Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science

A few months ago, this article in PLoS by Dr. Peter Lawrence caught my eye. Its thesis, essentially, is that we should not expect equal numbers of men and women to pursue successful scientific careers because the two genders are in fact, contrary to idealistic belief, different. But before we rise up in indignation to give old Dr. Lawrence the Summers treatment, let's look a little more closely at what he has to say.

The "ghosts" to which the title alludes are "wayward beliefs and delusions" such as "the dogma that all groups of people, such as men and women, are on average the same, and any genetic distinctions must not be countenanced." Dr. Lawrence dares to argue that "boys and girls are different and remain so," and he cites Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen's recent article interpreting autism as an excessively "male" brain - good at systematizing and focusing narrowly, poor at empathy and communication - as well as a number of earlier studies. Although the qualities Dr. Lawrence discusses apply to male and female populations on average, not to every individual within those populations, he is very clear in his views that women are generally less ruthless, competitive, and self-aggrandizing, and thus tend to fare worse in the struggle to survive in science today.

But far from asserting that these differences make women poorer scientists, Dr. Lawrence attacks the scientific establishment for selecting for "male" qualities that have nothing to do with good science and in fact are likely to hinder it. Gone are the days when a socially inept male commanding a subfield of arcane natural history knowledge could function as an ideal researcher. We are now in an age of "big science" in which leadership and teamwork have become critical for productivity, and it is high time that we gave greater appreciation in the selection process to "feminine" virtues like understanding others and helping them to develop their diverse abilities. According to Dr. Lawrence, this sea change in the current discriminatory scientific selection process would lead to more women in science and to better science.

While applauding the spirit of this rallying cry, I would like to point out a couple of concerns. First, I have no doubt that male and female brains, on average, are different at birth due to genetic differences and/or hormonal millieu. However, I do think that we need to be very cautious about predicting the extent to which those initial differences might determine gender-biased behaviors later in life. For example, even if, on average, little boys begin with better spatial skills and little girls with greater empathy and verbal skills, these initial differences could reinforced and amplified for any of a number of reasons: 1) they are more motivated to practice skills they are good at, 2) their primary playmates will probably be of the same gender and thus prefer to practice those same skills in play, and/or 3) even if their parents are vigilant about discouraging gender stereotypes in the home, they will be bombarded by media and societal messages informing them that boys are supposed to like computers and cars while girls like to play house and hairdresser.

Second, in my opinion, the main omission in Dr. Lawrence's analysis is that he fails to take seriously the socioeconomic biases against women pursuing any highly demanding career, particularly one involving the long hours and relatively poor pay of academic science. The fact is that many women, even highly intelligent and ambitious ones, would like to have families, and no matter how starry-eyed they are on beginning graduate school, they soon realize from observing the few senior women in their departments that very little support exists for that. They certainly can't afford to pay for childcare in their graduate or postdoctoral years unless they are independently wealthy or married to someone who can shoulder the large majority of the financial burden. They will be struggling to land an assistant professorship and/or achieve tenure - hardly the preferred time in their careers for sleepless nights and frequent illness - during their best child-bearing years. And although Dr. Lawrence blithely states that "after about six months or so, there is no reason, in principle, why the main carer of the children should not be the father," in practice this is extremely rare among even the most enlightened couples.

So if we want to increase the retention of women in science in order to take advantage of more feminine leadership skills, create more supportive working environments, and provide role models for future Frances Cricks, it will not be enough to select for originality and insight over aggression and self-promotion. We need to recognize that the same feminine qualities that would make particular women (and men) nurturing mentors are also likely to make them good parents - and that we can and should take concrete steps to support their desires to be both. More affordable childcare options (preferably on-site at universities and research institutions) and more flexible working hours and tenure clocks would be a huge step in the right direction.