I read Dr. Barres commentary with great interest as I was one of the legion of women who were discouraged from pursuing a career in science. There are few regrest in my life, but it stands at the top of the list that I will never be able to follow a life long love of astrophysics.

As I watch my own daughter in a position to make career decisions, she is comtemplating entering the field of finance, a heavily male-dominated arena. Being young, she doesn't notice the subtle discouragments she receives, but I do. It usually takes the form of steering her into careers "suited for women", whatever those are. While I offer her encouragement in chosing her own path as opposed to the "women's" path, I wonder how long we can expect a young woman to swim against the current?

Having the experience of living as a woman for a year as part of a plan for gender reassignment surgery which, ultimately, I chose not to pursue, gave me a very unique insight as a male into the subtle and not-so-subtle discouragements that women receive in our society, not just in the area of career development but in just being a person. One of the statements that Dr. Barre made that resonated most with me was that once he had become visibly as male as he had always felt himself to be, he was suddenly allowed to finish a statement without being interrupted by a male.

This was an astounding experience for me when I lived as a woman. The fact that men discounted almost anything I had to say - unless they were attempting to obtain sexual favors from me.

While my field is the Social Sciences (a field women are encouraged to go into), I can well imagine the discouragement that women feel to enter 'traditional male areas' because I see it in my own field, with women being discouraged to pursue advancement to upper echelons of management.

Ben's article in Nature definitely struck a chord. As a man in a male-dominated natural resources field, I was quite successful in academia. I have worked at three universities over 25 years. Since transitioning 3 years ago, the opportunities for advancement and success have been markedly curtailed. I seem to be working harder but not advancing -- holding my own is about all I can hope for these days, and even that seems impossible at times. At first I thought it was just me, needing to adapt. But it certainly seems to be the way many of my colleagues, mostly male, now relate to me; very similar to Ben's experience, in reverse order. I very much hope that this thought provoking article reaches the right people in academia.

As a transgendered woman, I was astonished how the language changed when I addressed my gender issue. It went from an attitude of personal power, "there is nothing that you cannot accomplish," to a different song, "obviously your horizons are lower now."

Women participated too. It was almost a "Stockholm Syndrome" where other women unloaded on me as a passive-aggressive way of fighting back.

I've started a blog too: this one for people to ask transgenders to comment on their personal stories of discrimination.

it is :

doesgendermatter.blogspot.com

If I didn't live the differences every day, I would not have believed it.

Kelly Mackin

I'll never forget the excitement I felt after receiving my first chemistry set when I was 11. I announced to my parents (who are well-meaning and very caring) that I wanted to be a scientist someday, to which they responded that I would be a good teacher. I am now 31, have a Masters degree in social work, and am returning to school to complete my premed requisites. I had intended to apply to Harvard medical school in a year (among others), but after reading this article I don't see what the point would be of attending an institution that believes I am innately challenged to be a strong scientist. I don't think Harvard will make my cut next year when I send out applications. Thanks for writing this article and for your concrete suggestions on what we can all do to advocate for fairness in academia.

I am from India

Let us recollect this,
Behind every man's success there is a woman.

Let me expand it little bit now to complete this!

Behind every woman's failure there is a man!.

I hope you people agree with me!.

It is the men who discourage women and suppress them from development of their inner potential.
This is real hard truth.
Thats it.

Thank you ever so much for such an eloquent commentary. It was with great delight that I voraciously read this pertinent and timely article. I fully appreciated all of the references cited, and was particularly pleased with the wonderful way both scientific evidence on the topic, and an obviously passion-filled and personal discussion of empirical experiences, were balanced. I can only hope that the scientific community will read and listen to these wonderful suggestions for increasing the numbers of various racially and gendered minorities (as an African-American woman interested in remaining in academia, this holds great importance to me). On our campus, the number one complaint by women employees is the lack of access to affordable childcare. Men on the campus are quick to say, "we have childcare for our employees, right here on campus"; however, they seem to be blind to the fact that no one on the current payscale can afford that "right here" childcare. Really, women would be a lot more productive if they weren't worrying about being a minute late to pick up their child across town because they can't afford the astronomical late fees. If childcare was subsidized by even a tiny bit, so as to make the on-campus childcare more affordable (thus allowing women to have their children close by), I can't imagine that it would do anything but allow our women faculty members, postdocs and students the freedom to do great research, and obtain more grants (read: more money for the university). But men don't seem to see that... I certainly hope that this commentary will stimulate others to think about these matters, and elicit change.

I am amazed at the warm reception this article received from the media. Thank you Ben for letting me know that people are interested in this issue.

I spent 13 years at Harvard Medical School from postdoc through associate professor. At that time, it was a very hostile work environment for women faculty, with very high attrition (the fractional representation dropped by half with each increment on the tenure track) and very discouraging to women faculty. Chairs were further burdened and displeased with the requirement that they meet once a year with their rare women (and even rarer minority) faculty to provide mentoring and guidance in how to succeed at HMS. The only saving grace for me with the opening of the childcare center coincident with the birth of my first child. Once I left, I found that most other institutions were supportive and had critical masses of women faculty. There is life after HMS, we call ourselves survivors, whether we are XX or XY. Still, as an Editor-in-Chief of a journal, as a member of study sections, I have had to cope with being among the very few woman in the room. As a conference organizer, I made certain to include a large fraction of women speakers and session chairs, and still bristle when I see programs and editorial boards which are poor in representation.

I applaud Ben Barres's bravery and leadership. I am grateful that he took the time to write the essay and pleased that Nature has published it and provided this forum.

Thank you, Ben! Thank you, thank you!

I designed a course called "Women of Science" (that male students don't take, by the way), and in the last section a student said that the best way for men to understand what women go through is to be transgendered.

Like you, I was discouraged by school counselors, teachers, etc. and I was a first-generation college student, so my parents didn't know how to help me. I was accepted to U of Chicago, and didn't realize that you don't turn them down...a biology teacher encouraged me to apply, so I did, but at that time they weren't sensitive to the needs of either first-generation students or women (the former has changed) and I had no idea how to pay for it. I've come into higher education science from the back door, and my only regret is that I miss being in lab sciences. I, too, would lose myself for hours and hours while working as an undergraduate.

So, congratulations. I'm glad that you're doing well and that you're willing to talk about your experiences. Keep talking, please...we need you.

Yes, men and women are different! But what does this have to do with their ability to be terrific scientists/physicians/engineers etc.? The solution to this whole problem is to have a 50/50 male/female work force at every level from trainee to Dean/CEO and to learn from each other. The only way that this will happen is for women (and men) to mentor young girls, trainees and junior faculty and to stress a "can do..keep your eye on the ball" attitude. They should not waste neurons fixating on the bad episodes or bad advice. And for goodness sake, all of us should speak up when something needs fixing! Silent anger never solved anything.
Sadly, successful women often decide that they are too busy to do this or they dont realize how important it is. But, complaining without "doing" is not only far more time-conuming but totally non-productive. Many even believe that silence is the ONLY way. Silence only promotes inertia. In addition, and as Ben points out, some very good female scientists do indeed "pull up the ladder behind them" and/or claim that "there is no problem". (I call this the "Queen bee" syndrome. We dont need queen bees but rather supportive and interactive worker bees.) If each of us women would devote 10% of her time mentoring and building confidence in our younger women, this whole problem would be solved in a generation. I for one, have, and will continue to do my share. The rest of you need to join me! I hope that you will and that 25 years from now this whole thing will be a non-issue as a result of our collective efforts!

The commentary makes for very interesting reading. Although the article emphasizes women in sciences, I think all of those issues hold true for women in the social sciences as well. For instance, the gender and race biases in "hallway mentoring" are true in the social sciences as well. It is quite a feat for women in the social sciences to make tenure in research oriented institutions.

As a scientist who has mild Asperger's Syndrome (AS), I think it is plausible that people like myself who experience discrimination in the social world and who exhibit a preference/ability in science/mathematics etc., are mirrored by opposite counterparts. It is known that AS is much rarer in women then in men; these and other factors suggest that gender variation will remain in areas of activities where the autistic mind feels at most at home or most alienated.

