments here. But if we look at what is considered the true reflection of scientific output, the trove of scientific publications, we have already started to see the drop in women-authored papers. The long-term effects of these differences in participation will only worsen the already poor gender balances in academia.

It goes without saying that parents of young kids find it much difficult to manage working from home, compared to adults who have home spaces all to themselves, or who share it with adults. Young kids need home-schooling, require play time and supervision at all times. Most such parents confess to wake late into the night or early in the day to catch up with lost work time, while the kids are asleep. The load is similar, on those taking care of elderly and disabled. 

Once Scientists do sit down for the recent buzz-phrase 'work from home', it really is a question that who can actually work from home (WFH). Being a molecular biologist, who also studies cellular mechanisms in a model organism, it would be technically impossible for me to work from home. Since Science isn't only about the experiments, or in a lighter vein, moving liquids from one container to the other as in the case of molecular biology (Courtesy: Twitter), maybe everyone has an opportunity to read literature, round up existing data and write up papers. But beyond a point this isn't going to happen for experimental scientists, because no new data is generated without bench/ field work. Informaticians, including bioinformaticians, on the other hand will find this the perfect opportunity to get comfy in their living, study or even bed rooms and continue to work, as if a pandemic isn't raging on outside. Okay, maybe that is an ideal, improbable scenario. Most informaticians actively rely on freshly generated experimental data for their analyses, whose work would have also been stalled currently. Nevertheless, informaticians who can still work on publicly available datasets, have a huge advantage over experimental scientists in a pandemic. Something which goes in line here is the sheer numbers of hands (and brains!) at work under a certain principal investigator. Larger and much experienced labs can pull off work easily over a couple of Zoom calls. This is reflected not only in terms of papers submitted, but also in the general scientific contributions such as reviewing others' work.

Work from home is inadvertently, and obviously, hugely dependent on the availability of a good internet connection. This brings us to the disparities of availability of 'resources at home' which further decide the quality of WFH. Recently there was an article on an Italian boy who walks miles everyday to find a spot where he can get a Wi-fi connection, so that he could attend online classes. Internet is not a free commodity, which can prevent many from having access to the world itself. At this, if you are wondering if this is really a concern for "scientists", the point is that, well, people who Science are of all age groups and backgrounds. There are certainly minorities and individuals who struggle with access to basic amenities, and yet they have a right to Science, but maybe not have the provision to do so during the pandemic because of closure of common spaces.

But then if all Scientists choose WFH, who is going to redeem us from Covid-19? The answer is, many are still in labs, away from homes and working around the clock to beat this menace. They have truly exceptionally risen to the occasion and are fulfilling their callings during what is one of the most testing times in their careers. The expertise to study coronaviruses lie with few labs, while many labs have decided to re-route to the 'tackle Covid-19' path. This essentially is the latest conundrum in front of biological scientists, especially cellular and molecular biologists, "Do I switch to studying Covid or do I continue working on my dream projects?" It is not wise to say that there's no option, that everyone who can, should contribute. The last few months have seen a flooding of pre-prints and journal submissions in the category of SARS-Cov-2 or Covid-19, and editors and reviewers have repeatedly voiced concern over the sub-standard research that they have to go through. Therefore, only if labs have at least a minimal amount of expertise, they should try and indulge in Covid work. Yet this is a double edged sword: in coming times research funds are going to be allocated for finding a treatment or vaccine for Covid. This would also mean that the funding for current projects will lean out. No doubt, Science among many other sectors will take a hit in the post-Covid era.

It's been about two months since the Covid-19 has been announced a pandemic. In the mean time, many countries have declared the passing of the first wave, and they are ready to get back to work, with precautions. Which already creates a huge difference in who is working, how many are working and how long are they working, among different countries. Assuming things are under control, and labs are opened, there's still much to weigh between countries. Scientists in several countries, including India are heavily dependent on imported reagents and raw materials for their experimental research work. Naturally, with international trade halted, the procurement of many required items will not be plausible. This will in turn lead in a head start for countries and regions which rely on indigenous products. Needless to say, poorer countries will be affected worse by the pandemic, will have more cuts in research budgets and will now suffer an added lag because of their dependence on international products.

At a more closer angle (of mine), among model system biologists, those with the simplest models which require least sustenance can immediately kick start activities once lab bench work is resumed. Animal models might require at least few weeks resetting, before they can be used for experiments. Biologists who work with bacteria or yeast or even human cell cultures can set up experiments in a couple of days. I might as well add that during the WFH period, animal model researchers would have had to check into their facility regularly to ensure the animals are doing well. With the precautions in place, animal facility operations may still be affected for an unknown period of time. 

Above all it is a time of great uncertainty and anxiety, with disruption in most regular activities including visits to the doctor. Scientists who specially depend on therapy for mental well-being may find it more difficult to focus on work. There are many who are productive when they are in a fixed and predictable schedule, everything which a WFH routine usually doesn't promise to be. The scientists who already face difficulties due to disabilities are going to find more stumbling blocks than usual during this time. It's taken for granted that every home allows work from home. But sadly and truthfully, some families/ partners aren't simply harmonious enough to be holed in together. It will be a miracle if they can get past this phase of physical distancing, let alone being productive in Science.

Science has always been a cross-country, cross-continent endeavor, which means that many of the scientists are away from near and dear ones while at work, and now, they are trying to work from home, away from home. This adds to the worry of what's happening on the other side of the globe, and when they could ever see their family again. No points for guessing such scientists aren't exactly in their elements!

This also leads to the choice of returning to work even with precautions. Scientists who are dependent on public transport to get to their workplaces would have to find a way around, while those who can walk down may do so more readily. Those who have extremely vulnerable family members could still choose to stay back to work from home. Precautions also include a low number of people at a given place at the same time. This means those who have schedules of experiments that run continuously for days together have to put them on hold, or reinvent the wheel.

It cannot be forgotten that academia is a field of constant transitions. This time is particularly difficult for those at the end of grant tenures, the ones who just finished tenures and sadder for those who have offer letters in their hands for a new job elsewhere, but unable to travel. They will probably have nowhere to go even if  labs open up, because economies themselves have gone for a toss. Uncertainty is woven into the lives of academics historically and systemically. Time is warped, and so the deadlines of tenures and applications look almost meaningless now. 

If you ask weren't most of these differences already there, you are already on the right track. Yes, they were. And the pandemic is amplifying them. All in all, the best we can hope for is when future assessments or evaluations of Science and scientists happen in the post-Covid era, people do acknowledge the differences each individual would have faced to get through the pandemic. Today I saw a Twitter post which said that a history Prof was ready to pass all his students to the next semester, because he thought that passing through the pandemic was like taking their final exams. While we brace this wake-up call from nature, it's also a time to check upon colleagues and collaborators and find out if there's anything that can be done to take their Science to the next step, even at a sluggish pace. If all else fails, at least support those who really need it, and ask for help when you need it. This is the time more than ever Science should move forward as a community, lifting each other up, every step of the way.