Healthy Living

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Do Women Have the Brains to be Scientists?

Nancy Hopkins, an MIT professor, walked out when the president of Harvard implied that women scientists were innately less talented than male ones. Now, the Nobel Prizes give her the last laugh.

It’s been a spectacular week for women in science, and a bad week for “the Larry Summers hypothesis." In 2005, while president of Harvard, he suggested that women are inherently worse than men at math, science and engineering, particularly at the highest levels. This week three women won Nobel prizes in science: two in medicine and one in chemistry.

That achievement should put the nail in the coffin of the question Summers raised: Can many women really be great scientists?

When I was a graduate student in biology at Harvard 40 years ago, my colleagues used to sit around discussing whether girls were capable of being great scientists.  Could a woman really win a Nobel Prize in molecular biology? Men I knew wondered if women’s brains were so different from men's that they couldn’t make the creative breakthroughs that lead to the greatest discoveries. That’s what I wondered too. Sure, there was Madame Curie--but there were too few Madame Curies to convince us she was anything but an exception.

It turns out that back then, in the dark ages for women in science, we were asking the wrong question. Instead of asking if women's brains were inferior, we should have asked why there were so few women at the major research universities and laboratories that breed future Nobel laureates.

In the late 1960s there were essentially no women on the science faculties of places like Harvard, Cal Tech and MIT (where I now work as a professor of molecular biology). Things began to change dramatically in the early 1970s, thanks to affirmative action measures taken under Richard Nixon. Those included the “Shultz regs” (George Shultz was Nixon's Secretary of Labor), which required universities to hire women onto their faculties or risk losing their federal funding. The Nobel prizes in medicine this week are the end result of those laws.  Nobelist Elizabeth Blackburn joined the Berkeley faculty in 1978 and Nobelist Carol Greider was her star graduate student. (The third new laureate is Ada Yonath, an Israeli.)

Until about 10 years ago, women still comprised only five percent of the science faculty at Harvard and eight percent at MIT, with similar numbers at other high-powered research universities. (Today 17 percent of the MIT science faculty are women, as a result of specific efforts by the MIT administration in collaboration with senior women faculty.)  But even those paltry numbers from 10 years ago have been enough to start yielding female Nobelists. In fact, if we assume that female faculty win these prizes at the same rate as male faculty, then only in the past couple of years have there been enough women employed at MIT to begin producing Nobel laureates.

Meanwhile, women faculty at MIT are now elected to the National Academy of Sciences at the same rate as men, and they have finally begun to win some of the most prestigious science awards.  For example, yesterday a woman from MIT–the great chemist JoAnne Stubbe–received the National Medal of Science from President Obama, in part for developing a cancer-treating drug now in clinical trials. She has also worked to make science more welcoming for the young women who will come after her.  Her accomplishments are off the charts.

Every time a female scientist wins one of these major awards, it is very emotional for me, reducing me to tears. Most are tears of joy at seeing these amazing pioneers recognized for their achievements after the decades-long struggle for women’s equality in science.  But I am also sad, thinking of all the great discoveries that were lost when half the population was kept out.

My emotions may even include a trace of I-told-you-so. It’s shocking that as recently as 2005 Larry Summers could propose that women’s genetic inferiority might explain their small numbers at the pinnacle of scientific achievement. I walked out in protest. You'd expect Harvard to know better!

Maybe 2009 will be remembered as a watershed for women in science.  At the very least it should mark the end of the nonsensical, outdated and damaging idea that women lack the interest or genetic ability to do great math and science.    



Nancy Hopkins is professor at MIT, a founding member of The New Agenda and a contributor to MORE.com.

Have you ever been told your gender put you out of the running for a job, a challenge, or an activity? 
Related women's outrage stories at MORE.com: 
Whoopi: "It Wasn't Rape-Rape" 
The Real Reason Hillary Snapped
"Obama Effect" for Black Women?

[photo credit: Getty Images]


Syndication:

From the Community…

Comments 1-10 of 72
  • TAY's Avatar
    Posted by TAY Fri Oct 9, 2009 1:44pm PDT

    My friend Gabby (all female) got a full ride at a prestigious University in the Northeast off her math and science skills. She studied a two-part major in science and now works for a major scientific research company. Kind of makes me wish I had taken a stronger interest in sciences, but I've always leaned more towards the arts and humanities.

    Report Abuse
  • Mrs. Carol B's Avatar
    Posted by Mrs. Carol B Fri Oct 9, 2009 1:45pm PDT

    Of course...........

    Report Abuse
  • Doktor Eevol's Avatar
    Posted by Doktor Eevol Fri Oct 9, 2009 2:03pm PDT

    They used to do this to african americans. "Scientists" back in the day tried to argue that african americans, because of their biology, are inferior to whites. What surprises me how this same tactic is used against women and people almost NEVER argue against it. They'll blindly believe what they are told, as long as it starts with "scientific study."

    Well I work in the science field, and I can assure you that even educated scientists harbor very human flaws. They are not more enlightened than anyone else, and they are just as capable of petty prejudice. In fact, they continue to justify their prejudices with "scientific studies" that reinforce antiquated stereotypes about women.

    I would appreciate it if Shine would consider not showcasing articles that imply that people are mindless drones to their hormones.

    Report Abuse
  • Erin's Avatar
    Posted by Erin Fri Oct 9, 2009 2:28pm PDT

    Congrats to these women! Regarding the lovely Harvard President though, it does say something when his comments sparked national outrage. He may have some rather antiquated views, but at least people called him out on it. Looks like we're finally making a bit of progress. There's still a long way to go of course, and these women being awarded Nobel prizes for their work advances both science and equality issues.

    Report Abuse
  • risatrix's Avatar
    Posted by risatrix Fri Oct 9, 2009 8:48pm PDT

    I work at a university, and while no one tells women outright that they don't have the brains (that's too obviously un-PC and liable to lawsuits) they find other ways, like 'worrying' about whether the women are spending enough time with their children. Or the ever-popular excuse that a given candidate "just doesn't feel right', probably because she's a woman.

    Ironic, because the men who have historically gotten these awards have had the benefit of an unpaid chef/maid/babysitter -- i.e. wife. I've always thought their success has nothing to do with inherently superior brain power and everything to do with having all the time in the world to devote to their subject while avoiding that tedious everyday drudgery that makes it hard to focus on research.

    Unfortunately, this domestic inequality continues today - which makes the women who get awards all the more inspiring. They've had to slog through mostly male classes, and find the time to devote to their own work while most likely shouldering an larger burden at home, yet they've still remained committed to their research. Kudos to them.

    Report Abuse
  • Joy P's Avatar
    Posted by Joy P Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:54am PDT

    I personally believe that women and men are equally intelligent. Men and women do think differently, and it takes a larger brain capacity to realize that there are several ways to arrive at the same answer, and one way isn't necessarily better than the other way. It's the same thing as being book smart verses street smart. I know several men would can't do engineering, and I know several women who are very good engineers.

    Report Abuse
  • Herr Blackburn's Avatar
    Posted by Herr Blackburn Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:38am PDT

    I'm sorry, normally I would be quite impressed at someone receiving a Nobel prize. For some reason this year it just doesn't feel quite as exclusive a club...

    Report Abuse
  • Rosa's Avatar
    Posted by Rosa Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:32am PDT

    Maybe if people from the unenlightened ivy league would give up the notion that women are not worth educating in the sciences and math than people would realize that women and men have the same ability in that area. It has only been in the last 30 years or so that women have actually been taught how to do advanced math and science in some parts of this country (namely the south and east). In any case, that rumor keeps being brought up because of a study done at Harvard in the 1950's when they did not even accept women into their college. Maybe we should just quit looking at the ivy league for cultural breakthroughs....

    Report Abuse
  • Jocelyn's Avatar
    Posted by Jocelyn Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:05pm PDT

    it think that a woman can do so many things that have and will he world in so many ways if we couldn't do anything then why are we here???????? so i say WOMAN CAN BE SCIENTISTS AND ANYTHING THEY WANT TO BE, THEY JUST HAVE TO PUT THE EFFORT BECAUSE WOMAN ON THIS EARTH HAVE WORKED JUST AS HARD AS MEN TO SUCCEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report Abuse
  • Lasombradia's Avatar
    Posted by Lasombradia Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:09pm PDT

    risatrix, I think you made a good point.

    Men work long hours and they are excused because he is supporting his family, but during those long hours he can accomplish a lot. Women are for lack of a better word weighted down by having and taking care of children. No woman will get a Nobel for raising a healthy and productive child.

    Its not like I didnt think women could be leading people in the scientific community. Its just women lack support and access. I honestly dont think a woman with children can do what it takes to be a leading scientist without having a husband who will carry the load of home by himself (ie getting children washed, fed, ready for school, cook all the meals, clean and maintain home, schedule appointments, attend PTA and everything else women have done that men take for granted b/c its a woman's job). It seems men have a easier time sacrificing their wives and children more so than women. It could be as a society we make women who do feel guilty or the women themselves feel guilty. I dont know.

    As women we cant do it all. For the things we can do, those we need to do to the best of our ability.

    Congratulations to our sisters in receiving a Nobel in the past, present and future.

    Report Abuse
Comments 1-10 of 72

leave your comment

You must sign in to post a comment

Sign In for personalized information

New User? Sign Up

Updates Chatter on Shine…

Health Byte

Who doesn't want to look hot at all those holiday parties? ExerciseTV shares how to get in skinny jeans-shape -- and quickly!