But that said, I firmly believe that when a person expresses an interest, they demonstrate ability. Thus, when a person arrives at the doorstep to a career, their gender should not be seen as a hindrance to their progress. Potential gender based variation does not signify ability/disability or better/worse - but that variation in empathy v’s systemising predominant thought, leads to a preference in life activities and goals.

I fear that the controversy that this debate provokes may preclude the calm exploration of gender based variation. The repercussions may result in the adherence to identical educational treatment of both genders. For example, recent research in the UK shows that girls prefer science to focus on physical and psychological health whereas boys top interests are WMD, astronomy, electricity, computers and dangerous animals! A "one size fits all" educational system may fail both genders.

As a female assistant professor at an Ivy League School, I feel fortunate to have made it this far, but it has not been an easy path. I can still remember my 8th grade biology teacher asking us all to stand up and tell the class what we wanted to become someday. I excitedly stood up and proclaimed that I wanted to be a veterinarian or a scientist. My teacher laughed out loud in front of the whole class and told us all (to my extreme embarrassment) that "girls do not become doctors or scientists". Luckily my parents told me otherwise. Even after successfully surviving years of graduate school and a grueling post-doc, I am still facing discrimination at the faculty level, albeit fairly subtle. One anecdote worth mentioning is treatment by the support staff. I find myself consistently referred to by my first name while less senior male instructors in the department are called "Dr. X". When grant time rolls around, the secretaries are busy doing budgets and making copies for said "Dr. X" who is not even in a tenure-track position rather than helping me. If you put your foot down and demand help, then you are perceived as "difficult". I found Dr. Barres's article inspiring and refreshing. It is important that we realize there are likely many factors that are keeping women out of the top academic positions in science. But dismissing the problem as simply a difference in innate ability is not the answer. Thank you Dr. Barres - keep up the good work.

Anyone who has watched children maturing has no doubt that there are "generally" significant differences between the sexes. The problems develop when we let these generally perceived differences influence our judgement with respect to individuals. As Dr. Barres has demonstrated there are generalizations that can be made, and then there are always the exceptions. It is often difficult, but we obviously should do our best to prevent the generalizations (whether about sex, race, national identity, or whatever) from interfering or coloring our judgement of individuals.

In his commentary, Ben Barres has done a tremendous service for women in sciences. He has followed his own advice and "spoken out". Unfortunately, women are afraid to speak out because they will lose their status as "one of the guys" and/or they will not be taken seriously. Ben's reasoned and comprehensive commentary has give women who have experienced discrimination credibility.

I am so tired of being told that I am causing the problem. Although, the article hasn't changed that opinion among my colleagues, at least I know that I am not alone.

This blog should assist in making sure, we don't have to be alone or isolated from our peers again.

Thank you, Ben

Many of us were really worried for the essay published by Lawrence in PloS, that gave the
impression of trying to help women, but was biased and ideological. As an example,
Lawrence used the term "maleness" that is clearly an "empty" concept (could mean too many
things), to say the least.
There is much to be done, but Dr. Barres article has been corageous and thoughtful.

I anticipate that he will get ad hominen critics by his gender condition.

I sent Dr. Barres an e-mail as soon as I finsihed reading his article. I thought that I might as well reproduce it here.

"Dr. Barres,

I'm sure you have gotten loads of e-mails like this one already, but as a female double science major, I thought that your article for Nature was wonderful.

I am a Biology/ Anthropology undergrad student at a small Catholic university with a very strong medical and life sciences department. More than 70% of my classmates are female and I'm sure my profs would find the idea of some "innate" male predisposition towards the sciences laughable. The women students of biology that I have worked with in the lab and lecture hall are, in my personal experience, more ambitious, methodical, have a better grasp of theory, and are more socially conscious then their male counterparts.

I think it is because the female and male minds reason differently that it is so important that women are included in the sciences. Equality does not equal sameness and if we come to believe that one sex is predisposed towards a certain field the world will suffer in the end. Both sexes are needed for survival, biologically and intellectually.

- Anne Marie

As a woman graduate student, I appreciate the views and suggestions that Dr. Ben Barres raised in his commentary. However, by being grouped into the opinion category of "women are not advancing in science because of innate inability", some thoughtful ideas Peter Lawrence raised in his essay (PLoS Biology, 4, e19; 2006) seem to be lost in the discussion. Rather than suggesting that women's academic ability is inferior to that of men, Lawrence argued that men and women are simply different, without one better than the other. Rather than suggesting that women are not advancing because of innate scientific inability, Lawrence suggested that there may be bias in the current selection procedure in academic positions, and "science would be better served if we gave more opportunity and power to the gentle, the reflective, and the creative individuals of both sexes." In many ways, what Lawrence suggested and what Barres proposed were not very different: they both suggested that we should enhance "fairness in the selection processes", and "enhance leadership diversity in academic and scientific institutions". However, a number of public news articles have portrayed them as two different camps, and misinterpreted Lawrence's view as suggesting that women are not advancing in science because of their innate academic ability. I feel that it is a pity that this happened, and feel that the thoughtful ideas and suggestions from Lawrence's article should not be lost in the discussion.

Dear Editor,

The point of equal educational opportunity is that the appearance of talent is unpredictable, not that all identifiable groups of people are equallyl talented. Assuming that everyone's talents are equal, and that differences are due to prejudicial education, is a dangerous "one-size-fits-all" dogma that puts mankind in a bed of Procustes that will deny suitable education to any "politically incorrect" "or "politically favored" population. That men and women are not equal is demonstrated by prejudice-free objective measurements, such as athletic performance data and life expectancy statistics, among others.

Yours truly,
Andrejs Baidins, tel. (302)478-7065
1104 Windon Drive, Wilmington DE 19803
abaidins@comcast.net

Thank you very much, Professor Barres, for speaking from such a strong position about this topic!

Although my research is not in the sciences, it confirms experiences and observations that I have made over the years. Whether there is a difference between male and female brain is an interesting question, but when it comes to women in sciences I think it is pretty irrelevant. I see the problem as a vicious cycle of social expectations, decouragement, and giving up too quickly on the side of women (I am annoyed about my own laziness). The female scientists that I know closer, mostly Math and Computer Science PhDs, all come from the former Eastbloc. I would never glorify Communism, but I think it's an interesting phenomenon.

Once again, thank you for sharing your experience and raising your voice.
Best,
Christine

Dr. Ben Barres,

Last year I wrote Prof Summers regarding his statement on the innate
inferiority of females "responsible" for stunting our intellectual and academic potential. The former President of Harvard University did not reply.

Your perspective on this issue is quite unique to say the least. I respect you
for sharing this with the scientific community. We need to remind ourselves that
the bias does exist. In this way, perhaps better science can come about.

Anyway, I wanted to share with you some of my own struggle. A few years ago I
made a sexual assault/harassment complaint at the hospital where I was
conducting my grad studies in Immunology. I was told by my faculty that I should
have tolerated the abuse because it is all too common. I was subsequently denied
access to the research facilities. The facilities were funded by the NIH equivalent in Canada, the CIHR. The CIHR did nothing about this matter. The list of reprisals is so huge, that I won't go into detail. Suffice to say I ended up without a place to do my research and without a supervisor, without a stipend and without a home. It has been this way for quite some time. So you see why I agree with your position; because I was actively punished by my academic community in Toronto for being a woman.

I believe that this attitude is institutionally systemic because there is another case that I want to share with you as well; another student at my university in the same situation. Nature Magazine wrote a short article about our cases in Aug 2004. She has been in academic limbo for over three yaers now. I am trying to find a supervisor for her, as she is further behind in her studies than I am. The university is absolutely refusing to help her regain her IP, research space and supervision. It's very disturbing.

As you suggested in your article, a bias does exist in science. In my personal experience there can be serious consequences for any female researcher in coming forward and denouncing these damaging gender-based attitudes.

