Now on ScienceBlogs: Live Organ Transplants

Seed Media Group

« Do Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves? | Main | My Next Car »

Is Science Sexist?

Category: Culture
Posted on: July 13, 2006 10:23 AM, by Jonah Lehrer

I'm not so sure, but two prominent scientists, both of whom are transgendered, allege that scientists regularly discriminate and "ostracize" ambitious female scientists. This is the latest twist of the Larry Summers Debate, which has grown a wee bit tiresome. I alluded to Joan Roughgarden's allegations in Seed last month, but the WSJ has an article on Ben Barres (formerly Barbara Barres), who is also convinced that women and men are treated differently by the scientific establishment. Here is Sharon Begley's great lead:

Ben Barres had just finished giving a seminar at the prestigious Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research 10 years ago, describing to scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and other top institutions his discoveries about nerve cells called glia. As the applause died down, a friend later told him, one scientist turned to another and remarked what a great seminar it had been, adding, "Ben Barres's work is much better than his sister's."

There was only one problem. Prof. Barres, then as now a professor of neurobiology at Stanford University, doesn't have a sister in science. The Barbara Barres the man remembered was Ben.

Prof. Barres is transgendered, having completed the treatments that made him fully male 10 years ago. The Whitehead talk was his first as a man, so the research he was presenting was done as Barbara.

Share on: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/16030

Comments (8)

1

Sexism in science, indeed in any domain, makes a testable prediction: that the male : female ratio is positively correlated with the degree of sexism -- for instance, psychologists must not be very sexist at all, biologists are somewhat sexist, while physicists & mathematicians are troglodytes. In the arts, literary figures must not be very sexist at all, visual artists & designers are pretty sexist, while music composers are utter cavemen. Assuming that the imbalanced ratio itself is no prima facie evidence of sexism, then I know of no evidence establishing this hierarchy of sexism within the sciences & arts.

Posted by: Agnostic | July 13, 2006 11:14 AM

2

"I'm not so sure, but two prominent female scientists, both of whom were formerly male scientists..."

Isn't one a man who used to be a woman, and the other a woman who used to be a man?

Posted by: RPM | July 13, 2006 11:22 AM

3

thanks alot for noticing my careless mistake. the post is now fixed.

Posted by: Jonah | July 13, 2006 11:29 AM

4

Is there sexism among scientists? Well, yes, obviously. Scientists, just like the rest of humans, are prone to inculcating stupid presumptions. Does that make science itself sexist? Well, no, obviously.

Posted by: bob koepp | July 13, 2006 12:19 PM

5

Whenever I hear a statement like 'Science is X', I know a confusing discussion will follow that plays on equivocations between
Science as a process
Science as a body of knowledge
Science as 'People who do science, or their values'
Science as technology
Science as 'U.S. science'
Even if the intended use is clear in the original speaker it invariably gets muddled in public discussion.

Posted by: tbell | July 13, 2006 1:47 PM

6

Yeah, it's an interesting article, the letter by Ben Barres in Nature. I addressed it in my blog (www.ilikethings.net), it's obvious that Dr. Barres is taking the arguement that men on average may just be better at progressing in science than women, very personally. What I would have thought would be obvious, is that because men and women clearly have their own neuropsychological strengths, men and women are not likely to be exactly as good as each other at different aspects of science.

Posted by: BilZ0r | July 13, 2006 6:13 PM

7

Anyone consider the possibility that his research 10 years before actually did suck? People can improve with age you know, and maybe feeling like a man trapped in a woman's body negatively impacted his work.

Anyway, I don't mean to be a jackass, really. I believe scientists as a profession tends towards a patriarchy. But it isn't the science it's the scientists who are to blame. People bring their bigotries to work all the time, and you shouldn't be surprised that scientists do it too, we're all human after all. Even good scientists do it, as anyone who has read Gould's the Mismeasure of Man would know. Science is a human effort, and therefore will always be contaminated with human flaws and flawed humans to some degree (though less than other belief systems).

If you don't think science can be patriarchical? Try working at a southern university. You'll see it, just wait a while.

Posted by: Quitter | July 13, 2006 8:01 PM

8

Quitter, there was a Swedish study about five years ago that showed, even in that oh-so-egalitarian society, that women had to do five times as much publishing of papers to be regarded as well as men.

It reminds me of Nelly McClung's comment, "To be thought half as good as a man, a woman must work twice as hard; luckily, that's not difficult."

Posted by: Monado | July 19, 2006 2:12 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM