> Columns > Boston
Globe > Women, science, and the gender gap
Women, science, and the gender gap
By Cathy Young | October 2, 2006
THE DEBATE over gender and science, which helped bring down Harvard
President Lawrence Summers this year, has been revived by a new report
from the National Academies, ``Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling
the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering."
The report endorses the view that the predominance of men in scientific
fields is due not to biological differences and personal priorities,
as Summers suggested, but to gender bias and unconscious institutional
sexism. But is this an effort to find out the truth, or to stamp
The makeup of the panel that produced the report is revealing. Chaired
by University of Miami President Donna E. Shalala, known for her
commitment to feminist causes, the panel included a number of strong
proponents of the belief that women in science are held back primarily
by sexism and that aggressive remedies to these biases are needed.
Noticeably absent were proponents of other viewpoints -- including
such female scientists as Vanderbilt University psychologist Camilla
Persson Benbow or Canadian neuroscientist Doreen Kimura, who argue
that biological sex differences influence cognitive skills in some
The report has been hailed as a decisive refutation of what panel
member Ana Mari Cauce, executive vice provost of the University of
Washington in Seattle, dismissed as ``myths" about women in science.
A Reuters story stated, ``A committee of experts looked at all the
possible excuses -- biological differences in ability, hormonal influences,
childrearing demands, and even differences in ambition -- and found
no good explanation for why women are being locked out."
But a look at the report, available online from the National Academies
Press, shows a much more complex picture.
For instance, the report points to the narrowing gap between boys'
and girls' mathematics test scores as evidence that there are no
innate differences to inhibit female success. But average test scores
are not a good indicator of what it takes to be successful in the
scientific field. As the report briefly acknowledges, male scores
have far greater variability, with more boys clustered at the bottom,
among children with severe learning disabilities, and at the top,
among the highly gifted.
The report attempts to neutralize this fact by pointing to a study
that found that many women and men in the science, engineering, and
mathematics workforce have SAT math scores below the ``gifted" level.
But there's a caveat: the study looked not primarily at the highest
achievers, but mainly at lower-level professionals with bachelor's
degrees. If fewer average women than average men go into these fields,
maybe because their interests lie elsewhere, is that really a problem?
The body of the report also supports, rather than rebuts, the view
that childrearing is a major factor in gender disparities.
It cites a study that ``found single women scientists and engineers
[were] 16 percent more likely than single men to be in tenure track
jobs five years after the PhD, while married women with children
were 45 percent less likely than married men with children to be
in tenure track positions."
Yet these facts are treated as a result of discrimination against
people with family responsibilities and of the outmoded assumption
that a scientist has a spouse to take care of such matters. Proposed
remedies include more family-friendly policies. But what if single-minded
devotion to work really is essential to outstanding success in science?
None of this is to say that women are incapable of being outstanding
scientists -- many women are, and their advances in these fields
have been spectacular -- or that nothing can be done further to reduce
the gender gap. Cultural stereotypes undoubtedly play a role in the
fact that even mathematically and scientifically gifted girls are
more likely than boys to choose ``human interest" professions rather
We can also do more to reduce lingering prejudice against mothers
who are not primary caregivers for their children, and against fathers
who are. But even with these changes -- which need to take place
in the culture as a whole, far more than in academic and scientific
institutions -- the ratio of women to men in science and engineering
may always remain below 1-to-1.
Ultimately, the report is a missed opportunity. It could have addressed
the personal and family choices women could make to maximize their
career potential, or looked at the factors in the high achievement
of Asian-American women in science. (Asian-Americans are virtually
ignored in all the talk of minority women in science.) Instead, it
upholds an orthodoxy of female victimization. Women, and science,