Screaming Penguin

When Are You Guys Going to Get It? By Deborah Blum Deborah Blum is a Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer and the author of "Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection." February 13, 2005 In Victorian times, scientists argued that women's brains were too small to be fully human. On the intelligence scale, researchers recommended classifying human females with gorillas. The great 19th century neuroanatomist Paul Broca didn't see the situation as quite so dire, but he warned his colleagues that women were not capable of being as smart as men, "a difference that we should not exaggerate, but which is nonetheless real." The president of Harvard University suggested that a lack of "innate ability" might help explain why women couldn't keep up with men in fields like math and science -- oh, wait, that one happened just last month. Hold for a minute -- OK -- while I dig out my corset and bustle. If that sounds snotty, I mean it to be. I, for one, am ready to leave the 19th century behind. Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers can apologize all he wants, but the fact is that --from a position of power --he felt comfortable speculating about women's inadequate intelligence and ignoring years worth of science that proved him wrong. I don't find that excusable. Period. And I wonder why we women are so willing to tolerate this kind of behavior. Summers raised the issue of women's lesser capabilities in an economic conference in Cambridge, Mass., in mid-January. And the most consistent response from women-- the one still resonating across the country -- is defensiveness. ... A litany of female scholars quote studies proving that, yes, we girls can do long division, actually understand a chemical formula, comprehend a physical law or two and not only become professional scientists but do good work. In fact, when allowed, women have done excellent science for decades, even since the corset-and-bustle days. The physicist Marie Curie won two Nobel prizes �¢ï¿½ï¿½ in 1903 and 1911 �¢ï¿½ï¿½ for her work in France with radioactive elements. As one Stanford University professor assured her audience last week, "clearly, girls are as capable" as boys. No argument there from me except this one: Why does that have to be said at all? How well must women perform before the question of our competence gets taken off the table? How many times do we have to make the point before people actually believe it? I wonder when it was that male academics last organized a conference to explain that their brains worked as well as those of their female colleagues. Perhaps they should have. At least, if more attention was given to the limits of male brain function, Summers might not have made quite such a fool of himself. If that sounds like a cheap shot, I mean it to be. Thanks to brain-imaging studies, we can quantify the average size difference between men's and women's brains. It runs between 6% to 8%. Imaging studies also tell us the brains are packed a little differently. Preliminary evidence suggests that the average female has more cortical complexity �¢ï¿½ï¿½ a little more sophisticated material in the region that handles cognitive processing �¢ï¿½ï¿½ than your average guy. A whole bunch of studies �¢ï¿½ï¿½ to use one of those technical terms �¢ï¿½ï¿½ indicate that the corpus callosum, a bundle of nerve fibers that connects the right and left hemispheres, is larger in females. Not unexpectedly, research also shows that women seem to use both sides of their brain in certain tasks, such as verbal processing, when men use only one. The result, though, in terms of quick and accurate response, is about the same. In other words, minor brain differences with minor effects. But as Dr. Ruth O'Hara of Stanford's Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science points out, even such subtle differences can be used against women. In one report, the scientists suggested that men have better control over brain activity and therefore don't need to slop into a second hemisphere. "You wouldn't think that more activity would be a bad thing," she notes. "But apparently that's a matter of interpretation." Does it strike you, as it does me, that Summers missed the important question? The one that goes like this: If men and women are basically equal in ability, why is there not a more equal balance of power? That's complicated terrain, perhaps more than he wanted to take on. Still, I'd like to propose this simple scenario: One gender gained the power position and has been really, really reluctant to share the space. It's possible that dominance has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with size and strength. That early in human history, males muscled their way into control and have stayed there because they're bigger (an average 17%) and because they play tough. In our civilized times, muscle mass isn't that necessary. Why use physical force when other techniques are so effective: put-downs, dismissals, suggestions that, geez, we'd love to see women advance in those challenging intellectual fields �¢ï¿½ï¿½ if only they were up to it. Do I believe this represents the way all men think today? Absolutely not. I know many men who were as unhappy with Summers as I was. "My first thought was, 'With friends like this, who needs enemies?' " one male neurobiologist told me. Do I believe, though, that Victorian attitudes of superiority still exist? Absolutely yes. "It's important for these attitudes to come out," Londa Schiebinger says. She directs Stanford's Institute for Research on Women and Gender, and she organized the recent conference. Schiebinger is determined, she says, to make something positive out of Summers' remarks, to use them to educate people about women's talents and abilities. Again no argument from me. But I would ask how much lemonade can be made from Harvard's lemons. How many people learned from subsequent reports on women's brains and how many only heard, as my 15-year-old son relayed to me, "the president of Harvard thinks women aren't as smart as men." I wonder even now if a few more bellows of rage and a lot less tact might yet be in order, that we need to remind the world also that, yes, we are nice �¢ï¿½ï¿½ but not that nice. That we don't have so much patience that yet another generation of female scientists needs to die out before garnering the recognition they deserve. To return to Marie Curie, you should know that the year she won her second Nobel Prize, the French Academy of Sciences refused to admit her as a member. Why? She was a woman. Curie did finally get her recognition from France in 1995 -- 61 years after her death from leukemia. They dug up her bones and reburied them with other national heroes in the Pantheon. What an honor, huh? I'll bet that meant a lot to her. And if that sounds angry, I mean it to be. LA Times

