We have read and reread the recently "So "I Now, Lawrence Summers is not a geneticist, or a biologist, or a social That’s what leaders do – they set agendas for others to follow. Summers It is up to those serving under the leader (in this case, research faculty) This specific question harks back to one of the central issues in Even more fundamental is our understanding of the scientific method, Questions of political correctness and off-limit topics may be appropriate This is not a recent conundrum. The history of science is studded Today we see political, social and economic pressure being placed on Is this modern dominance of political and economic powers in setting Dusting off our hat of Cultural Anthropologist, it often seems that In most cases, members of each group lack both However, with the advent of the scientific revolution and the development In a final ironic twist, and our last feeble attempt to bring this posting In matriarchies it is different. In most of the few existing indigenous Universities are supposed to be ivory towers rising above the jungle latest on Summers problems from the Harvard Crimson<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Dowbrigade continues to be confused and disturbed by the controversy surrounding the recent remarks by Harvard President Lawrence Summers concerning possible sources of the sexual disparity at the highest levels of teaching and research positions at America’s leading universities. … Continue reading ![](\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/dowbrigade\/shareach.jpg\")
The
\n Dowbrigade continues to be confused and disturbed by the controversy
\n surrounding the recent
\n remarks<\/a> by Harvard President Lawrence Summers
\n concerning possible sources of the sexual disparity at the highest levels
\n of teaching and research positions at America’s leading universities.<\/p>\n
\n released transcript<\/a> of Summers
\n statement, and it seems clear that he was putting on the table a number
\n of possible theses which could shed light on the easily observable but
\n difficult to explain differences in representation and achievement between
\n men and women in the sciences. For example, he said:<\/p>\n
\n my best guess, to provoke you, of what’s behind all of this is that
\n the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people’s
\n legitimate family desires and employers’ current desire for high power
\n and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering,
\n there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability
\n of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are
\n in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination."
\n …and…<\/p>\n
\n don’t know the answer, but I think if people want to move the world
\n on this question, they have to be willing to ask the question in ways
\n that could face any possible answer that came out."<\/p>\n
\n scientist of any stripe. But he is the President of Harvard University,
\n and as such his role is to ask provocative questions, to open lines of
\n inquiry,
\n and
\n to suggest areas worthy of investigation and research for others to follow
\n up.<\/p>\n
\n did not say that women are inferior to men in scientific aptitude or
\n ability. He merely suggested that genetic differences between men
\n and women are a POSSIBLE source of SOME of the disparity between the
\n sexes, and an area worthy of continued research.<\/p>\n
\n to enact the agenda (in this case, design experiments to explore the
\n relative importance of sex differences in academic achievement and faculty
\n appointments).<\/p>\n
\n modern behavioral science – nature vs. nurture – i.e. how much of what we are depends on our genes,
\n and how much on our environment and experience. Almost all experts agree
\n that in the real world actual human lives are a result of a complex interaction
\n of these two areas of influence, and hold that experiments can
\n be designed to isolate and illuminate the relative importance of each
\n in any particular observed behavior.<\/p>\n
\n the modus operandi of the entire rationalist worldview. We were taught
\n that it consists of observation of measurable phenomena, formulation
\n of hypotheses
\n to
\n explain them, and design and execution of repeatable experiments to prove
\n or disprove these hypotheses. Formulation of a hypothesis does
\n not<\/strong> and
\n cannot<\/strong> be interpreted
\n as advocacy
\n of a position or discrimination against alternate explanations. The
\n ability of scientists to freely formulate and attempt to verify or disprove
\n hypotheses is the core value that makes the scientific method work,
\n and the introduction of political, personal or profit-oriented pressures
\n on researchers not to ask certain questions or form certain hypotheses
\n brings the validity of the entire method and its results into serious
\n doubt.<\/p>\n
\n during the INTERPRETATION of experimental results, but NOT during the
\n development
\n of hypotheses. If the professional
\n or political climate are allowed to determine what questions can and
\n cannot be asked, the answers themselves lose their validity and significance.<\/p>\n
\n with trail-blazing thinkers and experimenters who were pressured, persecuted
\n or prosecuted by the political powers-that-be of their times. Italian
\n astronomer
\n Galileo
\n Galilel <\/a>was hounded, arrested, tried, imprisoned and basically terminated
\n by the Catholic
\n Church<\/a> (at that time more a political than a religious
\n organization), for claiming the earth revolved around the sun. Leonardo
\n da Vinci <\/a>was forced to great extremes to hide his research into human
\n anatomy, due to prohibitions against doing anything to dead bodies but
\n burying or burning them. Who can say that without the political pressure
\n of the papists the first volume off old Johann<\/a> Gutenberg’s<\/a> press
\n would have been a treatise on fly fishing or recipes for making beer?<\/p>\n
\n scientists and researchers every day, in a thousand ways, overtly, covertly
\n and expertly.
