tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10240033.post-1116008564997132222005-05-13T21:27:00.000-04:002005-05-13T16:43:43.416-04:00The president of Harvard said it, so it must be right, no? In January, Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, made the grave tactical error of suggesting that inborn differences in the architecture of the male and female brain might be a factor contributing to the relative scarcity of women in the scientific fields. BAM! Let the screaming begin!<br /><br />Women's groups were, of course, upset by his comments and he subsequently apologized, without retracting his statement. The comment generated a deluge of newspaper articles and letters to the editor. On January 21, 2005, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/opinion/l21harvard.html?ex=1116129600&en=a6a766026cd64b97&ei=5070">The New York Times</a> printed 6 letters one of which was signed by 100 academics and scientists, including Sally Ride - who, besides being a former astronaut, is a professor of space science, University of California, San Diego. <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/19/harvard_womens_group_rips_summers/">The Boston Globe</a> (in Harvard's own back yard), also lambasted Summers.<br /><br />But is there any scientific basis for Summers' comments? Maybe. In the May 13, 2005, issue of <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000363E3-1806-1264-980683414B7F0000">Scientific American.com</a>, Larry Cahill discusses "His Brain, Her Brain". He writes, "...no one has uncovered any evidence that anatomical disparities might render women incapable of achieving academic distinction in math, physics or engineering... Nevertheless...investigators have documented an astonishing array of...variations in the brains of males and females."<br /><br />This is, of course, not the first time academics have squared off over the issue of whether gender differences in the sciences are nature, nurture or baloney. In her 1992 book <a href="http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/carol%20tavris/title/mismeasure%20of%20woman">"The Mismeasure of Woman",</a> Carol Tavris wrote that, "...the male 'superiority' in math is an example of a 'fact' that is not powerful at all, because it does not help us predict how an individual boy or girl, man or woman, will do." <a href="http://www.debunker.com/texts/tavris_sg.html">Stephen Goldberg</a> fired back, "To see how little sense this makes, simply replace "math" with "height" (or "weight" or "physical strength"). No one thinks that, when we say that "men are taller than women", this means we can predict in better than probabilistic terms the height of a specific man or woman."<br /><br />Women's groups point to cases like that of <a href="http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/oct/darklady/">Rosalind Franklin</a>, whose work using x-rays to create images of crystalized solids paved the way for the discovery of DNA, to show gender bias within academe. Watson, Crick & Wilkins got a Nobel prize - Franklin, who had died ealier received no mention. In fact, Watson called her "frumpy, hostile and unimaginative". Don't know about that - photos show her as a rather attractive woman, looks a bit like a brunette Paris Hilton, but with a spark of intelligence.<br /><br />Is the prevalence of men in the sciences a result of nature or nurture? Who knows! Scientists have known for decades that in elementary schoool, girls get better grades than boys. And an intriguing <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/09/000913083409.htm">study</a> of Brown University undergraduates led by a graduate student of psychology found that those women performed as much as 12% better on math problems when tested in a setting without men. <br /><br />Why the career difference, then? In a May 11, 2005, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050511134757.htm">Science Daily</a> article, Jacquelynne Eccles, of the University of Michigan discusses "Why Women Shy Away From Careers In Science And Math." Eccles writes, "...to increase the number of women in science, we also need to make young women more interested in these fields, and that means making them aware that science is a social endeavor that involves working with and helping people." It seems clear that encouraging interested young women to pursue careers in the sciences would have to qualify as a 'good thing', both for the women themselves and for the scientific disciplines. <br /><br />Gender differences would seem to be fading somewhat, with more young women entering scientific and mathematical fields. Universities are actively recruiting math-loving women. <a href="http://www.sdsc.edu/CRAW/craw_bro.html">Brochures</a> extol the virtues of a career in computer science: "If you enjoy your math classes, you will probably also enjoy computer science and engineering. If you enjoy helping others solve problems, learning about new ideas, challenging yourself, or just dreaming up new situations, products, or ideas, computer science or engineering may be the right career choice for you." <br /><br />We've come a long way, baby, since the days when Rosalind Franklin and her fellow women scientists were not allowed to eat in the same King's College dining hall as the men. <br /><br />And so it goes...it's doubtful that the debate will be resolved any time soon. At least as long as there are Paris Hiltons and Rosalind Franklins in the world!<div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-8017307570803806"; google_ad_width = 468; google_ad_height = 60; google_ad_format = "468x60_as"; google_ad_channel =""; //--></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script> </div>Deehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06577617317617824737noreply@blogger.com