I shared with Dr. Barres a opinion piece I wrote that was not published because “too much had already been said” about Larry Summers. Ben pointed out that much continued to be published accusing Summers’ critics of squelching free speech. Most of this commentary misrepresents Summers’ comments in one of two critical facets: first, claiming that his comments were casual, and second that he was putting forward a novel theory to which feminists could not bear to listen.

Apologists persist in saying that Summers spoke “off the cuff” and that radical feminists and their supporters pilloried him unfairly. Some suggest that his only fault was in not being more careful in front of a hostile audience. In fact he prefaced his remarks with the statement that he would speak only about the issue of women’s representation in tenured positions in science and engineering “not because that’s necessarily the most important problem…but because it’s the only one of these problems that I’ve made an effort to think IN A VERY SERIOUS WAY ABOUT.” He then specifically stated that he believed intrinsic differences between men and women were MORE important than socialization and discrimination in explaining the shortage of women professors in science and math-- and he said that after a morning of serious scientific discussion of the evidence to the contrary.

With regard to the idea that he espoused a new and novel theory, the particular facts he used (that more men than women scored in the upper and lower extremes in math tests) had been known for a long time. There is just no evidence to support the theory that they explain the low numbers of women in science. In scientific studies these scores do not correlate with success in the relevant professions. Social scientists whose work he quoted as supporting his proposition said that his conclusions were invalid. The discussion became about "activists whose sensibilities might be at odds with intellectual debate" when it should have been about how prejudice (Summers’ own, perhaps unconscious, prejudice) leads to scientifically invalid claims.

Finally Summers’ critics are often said to deny the existence of genetic and behavioral differences between men and women. That continues with responses to Dr. Barres. (New York Times “Science Times” just yesterday). Several previous contributors to this blog have addressed that issue—yes, there are differences; I don’t believe that Dr. Barres denies this. And indeed, if women have a unique approach to scientific problems, all the more reason we should overcome historical barriers and welcome them to full participation.

Thanks to Ben Barres for re-opening this critical discourse, which has been so marred by sloppy reporting and mis-interpretation.

Dear Editor,

If sex differences in abilities, interests, and achievements are explained by societal discrimination, as Barres claims, then the discriminators have been remarkably adept at imitating genetic differences. For example, sex differences in temperament appear in the first days of life, substantial sex differences in spatial aptitude emerge in the pre-school years, and the same general sex differences in personality and values are found worldwide. The it’s-just-discrimination theory thus requires us to believe that men and women have colluded everywhere to deflect women’s talents and aspirations, in the same direction, with comparable success, and with equally obdurate false consciousness.

Decades of research implicate innate sex differences in behavior, not just physiology. Some of the most fundamental, enduring, and career-relevant differences can be summarized as females tending to have a greater interest in people, and males a greater interest in things. Even as newborns, boys prefer to gaze at mechanical mobiles and girls at faces. The U.S Department of Labor has long distinguished jobs along the people-things dimension, as have vocational counselors. It is also the major dimension along which girls’ and boys’ inventoried interests and aspirations differ most, on average, at all ages. Even in toddlerhood, most girls prefer dolls to cars, and boys the reverse—regardless of parental efforts to evoke more politically-correct play. And so do their primate cousins, vervet monkeys.

Traces of this evolutionary division of labor, for which we seemed primed at birth, are readily observed at even the highest levels of academic achievement. According to the US Center for Education Statistics, more than half of bachelors degrees (57%) and masters degrees (59%) went to women in 2004, as did almost half of professional (49%) and doctoral degrees (48%)—a dramatic increase from just three decades earlier. However, female representation among PhD recipients was higher in disciplines that are more people-oriented than things-oriented: education—66%, biological sciences—47%, physical sciences—28%, and engineering—18%.

Societal discrimination cannot plausibly explain this pattern, because female representation follows the same people-things gradient within fields too. Women earned most of the PhDs in psychology (69%), but less often in the less people-oriented sub-disciplines: developmental—75%, clinical—71%, experimental—67%, and industrial-organizational—61%. In engineering, where only 18% of PhDs went to women, female representation was lower in sub-disciplines dealing with less animate objects: biomedical—30%, chemical—25%, electrical—14%, and mechanical—13%.

Except for identical twins, each of us is born with a unique genetic compass, inclining us toward some environments and experiences but repelling us from others. The internal compasses of men and women tend to tilt in somewhat different directions. This is not to deny discrimination. As Barres knows, social pressure can make it hard to diverge from the norm for one’s group. This does not mean, however, that the norm (the average) from which many of us depart has no genetic roots. Or that it is any less discriminatory to demand that both sexes fit the same politically-prescribed norm.

Alexander, G.M., & Hines, M. Sex differences in response to children’s toys in non-human primates (cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus). Evolution and Human Behavior 23: 467-479 (2002).

National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics Tables and Figures, 2005, Tables 246, 252. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/lt3.asp#19

Linda S. Gottfredson
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716 USA

It might be true that on some test women show less of an aptitude than do men for ‘science’. The question is why anyone would find that of interest. “Science’ covers a vast array of endeavors, and even the smallest sub-specialty includes a collection of different personalities and aptitudes. From my own experience, I would guess that women, while on the average not ‘better’ scientists than men, might be more disposed to make the more profound discoveries. Men tend to work with one eye on the job and publication market, and a quick hit-and-move –on is the understandable goal. Women may be more inclined to think long and hard about an intellectual problem. Of course some men do rise above this implied limitation. All this matters only in that anyone setting out to do something important will encounter periods – sometimes long ones – of darkness and doubt, and having the President of Harvard wonder whether he or she might have genetic limitations is not exactly helpful.

Sincerely,

Mark Ptashne, Ph.D.
Virginia and Daniel K. Ludwig Chair
Member Molecular Biology Program
Sloan-Kettering Institute
1997 Lasker Award for Basic Science
and mentor to a number of prominent female scientists

Prof. Barres' statement that "one-third of the winners of the elite Putnam Math Competition last year were women" struck me as a particularly telling piece of evidence: If indeed so many women performed so well in such a respected competition, this would indeed undermine assertions of substantial biological gender differences in the higher levels of mathematical ability.

Unfortunately, on further research, it seems that this statement is mistaken.

Last year's (2005's) top 16 finishers seem to have included only one woman (UNL 2005). Prof. Barres was likely referring to 2004, but even in that year the top 15 included only four women (Hopkins 2005; UNL 2004). In 2003, two of the top 16 were women (UNL 2003; Princeton 2006). In 2002 and 2001, the number was one of 15. Perhaps I'm mistaken, despite my attempts to verify the ambiguous names; but this is the data as best I can determine it.

Prof. Barres' other claims in the article may well be accurate; the data I cite certainly don't prove that the reason for the low numbers is even partly biological sex differences. On the other hand, I thought it might be helpful to let people know that one particular piece of evidence mentioned in the article seems mistaken.

Sources: Hopkins, Nancy, 2005. "Academic Responsibility and Gender Bias," XVII MIT Faculty Newsletter No. 4, pp. 1, 24.

UNL Web site, 2005. "The William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, Announcement of Winners ...."

2004. ">http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a7-problems/putnam/-html/putnam2004results.html.

2003. ">http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a7-problems/putnam/-html/putnam2003results.html.

2002. ">http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a7-problems/putnam/-html/putnam2002results.html.

2001. ">http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a7-problems/putnam/-html/putnam2001results.html.

Princeton, 2006. Telephone Conversation with Mathematics Department at Princeton University, July 19, 2006.

Thanks to Professor Barre for his excellent article.

The experiment to determine whether or not women are as capable as men in fields of science has not yet been done, and doing it would require giving women equal opportunity to develop their talents to begin with. Paraphrasing Virginia Woolf, give us a room of our own and five hundred pounds a year, and then let's see what we can do.

Barres argues that there is no scientific evidence that women are more emotional than men. Yet he notes that his ability to cry was lost after hormone treatment. What about anger? Is anger related to hormones as well?

The perception that women are more emotional then men is particularly damaging. I know at least one well qualified woman (not me) who was passed over for a job because the search committee learned she had cried in an encounter with her major professor. Male colleagues and advisors have told me that women cry to manipulate others. Perhaps this is occasionally true. However, on rare occasions I have been frustrated to tears in my interactions with colleagues. Usually I am able to fight back tears (although my voice reveals that I am close), but when tears come they are out of my control. Crying in front of my male colleagues and supervisors is NOT something that I choose to do. Generally I am less concerned about crying in front of female colleagues or supervisors, however.

The ability to cry or anger has nothing to do with skills that make a good scientist. Even if there are average differences between men and women in ability to systematize, analyze, and communicate, (and I would add synthesize to this list of skills that matter), those women and men who choose to go into academic science are all necessarily above average on broadly overlapping curves. Note that we are making inferences from statistical trends in populations made up numerous individuals; traditional scientific methodology.

However this approach ignores individual experience, and misses the problem entirely. The focus should be on the ways that individuals interact with each other. Men interact differently with men than women interact with women, and interactions between men and women are more variable and ambiguous in the workplace because women have only recently entered the workplace in large numbers.

Adult males “seem to live in a hierarchical world with replaceable coalition partners and a single permanent goal: power. Adult females, in contrast, live in a horizontal world of social connections. Their coalitions are committed to particular individuals whose security is their goal.” When I first read Frans de Waals description of chimpanzee behavior (Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, 1989) I could have sworn he was describing the interactions among scientists. De Waals calls for systematic studies on relationships within convents, nurses’ homes, women’s colleges etc. to determine whether stereotypes of female human behavior are accurate.

In fact there have been numerous studies of relationships between women, and comparisons of male-male, female-female and female-male relationships in humans. For example, Deborah Tannen studies cultural and gender differences in communication style, and has written “Men are more often inclined to focus on the jockeying for status in a conversation: Is the other person trying to be one-up or put me down? Is he trying to establish a dominant position by getting me to do his bidding? Women are more often attuned to the negotiation of connections: Is the other person trying to get closer or pull away? Since both elements are always present, it is easy for women and men to focus on different elements in the same conversation." (You Just Don’t Understand; Women and Men in Conversation, Ballantine books, 1990). This leads to major misconceptions that are the basis of much of the perceived discrimination that Barres and others who have posted on this blog have experienced. Generally, women succeed in science when they can interact in male hierarchies like dominant men do, or when they can forge coalitions with dominant men backing them.

Returning to emotions, crying and anger are two different responses to frustration. Crying internalizes frustration while anger externalizes it. However, in hierarchical cultures like most academic sciences, crying is a sign of weakness whereas anger, at least in dominant individuals, is a strategy to maintain power. Angry dominant men are not labeled overemotional (unless they succumb to violence). Their voices are heard and listened to. But angry women (especially if perceived as subordinate), like women who cry, are so labeled.

Labeling a woman “overly emotional” not only lowers her status in a hierarchical culture, it also precludes hearing the issues behind the frustration. It is another strategy for maintaining power. In contrast, both tears and anger are likely to elicit an acknowledgment of the underlying frustration and an attempt to understand the source of the frustration in cultures that stress empathy and connection. That’s a traditional role of mothers, wives and girlfriends.

Must women with skills that matter in science conform to the norms of a hierarchical academic scientific culture in order to succeed, or can scientists in academia learn to accommodate individuals who value connections? I hope the later, because I believe that science as a discipline and scientists of both genders will benefit if we do.

Dr Barres has raised an interesting debate and has the marvellous advantage of seeing both sides. I can speak only as a female. As a Professor of Immunology in a UK Medical School I share the difficulties and frustrations of career development with other women. The point I want to bring out however is positive. I don’t think men and women are the same, but each category has an overlapping spectrum of skills relevant for science. Analytical ability has been emphasized and is essential. What has not been recognized is that the “female” characteristics of imagination and an ability to see problems from several perspectives are just what is needed for research. It should be encouraged and not suppressed.

"And that if we do, we will encourage talented but less aggressive people, and the proportion of women at the top in science will rise as a welcome side effect"

I absolutely agree with this particular comment from Peter Lawrence. Having just completed my PhD at one of the top 3 university in the UK i can say that it has been an experience. I was shocked at the level of aggression and how it was considered a great quality and indeed a prerequisite for success. Why does this have to be the case? If you truly are talented, surely your work will speak for itself. As a woman i was definately put off by the agressive culture and a love for science that had been cultivated by my tutors as an undergraduate (University of Durham did a great job!) was systematically dampened. Let us encourage variety, being gentle is not a weakness. It is sad that we are losing talented gentle people with a low tolerance for aggression to other industries/fields.

I cannot shake the feeling that Dr Barres is more interested in pushing a personal political agenda than getting all sides of the story.

Most importantly, he continues to point out that he feels personally attacked by the views of Summers, Pinker, etc.
Yet, a relatively lower average for a group (for whatever variable) does not discredit any given individual.

Not always can discrimination account for the observed gender distribution in a field, for example in chess performance (Chabris & Glickman, 2006).

Moreover, gender equality in a field is the exception, not the rule. This goes for both low status fields (men are overrepresented among criminals and garbage collectors) as well as high status fields (to date, all editors of Vogue magazine have been women).

The real difference is that men don't complain when they are on the receiving end of a gender disparity in a field.

Even in my own field, there are many fellowships and awards that are ONLY open to women. Does anyone complain about that?

Finally, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that absolute gender parity is a goal in all fields. What about self-determination?

As a new Post doc in academia, I am very senistive to articles just like this one, and I applaud the discussion and discourse that takes place. I am very lucky that I did my PhD with one of the distingished "good old boys", and that opened many doors for me. But there was a difference - my mentor encouraged me to network and operate in academia. While I am by nature a fairly shy person, I now have the confidence to present my research at large forums, and to speak to researchers who are well established. My mentor would introduce me to invited speakers, and to colleges at scientific meetings. I placed well in a postdoc that I sought out myself, with his encouragment, and feel that his name got me in the door, but I am the one who, so to speak, had the talent to stay in that room. I join others in this blog who propose that mentors actively encourage their trainees, both male and female to find their own path by providing them the tools to suceed. I also was told when I started out that I would never survive in the sciences, that it was a good old boys club and maybe I should look at other majors (this by my advisor my first day of college!) I have spent my time trying to prove him wrong. There is still a percived glass celling, even decades after our mothers fought for sexual equality. There may be inherent differences between men and women, but these differences do not preclude us from participating in the highest levels of science if we are given the proper tools by our mentors. I had the distict pleasure of helping to mentor undergraduates in my lab before I left for my post-doc (both male and female) and I would also like to say that there are more women entering the sciences every day. Some classes I was in as an undergraduate and a graduate student revealed the men outnumbered 2 and 3 to 1 (and in one class, physiology, there were only 3 men in a class of 30). So there is no lack of women who are entering the field, and hopefully open dialog such as this will help them to stay and have active, fufilling careers.

I am truly surprised by the overwhelmingly positive response this article has gotten. I am always shocked when I see this kind of sex based "nationalism", but even more so amongst scientists.

You don't (or shouldn't) get your science published by saying "Oh, this one time in grad school I saw this protein interact with this DNA". You do a rational, hypothesis based study with the data available.

While Dr Barres story is an interesting one, and one that I am sure generated a lot of publicity for everyone involved, it is not science, it is not even good journalism. As I wrote in my blog,

Now while this article is an excellent read, it is missing an important factor that most articles in scientific journals have: science. And the reason for this is obvious, Dr. Barres feels that a statement that women on average are less capable at progressing in science is a personal insult, indeed she says "The comments of [Dr.] Lawrence about women's lesser innate abilities are all wrongful and personal attacks on my character and capabilities". They are not. Dr. Lawrence repeatedly and carefully uses the words "on average". Men are more likely to rape, kill, assault and steal on average, but that doesn't not mean that a given man is a rapist, a murderer or a violent thief. When I say there is a lack of science, I mean that there was a lack of careful research. Dr. Barres states "There is no scientific support, either, for the contention that women are innately less competitive". Again, this is not true. Men enjoy competition more than women [3]. Men score higher on antisocial competitiveness scales [4]. Interestingly, women with higher testosterone tend to be more competitive [5]. All men astronaut teams are more competitive than mixed gender teams [6]. And there is less competition between female same-sex friends than male same-sex friends [7]. While none of these studies are complete enough for me to happily conclude that men are more competitive than women, it certainly shows that the statement "there is no scientific support for the contention that women are innately less competitive" is a falsehood.

Personally, I do not care whether men or women are better "at science". All I care is that I am good at science, and the people I work with got there jobs because they deserve it. People should be spending there time investigating, whether discrimination takes place (and it almost certainly does) and what are effective measures to counter it, instead of wasting time with chauvinism and jingoism of the most worthless kind.

Dear sir: In your commentary Does Gender Matter you classified life choices into two categories- 1) to know about how the world works from science and 2)and the moral struggles/power struggles in ordinary life As the academic issues residing at the borderlines of sociology and science are in a very dark area-and our social power struggles have no visible resolution it is in my opinion you created "birthed" an alternate pursuit with the name "absolute objective knowledge". Though the scientific disciplines are innately more idealistic than mundane conflicts of ordinary existence and can provide a better point of focus to tackle social enigmas, I have a very fundamental objections to your interpretations.
1) Modern science study is founded on the existence of a third neutral point of view.
Nietszche, two centuries ago, was burdened with apprehension concerning the survival of mankind and what he termed a "blood poisoning spreading through civilization" related to
this simple notion of a third frame of reference. The world in Nietszche's philosophical interpretations is nothing but a content of subjects-the "atom is a subjectling". He saw The world at all levels as suffering from amoral inclinations connected with the objectification of the new/alien/unknown.
Though the objectification of the external world to learn is the only means there is to knowledge. I believe this pursuit, if it is endeavored without the conscious awareness that the mental processes of science are only tools also and different from the mental processes employed by either men or women in everyday life. Any other perception of science-society is a deceptive role reversal that eventually will place society into a catagory above the individual. The opposite goal, a society assembled of the free consenting will of the individual is the desired goal.
It is paramount and essential that men/women know science application as only a tool to his social well being(well-being, is always numero uno, and at the exact origin from which our scientific studies originated). This beginning point, of science, as a human a activity , can never be transcended, used in any other name, carried on beyond its real potential-less we find ourselves in a very thin realized from the self deception that we know ourselves.
I wish then to say that your categorization is misleading, assumes an eternal divide between our science facts, and fundamental social perceptions. You have singled out scientific and technological endeavors to be placed on a pedestal-implicated a false hood. This implication, as scientific method to be at the roots of knowledge, though easily accepted, clouds the real issue, gives a false name and motivations for the pursuit of academic study.
Science, which can be entertaining-enjoyable-is basically an alternative egoistic activity-less self endulging than many, but a idealistic projection, originating, even in the construction of it's basic logic from the same stark realities of everyday life that motivate anyone to pursue anything.
If women suffer more of an amoral power struggle, who then, but women, if so inclined, possess innately, the potential for important scientific additions, contribution, changes in our approach to the world, if needed.
That the doors for this happening be open and not shut, is the theme of my comment; and that categorizations, false worship , pedestalization, do not undermine us.
I also intend these comments to be seen more as addition than criticism ,as there is always no harm in bouncing our ideas around-even if we place the cart before the horse, as long as we do not all get in and ride off in it.

In Southeast Asia, the situation is pretty much the same, and sometimes worse, since at times, gender discrimination isn't even acknowledged as a problem.

It's not about innate abilities, but rather perceptions and assumptions, particularly among the more conservative Chinese population - some of whom see education as being 'wasted' on females.

One experience I'd relate - a male colleague and myself visited a school; despite us both wearing shirts showing our affliations, parents and kids would refer to him as 'Doctor', while I'd been addressed as 'Teacher'.

So until society's perception of gender roles changes significantly, we'll be seeing this debate over and over again, I'm afraid.

Ditto on the bit about not being able to complete sentences when you're female! I've found a solution that works for me though - if you find yourself ever be interrupted, just go on even if you have to yell the other guy down. Even the most clueless of males will learn not to interrupt you after a while.

Barres' article was great. What I find hilarious about the "more variation at the extremes" theory of greater success of males to explain their over-representation in the academic hierarchy is the implicit (and self-regarding) assumption that we're talking about extremes.

I mean, look around at your next department meeting. Maybe you're in a room full of geniuses operating at the extreme edge of the intelligence curve, but chances are you're not. Is the department head the "smartest" person in the room? Is any sort of intelligence (or math skills or spatial reasoning) really what determines who gets promoted, who gets grants, who gets all the attention at conferences?

Academia is a cultural activity. Yes, there are differences between men and women, but anyone who says it's possible to tell the difference between cultural and genetic factors in the context of social outcomes is full of it.

There is a mountain of solid sociological data on how women are systematically excluded from sciences from childhood...do we really need to look so hard for other explanations?

Can anyone point to even a correlation between cognitive abilities and position in the academic food chain?

Dear Reader,
I am a girl from India. When I was a teen ager, I have topped in mathematics several times and scored 100% for twice in math exams. I always liked to study Physics over other subjects. I never ever am told that I am less than a boy in science or math by anybody but rather boys are told so compared to me. But the story is different when you enter in the real field and it slowly starts from college. I am a researcher now. I have faced descrimination several times and it really hurts. Most of people suggested me that I should be a teacher in a college or university just because it would be easy life for me- a girl. Well, I am not afraid of any hard life but life is certainly hard for a girl researcher. Everytime, I have to prove myself that although I am a girl, I am good in research. Well, a boy does not need to prove this much as much a girl has to prove, why so? Sometimes, I feel, I need many girls in my lab because you know, boys just cant accept if a girl is doing well in their field. Earlier, I never knew that there exists any GENDER descrimination in the world of science but after entering in the field of research- YES, I KNOW VERY WELL how males do not accept females to compete them, whereas females have to just keep proving themselves that yes they are good in every field, for centuries. HOW LONG WOMEN HAVE TO KEEP PROVING THEMSELVES?? I believe that the brain has evolved for centuries and will keep further evolving and the study what scientists are performing for past several years on a bunch of people from FEW countries, is not goodenough to prove anything true for all women on the entire GLOBE. Such buch of studies, rather than helping any progess, are harming the progess of women in science.

Female students are discrimiated already at university - and we do notice. E.g. we are told to study biology to become a teacher rather than a scientist, we hear in our first lab experience that it is not possbile for women to be both mother and scientist and so on. And as soon as we are pregnant we hear in a sympathetic tone (positive discrimiation) that from now on we will have more important goals than a career! Better we stop to believe them and concentrate on our career!

In humans societies there have been many different forms of apartheid. In Europe, the germanic societies appeared to be particularly discriminatory. Namely the anglosaxons:

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060717/full/060717-8.html

Things have changed, but maybe not as much as desired.

The "war" against women has been one of the axis of the European history and culture from ancien times. It seems that when the neolithic invaders first arrived to a matriarcal Europe they got pretty scared. And they still are...

Undoubtedly some discrimination exists and possibly there are differences in approaches and natural talents between men and women. But men experience just as many hurdles as women in achieving their goals. For every example of sexual harassment, there will be a balancing favouritism for a pretty face at the expense of a male colleague. Ego battles have both male and female casualties.

So how do we explain the extraordinary differences in representation as we climb the career ladder? I used to think it was discrimination but now I believe that it is, to a large degree, due a difference in expectations. It would be ridiculous to even contemplate the idea of a man giving up his career to have children and yet both men and women seem to feel that this is an acceptable, normal option for a woman. It is also deemed acceptable for a woman to “give up” for a more socially responsible career or to just “take time out” or to move to support their partners career advances. It is not deemed acceptable for a man to do so. There are quite a few men who find their careers deeply depressing, stressful and disappointing but they will plod on until they retire, or die in the process. Women in a difficult situation can choose to opt out, men cannot.

This could be seen as a weakness but perhaps it should be considered a valued freedom. If I do not want to do this anymore, I won’t. So really, who should have our sympathy?

Rosalind John

Prof. Barres argues that although gender differences exist they are not relevant to scientific ability, and concludes that the current underachievement of women in science can only be the result of discrimination. He contrasts this view with what he calls the “Larry Summers Hypothesis”, according to which women are not advancing in science because they are less able than men. He also alleges that both Steven Pinker and Peter Lawrence subscribe to this view. This is a gross misrepresentation.

Neither Pinker nor Lawrence claim that women are “less able” than men. Instead, they argue that factors other than ability may help explain the relative lack of academic success amongst women. For example, Pinker points to differences in lifestyle choice, while Lawrence postulates that certain attributes, such as aggression, single-mindedness and competitiveness, which are more prevalent among males, are disproportionately valued by the existing selection system.

Barres recalls a number of “bullying” incidents he suffered both as an undergraduate at MIT and as a graduate at Harvard, when he was still a woman. He attributes them to sexism, but to me such incidents are indicative of an environment where lack of empathy is encouraged and where more sensitive and less assertive individuals will fall victim to “discrimination” regardless of their gender or ability – both actively and passively, in terms of being discouraged from choosing such an aggression-demanding career path in the first place. As a woman, I have witnessed more examples of such “discrimination” against both men and women than cases of gender bias per se.

Barres’s view, shared by many feminists, that gender differences are not relevant to the workplace is certainly well intentioned. However, I would argue that it does not ultimately aid the advancement of women in science: it is only by acknowledging broad gender differences and seeking to identify the sex-biased attributes that the academic selection process promotes that we can hope to pinpoint the source of the “gender” bias.

In his article, Peter Lawrence suggests working towards the establishment of a research environment in which all of these attributes (and not just the “masculine” ones) are valued, and in which “gender-neutral” traits such as creativity and originality are encouraged. Besides being more productive, such an approach is far more likely to promote gender equality in science than a short sighted, politically correct insistence on the equivalence of men and women.

Hooray for Michael Hendricks. That is indeed telling it like it is. How can women tell what they would have been like if they had NOT been discouraged from science and generally feminised by society all their lives?

We can only deal with how we are now, not wonder about what we would be like if we had grown up in a vacuum. However, I am amazed that so many women are reporting themselves as conforming to the stereotype that chauvinists have made for us. Women and men are individuals - gentleness, manners, empathy and communication abilities vary among them just as academic talents and map-reading, spider-catching skills do. As a woman I find it pretty offensive to hear that science would benefit from my participation because it would be 'gentler'. Shall I bring some pastel cushions while I'm at it?

I also feel strongly that women will never shake off those old chauvinist images while they continue to bang on about childcare provision. Why is childcare only of interest to women? Why are all women supposed to care about childcare? As a woman who is childless by choice I am fed up with the assumption that my primary concern at work is whether we have a creche.

From reading the posts on this blog is seems that as a scientist and female I must be gentle, thoughtful, bothered about children, unable to stick up for myself, unable to explain to secretaries and students that I am of the same status as Dr Man, actually, and softly spoken. While most posters have stressed that this is the norm rather than the demand for each individual, that statement in itself makes me feel like a weirdo for not being like this, and perpetuates the stereotype. Moreover, most of my academic female friends do not conform to this stereotype. Discrimination in the UK job scene at least has diminshed radically in the last few decades, and we who benefit from it should concern ourselves with those colleagues in other countries where it seems harrassment and blatant denial of places for women are still a reality, not with whinging about being talked over when we could quite easily say "excuse me, I haven't finished".

I'm currently a graduate student, the only female graduate student in the lab.

My committee is an all male committee.

One of my committee members, who has since been relieved of his committee duties, told me that "I dress such that people focus on my attire and not on my science".

That "I should work in an office and not in science".

Followed by "Because I dress so professionally he's going to give me a harder time,given that he feels that I don't take this (science) seriously".

And they say that there's equal treatment.

I promptly dropped him from my committee, and replaced him with an even more powerful, brighter, and more succesful scientist, the chair of the department.

She just happens to be a woman.

OK fellow scientists, can we stop this nonsense and go back to work.......NOW?

In this weeks Nature issue (3 August 2006) there is this headline -

"Maths 'Nobel' rumoured for Russian recluse"

Why do I expect that this person is a man not a women.

I have mild Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) and I recall my adolescence when my AS was more pronounced. I was a quite a recluse and I studied mineralogy or astronomy with great intensity. As a result, I can instantaneously identify my entire mineral collection of over 1000 specimens by touch alone. I understand this persons passion for maths and exclusion of other distracting actives, that he (if he is a he) pursued Mathematics every minute of every hour of ever day etc. like I did with my mineralogy. AS is a condition (or personality) that leads to monk like social isolation and the emergence of obsessively pursued asocial intellectual interests. AS squeezes a persons intelligence into a singular laser like focus from which attention rarely shifts, I speak from experience. While I do not infer that this particular person has AS, he or she exhibits qualities typical of AS, a predominately male condition (10 to 1). Thus, I think that AS could be one explanation, amongst others, of why highly successful Mathematicians are mostly male. That is why I expect that he is a he.

Irene wrote: "Neither Pinker nor Lawrence claim that women are “less able” than men."

That's exactly what Summers (I don't know him well enough to call him Lawrence) claims. It is, in his opinion, the second most influential factor in the gender disparity within academia. A lot of people have for some reason taken it upon themselves to backpedal on his behalf. The entire transcript of his remarks is available online, please read it. He even invents an entire category of cognitive function he terms "scientific ability" (whatever that might be, I'm sure it's not quantifiable), and assumes there are more high functioning males within this category.

Most tellingly, he ranks discrimination as the LEAST influential factor in the failure of women to attain academic parity with men. Bizarre, considering this is far and away the one with the most evidence. Summers belongs in an ideological think-tank where cherry picking self-serving data from a sea of evidence to the contrary is acceptable practice, not the realm of serious discussion.

Michael wrote -"..cherry picking self-serving data from a sea of evidence to the contrary."
Though both seeded fruits, a cherry picker, by definition, pickes cherries, not apples, nor apples and cherries, and to pick the seed would damage the fruit. An apple might only see the cherry in relaton to himself- An apple picker, the cherry picker in relation to himself. Would it not be very innappropiate, logically contradictory, oppressing, self oppressing for an apple picker to "think " to quantitate the thinking skills of a cherry picker in the midst of eternal, constantly evolving, fluxing, mutual social conflicts? There exists only apples and cherries pickers?
Generous grants and compensations for research as part motivations exisitng in the given, or self chosen research topics, exert a great influence on our thought topics, how we pass our time,yesterday to today, tomorrow, when on many agendas, there is really nothing to say or write at all. A redundancy, in our thoughts and actions, can appear to be harmless. Though one might expect a much greater assumption of responsibility than for so many to indulge in a 'naval, belly button, research' like tat-a-tat that has no stated or assumed visible potential for a good influence or positive gain.
How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?...From these very singular pursuits the same single light, continually shed, droning, on the same social dilemas, energetically do not yield the unique creative synergisms typical of a good harvest.
Are we so much involved in the construction and parts of nature that we have lost touch with ourselves-common sense? I do not perceive much difference in the current occupations/preoccupations with the association of personal strength with a teeth griting and self fortification, intellectualization, one could apply ,for instance to catagorize social "masses" in terms of ecological "weight" on a suffering environment, the theoretical mass of a single photon gaining, in similiar proportion to the status of cold dark matter, existing, moved in postion, from the mysterious depths of the universe, to our homes, living rooms, laboratories. If we should suffer a "cold dark matter" "unaccounted for energy" crisis, our lights are not correctly focused.
..always a bowl of cheries , but it depends on who does the picking.

I found the Pinker v’s. Spelke debate (a link provided by Stephan Pinker) regarding the lack of women in science, intriguing. Stephan Pinker promotes extreme nature - a logical, graph rich, fact driven, individualistic, asocial explanation; whereas Elizabeth Spelke promotes extreme nurture - a sociological, group dynamic and interpersonal explanation. I wonder if it was intentional? I believe neither is wrong and that both views could be combined.

