\n When Lawrence H. Summers, the president of Harvard, suggested this We certainly think so. Our understanding Has science found compelling evidence of inherent sex disparities Talk about asking the wrong question! Just by inserting "We can’t get anywhere denying that there are neurological Our conclusions were remarkably similar. The physical, from the New York Times<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Academia is all atwitter over the provocative comments by Harvard President Lawrence Summers who merely suggested that innate differences between the sexes might be one factor deserving of more research as our society tries to understand and rectify the paucity … Continue reading ![](\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/dowbrigade\/mfbrain.jpg\")
Academia
\n is all atwitter over the provocative comments by Harvard President Lawrence
\n Summers who merely suggested that
\n innate differences between the sexes might be one factor deserving of
\n more research as our society tries to understand and rectify the paucity
\n of women in the upper echelons of hard science. According to the New
\n York Times:<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n month that one factor in women’s lagging progress in science and
\n mathematics
\n might be innate differences between the sexes, he slapped a bit of
\n brimstone into a debate that has simmered for decades. And though his comments
\n elicited so many fierce reactions that he quickly apologized, many
\n were
\n left to wonder: Did he have a point?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n of the scientific method is that it encourages the postulation of every
\n conceivable hypothesis,
\n even those one finds personally odious, in an effort to disprove and
\n discard as much as to prove or approve. In fact, we wrote a very thorough
\n paper on this very topic 30 years ago at Harvard, and although the science
\n has filled in a lot of the blanks in the intervening decades, our conclusions
\n were pretty much the same as the current scientific consensus, as described
\n by this
\n article<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n in the relevant skills, or perhaps in the drive to succeed at all costs,
\n that could help account for the persistent paucity of women in science
\n generally, and at the upper tiers of the profession in particular?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n the phrase "or perhaps in the drive to succeed at all costs" the Times reporter is
\n injecting his own spin and interpretation on this issue. Succeed
\n at what? And how is success measured? And if "at all cost" includes
\n the neglect of family and children, shouldn’t we be trying to insert
\n a little balance in the driven MALE researcher’s lives rather than
\n trying to get women to emulate them?<\/p>\n\n
\n and hormonal differences between males and females, because there clearly
\n are," said Virginia Valian, a psychology professor at Hunter College
\n who wrote the 1998 book "Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women." "The
\n trouble we have as scientists is in assessing their significance to
\n real-life performance."<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n neurological and chemical differences are demonstrable and indisputable,
\n but it is impossible to scientifically demonstrate how much of the observed
\n performance differential is due to innate differences and how much is
\n due to cultural and personality factors. We suspected then, and continue
\n to suspect today, that if the more of the researchers in this topic were
\n women they would uncover a long list of cognitive and performance areas
\n in which women are measurably better than men, and we are not talking
\n about cooking and gardening.<\/p>\n