Name: Deborah Berebichez Explains Why Women Are Underrepresented in Science
Uploaded: 2009-03-16T18:57:14-04:00
Duration: 1 min 34 s
Description: Deborah Berebichez Explains Why Women Are Underrepresented in Science.

Who's in the Video

Host, “The Science of Everyday Life”

Go to Profile

All Videos

Deborah Berebichez Explains Why Women Are Underrepresented in Science

▸

2 min

—

with

Host, “The Science of Everyday Life”

A weekly newsletter featuring the biggest ideas from the smartest people

Deborah Berebichez Explains Why Women Are Underrepresented in Science.

Up Next

Carlo Ratti Qualifies How the Internet Creates Democracy

▸

1 min

—

with

Director, MIT’s SENSEable City Laboratory

The science of menopause in 13 minutes

What can you do to support your health during menopause? “If exercise were a drug, that would be the one thing that we would be giving to everybody.”

▸

13 min

—

with

Dr. Jen Gunter

Starts With A Bang

Ask Ethan: Why isn’t Richard Feynman your personal hero?

One of the 20th century’s most famous, influential, and successful physicists is lauded the world over. But Feynman is no hero to me.

Collage featuring mouths, graphs, and text elements: a bold "CANCELLED" stamp, line graphs indicating a tipping point, and "change coming," all set against the backdrop of a striking matchstick.

Neuropsych

The “magic third” rule: How just one voice can transform a group

In his latest book, Malcolm Gladwell explores a strange phenomenon of group dynamics.

Illustration depicting "Humanity vs. Nature" with diagrams of evolution, ecocentrism, biocentrism, and anthropocentrism, featuring images of a tree, human evolution, and a whale.

The Past

Why harmony with nature is a myth

Slowing growth and limiting development isn’t living in harmony with nature—it is surrendering in a battle.

A person is lying down in the dark and looking at a smartphone held above their face.

The Present

Potato chips or heroin? The debate on social media and mental health

What are we supposed to do when experts look at the same data yet reach starkly different conclusions?