This page has been archived and is no longer updated

Does Gender Matter? by Ben A Barres "argument in an online debate 2 , and an almost identical view was elaborated in a 2006 essay by Peter Lawrence entitled ?Men, Women and Ghosts in Science? 3 . Whereas Summers pref- aced his statements by saying he was trying to be provocative, Lawrence did not. Whereas Summers talked about ?different availability of aptitude at the high end,? Lawrence talked about average aptitudes differing. Lawrence argued that, even in a utopian world free of bias, women would still be under-represented in science because they are innately different from men. Lawrence draws from the work of Simon Baron-Cohen 4 in arguing that males are ?on average? biologically predisposed to systematize, W hen I was 14 years old, I had an unusually talented maths teacher. One day after school, I excitedly pointed him out to my mother. To my amaze- ment, she looked at him with shock and said with disgust: ?You never told me that he was black?. I looked over at my teacher and, for the first time, realized that he was an African- American. I had somehow never noticed his skin colour before, only his spectacular teach- ing ability. I would like to think that my par- ents? sincere efforts to teach me prejudice were unsuccessful. I don?t know why this lesson takes for some and not for others. But now that I am 51, as a female-to-male transgendered person, I still wonder about it, particularly when I hear male gym teachers telling young boys ?not to be like girls? in that same deroga- tory tone. Hypothesis testing Last year, Harvard University president Larry Summers suggested that differences in innate aptitude rather than discrimination were more likely to be to blame for the failure of women to advance in scientific careers 1 . Harvard pro- fessor Steven Pinker then put forth a similar to analyse and to be more forgetful of others, whereas females are ?on average? innately designed to empathize, to communicate and to care for others. He further argues that men are innately better equipped to aggressively compete in the ?vicious struggle to survive? in science. Similarly, Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield states in his new book, Manliness 5 , that women don?t like to compete, are risk adverse, less abstract and too emotional. I will refer to this view ? that women are not advancing because of innate inability rather than because of bias or other factors ? as the Larry Summers Hypothesis. It is a view that seems to have resonated widely with male, but not female, scientists. Here, I will argue that available scientific data do not provide credible support for the hypothesis but instead support an alternative one: that women are not advancing because of discrimination. You might call this the ?Stephen Jay Gould Hypoth- esis? (see left). I have no desire to make men into villains (as Henry Kissinger once said, ?Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes; there?s just too much fraternizing with the enemy?). As to who the practitioners of this bias are, I will be pointing my finger at women Vol 442|13 July 2006 COMMENTARY 133 Does gender matter? The suggestion that women are not advancing in science because of innate inability is being taken seriously by some high-profile academics. Ben A. Barres explains what is wrong with the hypothesis. ? Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life, few injustices deeper than the denial of an opportunity to strive or even to hope, by a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as lying within. ? ? Stephen Jay Gould M. GOLD W A TER/ ALAM Y 13.7 Commentary NEW WF 11/7/06 11:53 AM Page 133 Nature Publishing Group �2006 COMMENTARY NATURE|Vol 442|13 July 2006 134 as much as men. I am certain that all the pro- ponents of the Larry Summers Hypothesis are well-meaning and fair-minded people, who agree that treatment of individuals should be based on merit rather than on race, gender or religion stereotypes. The sums don?t add up Like many women and minorities, however, I am suspicious when those who are at an advantage proclaim that a disadvantaged group of people is innately less able. Histori- cally, claims that disadvantaged groups are innately inferior have been based on junk sci- ence and intolerance 6 . Despite powerful social factors that discourage women from studying maths and science from a very young age 7 , there is little evidence that gender differences in maths abilities exist, are innate or are even relevant to the lack of advancement of women in science 8 . A study of nearly 20,000 maths scores of children aged 4 to 18, for instance, found little difference between the genders (Fig. 1) 9 , and, despite all the social forces that hold women back from an early age, one-third of the winners of the elite Putnam Math Competition last year were women. Moreover, differences in maths-test results are not corre- lated with the gender divide between those who choose to leave