Finally, as guy with mild AS, I have a tendency to develop interests and join groups where women are prominent by their rarity or absence; a chess club, a mineral collecting club, 3D computer graphics company, an astronomy club, an Amiga computer club and one Star Trek convention. At public astronomy lectures, some 90% of the audience were male. There were no women at the chess or computer clubs, just as there is no women in my Asperger's social group. My patterns of interests (and those of people with AS in general) are usually inversely-proportional to the typical female pattern. Interests and professions where Ben says discrimination occurs and is the sole cause of observed gender disparity.

Intellectual honesty alone tells us that proper scientific evaluation of the genetic and social factors in women's career choices will never be performed, for easily imagined reasons. It is still true for MOST of the world what was true everywhere for most of human history: that women are disenfranchised, uneducated, oppressed chattel whose worth is expressed in reproductive ability and a measure of manual labor. The routine and globally ubiquitous contempt and denigration of femaleness is in the air we breathe, and it is propped up by tradition, religion, economy and law. In France, adult women were legally classified with children, minors and the mentally impaired well into the second half of the 19th century; Western women were admitted to the universities (partially, conditionally) barely over a century ago; some have received the vote as recently as 1979. I do not wonder that there are currently fewer women than men "at the top", in sciences or other professions. I am astounded by the success they HAVE had in such a short time. Similar observations can be made for black scientists of either gender. Where are the calls to make Africans account for their current lack of physics Nobels?

In view of this situation, I can find no other words but "obscene hypocrisy" for this piece of information from Mr. Barres' commentary: "Steven Pinker has responded to critics of the Larry Summers Hypothesis by suggesting that they are angry because they feel the idea that women are innately inferior is so dangerous that it is sinful even to think about it(17). Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz sympathizes so strongly with this view that he plans to teach a course next year called 'Taboo'."

If this is what the (in global proportions) vanishingly small set of educated professional Western women has to contend with, how can anyone take seriously the attempts to pronounce on proclivity for science in, say, an Afghan 15-year old girl, based on where a newborn holds its gaze?

Women are no less then man but they are left behind by virtue of their motherhood. At this time they compromise on their carrier and put their time in home than carrier.

Apologies to Irene... I realize now you meant Peter Lawrence (whose article I had not read) and not Lawrence Summers in your post. Having read a couple of PL's essays on the topic, I do think Barres may have misunderstood him.

I'll add that Pinker et al. who argue that people offended by Summers are in favor of curbing free academic inquiry or are afraid of topics that are "taboo" appear to me to be disingenuous. No one gives equal weight to all hypotheses (that's one of many reasons we don't teach intelligent design in schools). Certain ideas are more parsimonious, and better fit the available data. In the context of improving the situation for women in academia, discrimination is the hypothesis best supported by evidence, and is a simple, unsuprising theory given the cultural context we're discussing (no one, I think, has argued that our society is free of sexism).

Instead of assuming women can't hack it, let's do the right control: make academia meritocratic. Recognize that science is a human activity and watch how you conduct yourself. Stop the preferential buddy-buddy hallway mentoring for guys, the plum postdoc projects and extra attention, the eerie subconcious double standard both men and women have when evaluating the work of colleagues and assigning credit (a topic Peter Lawrecne wrote a nice essay on in Nature in 2002-Nature 415, 835-836). Then turn to primary and secondary education, where boys are called on more often in class and frequently exhorted to not "let a girl beat them," and fix the sexist preconceived notions of math and science teachers.

If we've still got a problem, get back to me about "innate abilities." I find it suspicious that the dominant group find it so easy to latch on to the (virtually untestable) self-serving hypothesis that both justifies their position and suggests there is nothing to do about it.

Ben Barres needs to be applauded for taking such a strong stand. And i hope that there will be more people, both men and women, who will condemn discrimination at all levels.

Discrimination is not just about science. Its pervasive in every facet of our life. But what better forum/group of people to try to change this than scientists? We are, after all, highly educated and most of us percieve that our work is independent of gender bias. But, we all know this is not true. As a female, its been hard for me to watch other much less accomplished male colleagues move up the academic ladder. Always, the bars I had to jump over was raised to higher levels....exclusively for me!

I am now tenured, and a full Professor at Georgetown University....A University where we have >80% female students. What do I tell them about their future prospects? That they need to beat their heads against a brick wall for years in order to succeed? That they need 3-4 concurrent NIH R01 grants to just get promoted to the next level, as I did?

Not every one is as dogged as I am when it comes to career goals! Many a time I have thought of quitting. But I was never raised to be a quitter. So I hung in there....and it was so very tough!!!!

Why? Because, in addition to being a female, I am also of Asian heritage. Put the two together, and you will approach virtual impossibility.

I hope that NO ONE will ever go through the struggles I have. I hope that as enlightened people that we scientists can make a change.

Anita

Sanya said: ...If this is what the (in global proportions) vanishingly small set of educated professional Western women has to contend with, how can anyone take seriously the attempts to pronounce on proclivity for science in, say, an Afghan 15-year old girl, based on where a newborn holds its gaze?

If one studies the exact moving revelations occurring in history, there are not many, if any. Ideas rarely incite men off their asses, from their recliners, when it is, sadly, only immaculate-new perceptions and ideas that can seed change. Men/women are normally motivated to action only on more immediate needs. I not know if it is known or ascertainable if mankind has always been inclined to abuse his environments? It would seem that men in an unknown treacherous environment (prehistoric man for example) would have respected nature for his existence. If the need for respect diminishes as immediate, history sets a million examples of forgetting and a changed focus... akin to the narrow angle of vision of an infant plowing a path of self gratification. Ideas rarely take hold without a material need present.
America, American science, intellectual endowments, all its technologies are basically second hand from our Anglo Saxon and European progenitors. The divide in time and distance (as Nietzsche spoke of the Jews Arians and the ethics of good bad and evil) grows a deceit in all of us that spreads in both forwards and reverse with promises of a more comfortable existence, again though, still as always, motivated by the immediate. In cases, needs are replaced with wants. Either, if gratified, are delivered and signed by the a hand so far distant to its' origins that it can easily assume a false name or title and a hand to hand to hand propagated deceit.
As a hypothetical example, a rich Jewish survivor of Germany appearing to wear his money as very important status, though maybe really resembling more his wife than his money, maybe accustomed in assumed social postures, in his language to unnaturally categorize his life-as he does not really bear for generations beyond his experiences in Germany a truthful name on the origin of his conflict, i.e seeking/defining acceptance on the basis of outfit/attire and superficial appearances . It is easy for his deceit to seem instinctually appropriate. His life, he knows as transient in history, has no natural, psychological or physical need or wants related to the very distant past; yet his ,the future of his offspring future demand always a self reckoning for continuance, in which an absent truth can bear in extreme more weight than a feather to that of of the distant city of his ancestors where his appearance had become an important issue in his suffering and oppressions, but of which he knows, in a déjà-view fashion only the factors of his oppression and suffering lived through many generations , and not the facts of . . . "Is it my tie, my big nose? " and still proceeds as the infant plowing his way for his immediate needs
Nietzsche wrote of this two centuries ago, it's truth is obvious, and today there is no evidence that Nietzsche's ideas had even the slightest influence. In my opinion it is more a problem of example setting than the physics and presentation of ideas . The weak approach of intellectualization, via collection of facts, studies. is not the same as the setting of examples.
It is thus a very important obligation, responsibility of educators to know actual mass from the relative forces of gravity., high priority milli-microgram cures from tons of redundant paperworks, and expensively rationalized projects, salaries, travel and meeting funds.... good and important doing in his example setting from the glances and assimilations, social hierarchies and undercurrents of a Christmas bank club meeting or materials industry advertising campaign. The problem, in analogy to an affirmed self deceit of large masses, has grown much more serious than is apparent, and is critically constructed from a slanted representation of male, the language usage and basic perceptions of male authors like a cancer throughout our libraries and teaching materials

Several scientists have been arguing for several weeks now about if yes or no,
men and women have different innate abilities.
But no one asked this question: what is the point of trying to show if men and
women have different innate abilities? Is there any scientific interest? Is it
possible to make the difference between nature and nurture in the behaviour of
Homo sapiens? And if it is not, as most people agree, why keep trying to do
so?

