| Poll | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
18%
21%
55%
5%Jeffrey D. Ullman, Women in Science
I picked "Too early to tell." What is striking, and unfortunately not
too surprising, is the reaction to Summers' suggestion that the
preferred conclusion of the political-correctness crowd needs
scientific examination. There are obvious differences between the
genders: men are taller; women live longer. There is, I've heard, a
documented difference in the perception of space: women prefer
directions; men prefer maps (exactly what you would expect when you
remember that men were hunters and women were gatherers). Women appear
to have had less trouble entering some of the "top" professions other
than science and engineering, e.g., medicine and law --- both
professions from which they were effectively excluded 50 years
ago. Thus, I would not rush to assume that societal pressures explain
everything. On the other hand, our knowledge of how genes work is
still far too primitive to be able to observe "scientific ability or
inclination" as a gene expression.
Megan Donahue, Women in science and math
Why do Japanese girls do so much better than American boys on
standardized math tests? Genetics? Probably not, eh?
Why has the percentage of women in the sciences increased, in some
fields several fold, over the last 20 years? Genetics? I don't think
evolution works quite THAT quickly, do you?
Why is the percentage of women in science in France and Italy so much
higher than in Germany and the US? Well, you know what? I'll bet it
doesn't have much to do with genetics.
So, yes, the question of genetics is interesting in sort of an academic
"gee I wonder if men respond to the color blue in a different way than
women." But I'm (just GUESSING here - I sure haven't done the
calculations some "20 different ways" -- whatever that meant) that
gender isn't the most relevant factor when it comes to predicting who
will make substantive and original contributions to the field.
D. Duncan, Gender differences
If you folks are data experts (I'm an experiment scientist myself) than
you know that if there is a large effect in your data it must be
understood/removed before you can understand more subtle effects. The
effects inhibiting women's progress in science are so large that the
effects of genetic differences can at present only be the subject of
speculation, not science.
Seven years ago since the landmark study, "Talking About Leaving"
(Seymour and Hewitt) identified why fewer women succeed in scince than
men. Take a look; much of the answer is there.
Math Girl, Subtle discrimination
Genetic differences? Of course! But the influence pales in
comparison to the subtle forms of discrimination that I have
experienced and witnessed in academia. But you never hear THOSE
statistics, because women who speak out are prevented from advancing
into academic positions. ...
I have soooo many of these stories. So please save the b.s. genetic
justifications for why so few women are in science/math. Of course
there are differences. But to embrace genetics as the answer is to
give a free ticket to the assholes who ARE discriminating.
Solomon Woldemichael, Don't know much a bout biology...
but, I do know that women, if not for societal pressures, are capable of
doing whatever men can accomplish is science and engineering. In fact,
women are chosen for most engineering jobs that require a higer degree
of precision - this is from my expierience in India where I have lived
for three years studying Economics.
Born and raised in East Africa, I have learned that the system in
general prohibits women form persuing decsent careers and in particular
in science and engineering. Some careers are even labled as belonging
only to women.
My point is that encouraging young women to persue careers in science
and engineering is, for the most part, the resposibility of parents and
elders including highschool and middle school teachers. See, the society
is built form all these resposible people. And of course young people
including women and men will take the resposibility sometime soon after
establishing their careers.
Karl, Evolution, gender and scientific method
I find Richard Dawkins' explanation for different predispositions
between genders in terms of genes/evolution/investment in offspring in
"The Selfish Gene" pretty convincing. What seems to me more arguable
is whether science is inherently something that is going to appeal
more to the male disposition. Certainly if we want more female
involvement we have to let science (particularly through its funding)
be less dominated by the masculine competitive and warlike outlook,
and more by a nurturing one. Easy to understand in terms of
applications, but requiring a bit more thought in terms of scientific
method. Perhaps we ought to have started by looking for more female
philosophers of science.
Eric Hartford, Persecution
It is foolish to persecute someone for making an unpopular
hypothesis. Galileo's views were unpopular too. Conclusions drawn from
popular opinion must stand aside to those drawn from experimentation,
observation, and reason. To do less is to fall to the temptation the
catholic church succumbed to for so many years. (only in 1992 did the
Pope apologize for Galileo's persecution) The academic community needs
to be free from religious and political forces that threaten to repeat
the mistakes of the past by persecuting academics for going against
popular opinion.
Ross Bettinger, gender gap in science
Whilst there still may be some sexual discrimination on the part of
employers and universities, I think it has more to do with differences
in the way the genders perceive science. For example, men are more
likely to think science is ‘cool’ and thus pursue a career in it
whilst many women might look down on it a little and leave it to the
‘boys with their toys’. I would be very surprised if future
research showed it had anything to do with innate ability.
J Adams, Gender roles
Women's roles have changed drastically in the last 30-40 years. Women
PhDs have gone from 0.6% to 17.3% in engineering, 2.9% to 15.5% in
physics, 2.3% to 22.8% in computer science, 7.6% to 29.0% in math, and
so on. While women have taken on more responsibilities in the public
sphere, they are still expected to contribute more than men when it
comes to maintaining a home and raising a family. This phenomenon was
well documented in Arlie Hochschild's book, The Second Shift.
Why must women constantly struggle with the balance of work and
family? It is time for us as a society to take off some of these
pressures. Since women have expanded their gender roles so
tremendously in the last few decades, it is time for men to catch up
and change accordingly. Men must share the responsibilities of raising
their families more equally.
If we don't support a segment of our society - a segment which makes
up more than 50% of the population - in being the best they can be and
contributing the most they can (in science, business, etc), then we
all lose.
Jan Spousta, Genes vs. society
I doubt whether such questions make sense. It is not possible to separate influences of "genes" and "society" in humans, I think: The human nature - if there is such a thing - is unthinkable without both biological and social sides of our being, and both sides are deeply interconnected.
A similar question would be e.g. whether the shape of a triangle is more influenced by its angles or by its sides: how to answer correctly?
Editor, Lower % of women in science - why?
Recent remarks by Harvard president Lawrence Summers that innate
differences between genders might partially explain why fewer women
than men pursue science and engineering careers generated a storm of
protest.
While we want to encourage more women to pursue science (and data
mining) careers, it is important to understand the reasons for current
disparity. Is the difference due to society pressures or is it partly
genetic?