science 10 . I will explain why I believe that the Larry Summers Hypoth- esis amounts to nothing more than blaming the victim, why it is so harmful to women, and what can and should be done to help women advance in science. If innate intellectual abilities are not to blame for women?s slow advance in science careers, then what is? The foremost factor, I believe, is the societal assumption that women are innately less able than men. Many studies, summarized in Virginia Valian?s excellent book Why So Slow? 11 , have demonstrated a substantial degree of bias against women ? more than is sufficient to block women?s advancement in many professions. Here are a few examples of bias from my own life as a young woman. As an undergrad at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), I was the only person in a large class of nearly all men to solve a hard maths problem, only to be told by the professor that my boyfriend must have solved it for me. I was not given any credit. I am still disappointed about the presti- gious fellowship competition I later lost to a male contemporary when I was a PhD student, even though the Harvard dean who had read both applications assured me that my applica- tion was much stronger (I had published six high-impact papers whereas my male com- petitor had published only one). Shortly after I changed sex, a faculty member was heard to say ?Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but then his work is much better than his sister?s.? Anecdotes, however, are not data, which is why gender-blinding studies are so important 11 . These studies reveal that in many selection processes, the bar is unconsciously raised so high for women and minority candidates that few emerge as winners. For instance, one study found that women applying for a research grant needed to be 2.5 times more productive than men in order to be considered equally competent (Fig. 2) 12 . Even for women lucky enough to obtain an academic job, gender biases can influence the relative resources allocated to faculty, as Nancy Hopkins discovered when she and a senior faculty com- mittee studied this problem at MIT. The data were so convincing that MIT president Charles Vest publicly admitted that discrimination was responsible. For talented women, academia is all too often not a meritocracy. In denial Despite these studies, very few men or women are willing to admit that discrimination is a serious problem in science. How is that pos- sible? Valian suggests that we all have a strong desire to believe that the world is fair 11 . Remarkably, women are as likely as men to deny the existence of gender-based bias 13 . Accomplished women who manage to make it to the top may ?pull up the ladder behind them?, perversely believing that if other women are less successful, then one?s own success seems even greater. Another explanation is a phe- nomenon known as ?denial of personal disad- vantage?, in which women compare their advancement with other women rather than with men 11 . My own denial of the situation persisted until last year, when, at the age of 50, several events opened my eyes to the barriers that women and minorities still face in academia. In addition to the Summers speech, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began the most pres- tigious competition they have ever run, the Pioneer Award, but with a nomination process that favoured male applicants 14 . To their credit, in response to concerns that 60 of 64 judges and all 9 winners were men, the NIH has revamped their Pioneer Award selection pro- cess to make it fairer. I hope that the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) will address similar problems with their investigator competi- tions. When it comes to bias, it seems that the desire to believe in a meritocracy is so powerful that until a person has experi- enced sufficient career-harming bias them- selves they simply do not believe it exists. My main purpose in writing this commen- tary is that I would like female students to feel that they will have equal opportunity in their scientific careers. Until intolerance is addressed, women will continue to advance only slowly. Of course, this feeling is also deeply personal to me (see ?Personal experi- ences?). The comments of Summers, Mans- field, Pinker and Lawrence about women?s lesser innate abilities are all wrongful and per- sonal attacks on my character and capabilities, Standar diz ed math sc or es 75 50 25 0 4681012141618 Age when tested Girls Boys Figure 1 | Maths-test scores for ages 4 to 18.In the United States there is little to distinguish the maths- test scores of boys and girls throughout school. ?I am suspicious when those who are at an advantage proclaim that a disadvantaged group of people is innately less able.? 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 0?19 20?39 40?59 60?99 >99 Scientific productivity C ompetenc e sc or e Men Women Figure 2 | Competence scores awarded after peer review. Peer reviewers in Sweden award lower competence scores to female scientists than to similarly productive male scientists. Few women, as well as men, are willing to admit that there is discrimination in academia. P . TURNLEY / C ORBIS 13.7 Commentary NEW WF 11/7/06 11:53 AM Page 134 Nature Publishing Group �2006 NATURE|Vol 442|13 July 2006 COMMENTARY 135 as well as on my colleagues? and students? abil- ities and self esteem. I will certainly not sit around silently and endure them. Mansfield and others claim that women are more emotional than men. There is absolutely no science to support this contention. On the contrary, it is men that commit the most vio- lent crimes in anger ? for example, 25 times more murders than women. The only hysteria that exceeded MIT professor Nancy Hopkins? (well-founded) outrage after Larry Summers? comments was the shockingly vicious news coverage by male reporters and commentators. Hopkins also received hundreds of hateful and even pornographic messages, nearly all from men, that were all highly emotional. Taboo or untrue? There is no scientific support, either, for the contention that women are innately less com- petitive (although I believe powerful curiosity and the drive to create sustain most scientists far more than the love of competition). How- ever, many girls are discouraged from sports for fear of being labelled tomboys. A 2002 study did find a gender gap in competitiveness in financial tournaments, but the authors sug- gested that this was due to differences in self confidence rather than ability 15 . Indeed, again and again, self confidence has been pointed to as a factor influencing why women ?choose? to leave science and engineering programmes. When women are repeatedly told they are less good, their self confidence falls and their ambitions dim 16 . This is why Valian has concluded that simply raising expectations for women in science may be the single most important factor in helping them make it to the top 11 . 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 danger- ous that it is sinful even to think about it 17 . Harvard Law School professor Alan Der- showitz sympathizes so strongly with this view that he plans to teach a course next year called ?Taboo?. At Harvard we must have veri- tas; all ideas are fair game. I completely agree. I welcome any future studies that will provide a better understanding of why women and minorities are not advancing at the expected rate in science and so many other professions. But it is not the idea alone that has sparked anger. Disadvantaged people are wondering why privileged people are brushing the truth under the carpet. If a famous scientist or a president of a prestigious university is going to pronounce in public that women are likely to be innately inferior, would it be too much to ask that they be aware of the relevant data? It would seem that just as the bar goes way up for women applicants in academic selection processes, it goes way down when men are evaluating the evidence for why women are not advancing in science. That is why women are angry. It is incumbent upon those pro- claiming gender differences in abilities to rig- orously address whether suspected differences are real before suggesting that a whole group of people is innately wired to fail. What happens at Harvard and other univer- sities serves as a model for many other institu- tions, so it would be good to get it right. To anyone who is upset at the thought that free speech is not fully protected on university campuses, I would like to ask, as did third-year Harvard Law student Tammy Pettinato: what is the difference between a faculty member calling their African-American students lazy and one pronouncing that women are innately inferior? Some have suggested that those who are angry at Larry Summers? comments should simply fight words with more words (hence this essay). In my view, when faculty tell their students that they are innately inferior based on race, religion, gender or sexual ori- entation, they are crossing a line that should not be crossed ? the line that divides free speech from verbal violence ? and it should not be tolerated at Harvard or anywhere else. In a culture where women?s abilities are not respected, women cannot effectively learn, advance, lead or participate in society in a fulfilling way. Take action Although I have argued that the Larry Sum- mers Hypothesis is incorrect and harmful, the academic community is one of the most toler- ant around. But, as tolerant as academics are, we are still human beings influenced by our culture. Comments by Summers and others have made it clear that discrimination remains an under-recognized problem that is far from solved. The progress of science increasingly depends on the global community, but only 10% of the world?s population is male and cau- casian. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, a first-class scientific enterprise cannot be built upon a foundation of second-class citizens. If women and minorities are to achieve their full potential, all of us need to be far more proac- tive. So what can be done? First, enhance leadership diversity in acade- mic and scientific institutions. Diversity pro- vides a substantially broader point of view, with more sensitivity and respect for different per- spectives, which is invaluable to any organiza- tion. More female leadership is vital in lessening As a transgendered person, no one understands more deeply than I do that there are innate differences between men and women. I suspect that my transgendered identity was caused by fetal exposure to high doses of a testosterone-like drug. But there is no evidence that sexually dimorphic brain wiring is at all relevant to the abilities needed to be successful in a chosen academic career. I underwent intensive cognitive testing before and after starting testosterone treatment about 10 years ago. This showed that my spatial abilities have increased as a consequence of taking testosterone. Alas, it has been to no avail; I still get lost all the time when driving (although I am no longer willing to ask for directions). There was one innate difference that I was surprised to learn is apparently under direct control of testosterone in adults ? the ability to cry easily, which I largely lost upon starting hormone treatment. Likewise, male-to- female transgendered individuals gain the ability to cry more readily. By far, the main difference that I have noticed is that people who don?t know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect: I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man. PERSONAL EXPERIENCES Stephen Pinker, Larry Summers and Peter Lawrence (left to right) all argue that innate differences are at least partly to blame for the failure of women to advance in science. H. BORDEN; R. FRIEDMAN/ C ORBIS; MR C C AMBRIDGE 13.7 Commentary NEW WF 11/7/06 11:53 AM Page 135 Nature Publishing Group �2006 COMMENTARY NATURE|Vol 442|13 July 2006 136 the hostile working environment that young women scientists often encounter. In addition to women and under-represented minority groups, we must not forget Asians and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered folks. There are enough outstanding scientific lead- ers in these racial and gender groups that anyone with a will to achieve a diverse leadership in their organization could easily attain it. Speak out Second, the importance of diverse fac- ulty role models cannot be overstated. There is much talk about equal oppor- tunity, but, in practice, serious atten- tion still needs to be directed at how to run fair job searches. Open searches often seem to be bypassed entirely for top leadership positions, just when it matters most ? search committees should not always be chaired by men and the committee itself should be highly diverse 14,18 . Implementation of special hiring strategies and strong deans willing to push department chairs to recruit top women scientists are especially effective. It is crucial in the promotion process that merit be decided by the quality, not quantity, of papers published. Women faculty, in particular, need help from their institutions in balancing career and family responsibilities. In an increasingly com- petitive environment, women with children must be able to compete for funding and thrive. Why can?t young faculty have the option of using their tuition benefits, in which some universities pay part of the college tuition fees for the children of faculty, for day care instead? Tuition benefits will be of no help if female scientists don?t make tenure. And institutions that have the financial capability, such as HHMI, could help by making more career- transition fellowships available for talented women scientists. Third, there should be less silence in the face of discrimination. Academic leadership has a particular responsibility to speak out, but we all share this responsibility. It takes minimal effort to send a brief message to the relevant authority when you note a lack of diversity in an organization or an act of discrimination. I don?t know why more women don?t speak out about sexism at their institutions, but I do know that they are often reluctant, even when they have the security of a tenured faculty position. Nancy Hopkins is an admirable role model, and it is time that others share the burden. It doesn?t only have to be women that support women. I was deeply touched by the eloquent words of Greg Petsko 19 following Summers? comments. And it has been 30 years since I was a medical student, but I still recall with gratitude the young male student who immediately complained to a professor who had shown a slide of a nude pin-up in his anatomy lecture. Fourth, enhance fairness in competitive selection processes. Because of evaluation bias, women and minorities are at a profound dis- advantage in such competitive selection unless the processes are properly designed 11,12,14,18 . As the revamped NIH Pioneer Award demon- strates, a few