What if some scientists wrote and claimed that black people have different
innate abilities than white ones? And postulated that these different abilities
explain why there are so few black people at university, or so few black MPs?
Do you think that the only thing that would happen is a couple of
correspondences in Nature? Of course not, because racism is absolutely not
tolerated. Casual sexism still is.

Another thing that the different authors seem to forget is the nearly 50
year-old field of sociological gender studies, and the huge activity of the
feminist movement during the same period.
How can it be possible for scientists to talk about mens and womens issues (like
mens and womens abilities and behaviour) without referring to sociology and
anthropology?
For example, if you ask the question: why is there such a low proportion of
black people with a high diploma?
If you do not take into account basic sociology (racism, black people are poorer
than white etc.), you would easily conclude that it can be so because they are
less "intelligent" or they chose not to go to university and to do lower paid
jobs.

Of course there are differences between men and women, and, it is true
that on average women are more able to empathize, to communicate, and to
care for others, but the feminism movement and gender studies have shown for
a long time now that this is the result of sexism through different
socialization between girls and boys... and the problem is not that there are
differences between human beings, the problem is that these differences are
hierarchised.

Claiming that female values, like being gentle and caring, should be more
rewarded is non-sensical. First, because these are the very characteristics
that have been used as arguments to lock women at home, in the kitchen, and
second because human beings in general should be more gentle and caring (if what
we want is a better and more equal society)!

Unfortunately, Science is not objective because it is made by human beings who
are influenced by their context (historical, cultural, sociological...) and
Naturalization has always been used as a conservative and reactionary argument
to imply that if something is natural, then it is better and cannot (should
not?) be changed (think about racism, or homophobia).

I'm not claiming that we are not animals, but we are animals with culture
(like other animals), and this natural part, whatever it is, has nothing to do
with a justification for any oppression.

Hello All,
A few thoughts about the correspondences published in the August 3 issue of Nature. In response to Steve Pinker’s comments, as referenced in my commentary, he has repeatedly argued that innate cognitive differences hold women back in science. The main point of my commentary was that there is no convincing evidence that innate differences are relevant to the failure of women to advance but instead much evidence that profound prejudice and social factors are responsible. Alas he did not respond to this point, but rather makes repeated misclaims in his correspondence about what he (and I) have said. Given the large degree of prejudice and social forces presently at work, it is not scientifically possible to make any determination about whether there are small innate differences that are relevant. For someone who has hurled so many insults at disadvantaged groups (including his endorsement last year on the book jacket of “The Man Who Would Be Queen”, a book that called transgendered folks like me liars best suited for work in the sex trades, and in the Boston Globe he was quoted as saying that my commentary was “science from Oprah”, which is also an obvious slur upon my transgendered identity), it is remarkable what a thin skin he has.

In response to Peter Lawrence, I sure wish it were a kindler gentler world too. But human nature isn’t likely to change any time soon. This is the world we’ve got and women get to play in it too. After referencing studies supposedly showing that women are innately less systematic and analytical, Lawrence went on in his commentary to argue that he feels women are in particular innately less competitive. But there is no evidence that any of these claims about lesser abilites, including lesser competitive abilities, are even true, let alone innate (and if they exist, there is strong reason to think they are socially caused as I have argued). When one concludes, as he has done, that even in a world free of bias that women are destined to do less well because of innate differences, there can be no meritocracy. When everyone’s first hunch is that a woman will do less well because of innate differences, then each individual woman—no matter how talented—will be constantly judged as less worthy (as Figure 2 in my commentary so clearly demonstrated). I understand that Peter Lawrence is a well meaning man, but what he is saying is not supported by any strong scientific evidence and is deeply harmful to all women.

In response to Donna Dierker, there is no evidence that men who score at the top end of a math test are innately better, and her view simply reflects her personal interpretation of the data. Social differences are a strong contributor and may well turn out to be the primary contributor. In fact, the latest studies show that the “more geniuses, more idiots” effect that she and Larry Summers referred to is quickly going away. The reason I wrote my commentary is so that people think more critically before accepting the conclusion that women are innately less able than men.

Practically every suggestion in the popular literature that women and men are innately different in their cognitive abilities is not supported by strong evidence. Many of these ideas are as offensive to men as they are to women. For instance the idea that women are innately more empathetic or cooperative is an insult to men. I also learned in the past few weeks that men are often the targets of sexism. One man wrote to me that he left science when his postdoctoral advisor let him know that he did feel it was appropriate for him to spend much time with his children, but should instead spend all his time in the lab.

Perhaps if Pinker, Summers, and Lawrence had ever been on the receiving end of the serious life-harming discrimination that I and the thousands of highly talented women that have written to me in the last several weeks have experienced, they would be more critical of studies documenting the supposed lesser innate abilities of women. Fortunately I have received thousands of messages from well meaning men and women who understand that the difficulties so many women and minorities have advancing in their careers is the result of persisting prejudice, and who are taking meaningful steps to make this world a better place for everyone.
Ben Barres

Nature performed an honorable service to science and humanity when it published Professor Ben A. Barres’s insightful and cogent article “Does gender matter?” (Nature 442, 133-136; 2006). In particular, I applaud Professor Barres for pairing a balanced treatment of bias against faculty who are members of minority groups along with his focus on gender bias in science. Often, even women who are advocating for gender equality exclude from their efforts other forms of social bias like racism. The entrenched social bias against women and members of minority populations in the scientific enterprise must first be acknowledged before it can be debunked. Barres provides a comprehensive path to accelerate reductions in gender bias as well as other forms of social discrimination in mathematics, science, and engineering. His article validates those who have been fighting the good fight, and it encourages those who have been sitting on the sidelines to get involved towards reducing social biases that prevent many members of our society a fair chance to realize their full potential. When great potential is damaged or lost altogether, we all lose.

For some reason, my previous attempt to post did not come through.
I suggest what is needed is more quantitative research on whether discrimination occurs, such as the study suggesting that grants by a female are reviewed more favorably when the gender is not disclosed, and that a woman needs to be three times as productive to be viewed as equally competant. Assuming that these data are correct, the next question is, what is the subject of such discrimination to do about it? If she complains, she is seen as a whiner or poor loser, or as "failing to see the big picture." If she does not, she risks failure to advance in her career, and is quite possibly forced to drop out of science, where a man with equal talents would advance. Is it a wonder there are fewer "women at the top?"

Hiding from scientific facts does not help any group - least of all women!

I was horrified to read Ben Barres commentary in the July 13th 2006 issue of Nature magazine. This person calls himself a scientist? Clearly he has neither read Pinker nor Lawrence with any kind of care or he would not be on this disingenuous smear campaign against them. But personalities aside, what I would like to know is since when did a woman trapped inside a man's body, become the authority on how women must experience the world? Isn’t such a woman already dealing with much larger and more complex psychological issues of identity? I raise this issue because Barres uses anecdotes from his previous life as a woman to promote his case.

Unfortunately there are a few salient points in this debate that seem to have been missed entirely. Firstly when people like Barres want to squash this debate what does it say about their objectivity as scientists? It's one thing to disagree with the interpretation of the data but to say that anyone who even posits a different hypothesis must be sexist, is quite another matter. How about letting science sort out the facts and then we can debate policy --- that is, if such a debate is even needed. Secondly, even if there are innate differences between men and women (and it stands to reason there are) that does not automatically imply that any individual man or woman is inferior or superior; individual capability is the only correct measure. After all, we are discussing average differences in ability. Statistics 101, anyone? Importantly, nor does it imply that we need differences in policy for different groups.

I grew up and studied engineering in India from a top institution, where I was one of the only two women among a class of about five hundred men. I constantly faced overt discrimination and questions about my ability and choice of profession. Despite the sexism that I personally faced in a society like India (where both men and especially women make it their life's mission to keep women down), I have become increa