\n We see it in earning potential and lifestyle carrots and sticks guiding
\n talented researchers into certain fields and lines of inquiry. We see
\n it in medical
\n research, and the controversy around stem cells. We see
\n it in medical care, where the power of the international pharmaceutical
\n industry imposes a treatment model heavy on the drugs at the expense
\n of therapy and lifestyle modification. We se it in the energy industry
\n where the assumption of the first wholly owned Petro-President has swept
\n the already anemic alternative energy research sector even further under
\n the rug. <\/p>\n
\n the agenda for scientific research inevitable?
\n It seems to be deeply rooted in the lines of power in our culture. It
\n certainly dates back to the pre-history. Probably
\n the person who invented the lost wax method of casting statues was immediately
\n put to work casting likenesses of that culture’s fearless leader or god,
\n often one and the same.<\/p>\n
\n the individuals who stand out and above the masses of humanity, who make
\n a lasting impact on what we know as history, are motivated by one of
\n two things: a thirst for power, or a thirst for knowledge. This
\n is a gross over-simplification, but sometimes painting with a broad brush
\n can put details into context. Politicians, business magnates, tribal
\n chiefs, populists, proselytizers and generals are driven by the lust
\n for power. Scientists, philosophers, shamen, artists and mystics are
\n driven by a lust for knowledge. <\/p>\n
\n the time and the inclination to become expert in the skills necessary
\n to succeed in the other arena. And in almost every case, in every part
\n of the world and throughout recorded history, it is the power gang that
\n gives the orders to, and sets the agenda for, the knowledge guys.<\/p>\n
\n of modern scientific accumulation of knowledge based on repeatable experimentation,
\n the value of free formulation of hypotheses seemed to be firmly established,
\n at least as an attainable ideal. The attacks on Summers for suggesting
\n we look closely at inherent differences between the sexes makes us wonder
\n if this is still the case.<\/p>\n
\n back to the vicinity of its origin, Summers can place some of the blame
\n for his hens coming home to roost on the fact that he is operating in
\n a long-running patriarchy. With a precious few exceptions, patriarchies
\n have held sway around the planet for, oh, three or four thousand years,
\n at least. It is in patriarchies that the dichotomy between power
\n seekers and knowledge seekers is most pronounced. In primal patriarchies,
\n with the Alpha Males firmly in charge, the ultimate political power
\n almost always lay with the military – the fiercest warrior was king.
\n The Chief Knowledge Officer, the Shaman, usually took orders from the
\n Conan the Warrior King.<\/p>\n
\n matriarchies the woman in charge IS a shaman. Her healing and spiritual
\n knowledge are what empower and enable her to rule. In matriarchies
\n the knowledge seekers set the agenda and order the priorities. Another
\n gross over-simplification, but who’s counting?<\/p>\n
\n of politics and business. The public trial of Lawrence Summers
\n for suggesting a possible line of investigation is evidence the jungle
\n is creeping into the tower.<\/p>\n