| 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?