George Will complained aboout academics again in a column published a couple of weeks ago. His target? The reaction to Larry Summers comments about the possibility that innate biological differences are, in part, responsible for the relatively small number of women found in tenured positions on science faculties. He argues that “In today's academy, no social solecism is as unforgivable as the expression of a hypothesis that offends someone's ‘progressive’ sensibilities,” that “[t]here is a vast and growing scientific literature on possible gender differences in cognition. Only hysterics denounce interest in those possible differences ... as ‘bias.’”
Will is right. Only hysterics denounce interest in cognitive differences between men and women as bias. He is also wrong. The “hysterics” surrounding Summers comments are not denouncing interest in the topic, they are denouncing the suggestion that innate differences play an important role in determining the relative success of women and men in academic scientific career.
There is a broad consensus that women and men have certain differences in their cognitive processes. A 1987 paper (references available at lecture notes) summarizes evidence that women and men differ in such basic perceptual function as hearing, vision, taste, and touch. More recent work suggests differences in spatial perception, mental rotation, spatial visualization, and spatiotemporal ability.
Unfortunately, we biologists have done a poor job of education. Even smart people, like Will, leap from a conclusion that there is a genetic influence on a trait to the conclusion that the trait is immutable. In this case, Summers suggested that there is an innate diference between women and men in their mathematical and scientific abilities. The implication is that if the difference is innate, we can't do anything about it. That's why the discussion is so pernicious.
But consider a well-defined genetic disorder like phenylketonuria. A small proportion of human infants are born with a deficiency in phenylalanie hydroxylase. As a result, they are unable to metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine and prone to develop severe mental retardation. If the affected individuals eat a diet low in phenylalanie, however, their development is completely normal. An “innate” defect can be corrected by changing the environment that individual experienced.
The differences between women and men in innate scientific and mathematical ability, if they exist, are small. More importantly, we know that by providing appropriate educational opportunities and encouragement, we can improve the performance of all people, women and men. Similarly, we know that the number of women in science and engineering faculty positions is vastly greater now than it was 100 years ago. And we know that this change is a result of changes in society and its expecations, not a change in the genetic makeups of women and men.
Given all of this, there is no point in discussing whether or not genes differentially influence the success of women and men in science. We can't change the genes we carry (at least not yet), but we can change the social structure and incentives of the institutions of which we are part. And we know that changing those institutions will go a long way to enhancing the participation of women in science. Rather than imagining that “innate” differences are somehow responsible for the small number of tenured women faculty, we should focus on identifying and removing social, cultural, and institutional barriers to success. Focusing on “innate” tendencies is merely an excuse to do nothing. Focusin on social factors will make a difference, and it will make a difference by ensuring that all people are given the opportunity to reach their full potential.
Leave a comment