small changes can make a significant difference in outcome. By simply changing the procedure so that anyone can self-nominate and by ensuring a highly diverse selection committee, the number of women and minority winners went up to more than 50% from zero. This lesson can and should now be applied to other similar processes for scientific awards, grants and faculty posi- tions. Alas, too many selection committees still show a striking lack of diversity ? with typically greater than 90% white males. When selection processes are run fairly, reverse discrimination is not needed to attain a fair outcome. Confidence booster Finally, we can teach young scientists how to survive in a prejudiced world. Self-confidence is crucial in advancing and enjoying a research career. From an early age, girls receive mes- sages that they are not good enough to do sci- ence subjects or will be less liked if they are good at them. The messages come from many sources, including parents, friends, fellow stu- dents and, alas, teachers. When teachers have lower expectations of them, students do less well. But we are all at fault for send- ing these messages and for remain- ing silent when we encounter them. Teachers need to provide much more encouragement to young people, regardless of sex, at all stages of training.Occasional words of encouragement can have enor- mous effects. All students, male and female, would benefit from training in how to be more skillful presenters, to exert a presence at meetings by asking ques- tions, to make connections with fac- ulty members who may help them to obtain grants and a job, and to have the leadership skills necessary to survive and advance in academia. Because women and minorities tend to be less confident in these areas, their mentors in particular need to encourage them to be more proactive. I vividly recall my PhD supervisor coming with me to the talks of famous scientists and forcing me to introduce myself and to ask them questions. There is a great deal of hallway mentoring that goes on for young men that I am not sure many women and minorities receive (I wish that someone had mentioned to me when I was younger that life, even in science, is a popularity contest ? a message that Larry Summers might have fo und helpful as well). It is incumbent on all of us who are senior faculty to keep a look out for highly talented young people, including women and minority students, and help them in whatever way possible with their careers. a73 Ben A. Barres is at Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Neurobiology, Fairchild Building Room D235, 299 Campus Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5125, USA. e-mail: barres@stanford.edu 1. Summers, L. Letter to the Faculty Regarding NBER Remarks www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/summers/2005/ facletter.html (2005). 2. The Science of Gender and Science. Pinker vs. Spelke: A Debate www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.h tml (2005). 3. Lawrence, P. A. PLoS Biol. 4, 13?15 (2006). 4. Baron-Cohen, S. The Essential Difference: Men, Women, and the Extreme Male Brain (Allen Lane, London, 2003). 5. Mansfield, H. Manliness (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 2006). 6. Gould, S. J. The Mismeasure of Man (W. W. Norton & Co, New York, 1996). 7. Steele, C. M. Am. Psychol. 52, 613?629 (1997). 8. Spelke, E. S. Am. Psychol. 60, 950?958 (2005). 9. Leahey, E. & Guo, G. Soc. Forces 80.2, 713?732 (2001). 10. Xie, Y. & Shauman, K. Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003). 11. Valian, V. Why So Slow? (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998). 12. Wenner�s, C. & Wold, A. Nature 387, 341?343 (1997). 13. Rhode, D. L. Speaking of Sex: The Denial of Gender Inequality (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997). 14. Carnes, M. et al. J. Womens Health 14, 684?691 (2005). 15. Gneezy, U., Niederle, M. & Rustichini, A. Q. J. Econ. 18, 1049?1074 (2003). 16. Fels, A. Necessary Dreams (Pantheon Press, New York, 2004). 17. Pinker, S. New Repub.15 (14 Feb, 2005). 18. Moody, J. Faculty Diversity: Problems and Solutions (Taylor and Francis, New York, 2004). 19. Petsko, G. A. Genome Biol. 6, 1?3 (2005). ?Simply raising expectations for women in science may be the single most important factor in helping them make it to the top.? ? Virginia Valian At school, girls and boys show similar levels of ability in the sciences. J . WES T / ALAM Y 13.7 Commentary NEW WF 11/7/06 11:53 AM Page 136 Nature Publishing Group �2006 "

|



|



|

share Digg

Facebook

MySpace

Google+

Gene Inheritance and Transmission

Gene Expression and Regulation

Nucleic Acid Structure and Function

Chromosomes and Cytogenetics

Evolutionary Genetics

Population and Quantitative Genetics

Genomics

Genes and Disease

Genetics and Society Cell Origins and Metabolism

Proteins and Gene Expression

Subcellular Compartments

Cell Communication

Cell Cycle and Cell Division

Loading ...











Visual Browse