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): If you don't notice that the great majority of NBA players are black, you almost surely have a vision problem. More than 75 percent of the players are African American. You might also notice that in general, in general, black ballplayers play a different style of game than their white counterparts. The dribbles, the drives, the slam dunks just don't seem the same. But does this tell us anything about genetic hard-wired distinctions? That's at best an Olympic-sized leap. And, speaking of the Olympics, ever since 1968, the marathon run at the Olympics and just about everywhere else has been dominated by the Kenyans, specifically Kenyans who come from the Calingen (ph) tribe. Altitude, diet, tradition, socioeconomic factors explain much but an article in a scientific journal last fall says that such success also points to a possible genetic component. Now, does that make you a bit uncomfortable? Or, what about the fact that as biologist David Page (ph) has written, the genetic difference between males and females absolutely dwarfs all other differences in the human genome and that one of the most obvious differences is that the average man is substantially stronger than the average woman. (on camera): We're uneasy about such assertions because we know our past when so-called experts blithely asserted complete falsehoods about racial, gender and ethnic differences designed to perpetuate, even encourage blatant discrimination. Jews were not as smart as gentiles. Blacks were genetically linked to primates. Women were incapable of rational thought. They were also said, by the way, to be incapable of sexual enjoyment. (voice-over): So, no wonder Harvard President Larry Sommers got into hot water for suggesting that innate differences might explain the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of women among professional scientists or engineers. The problem lies in the fear that acknowledging these differences could lead to certain social policies. For instance, if most women are weaker than most men, it tells you absolutely nothing about allowing women to be firefighters but it may mean there will be a lot fewer women in the ranks. In New York City where women have been taking the same test as men for more than a decade, there are 28 females in a force of more than 11,000. By contrast, the U.S. Army holds men and women to distinctly different standards. A 21-year-old man must to at least 40 pushups, for women it's 19, gender-norming critics call this. No women in combat units, the brass reminds them, so maybe the tests don't have to be exactly the same. But this discussion gets even more intense in matters of race. Why do black students tend to under perform in academic settings even when those students come from affluent, stable families? Peer pressure not to achieve, the legacy of discrimination, low expectations from their teachers that could undermine their own self- confidence? And, if we acknowledge this, does that somehow imply that everything from affirmative action to outreach programs are doomed to failure? We live in a time when we're fully prepared to acknowledge, even laugh about differences in how we walk and talk and mate and pray and raise our kids but the whole conversation is so loaded with our knowledge of past ugliness it's no wonder we approach the topic as though we were walking through a minefield. Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York. CNN

Steering girls toward science UK encourages young southeastern Kentuckians By Brandon Ortiz HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER Kurstie Dutton, 12, has always liked to ask questions. Lots of them. Her favorite question was always the vague, but effective, "Why?" But a federally funded science program for girls at the University of Kentucky is giving the articulate seventh-grader the smarts and, more importantly, the confidence to ask more specific questions. Her proud pop says she is now keeping her teachers on their toes. "I've always liked to ask questions, but since I have been in the program, I have learned to ask more logical questions and not just the word why," said Kurstie, who lives in the southeastern Kentucky town of Swamp Branch. "Now, I can ask you, for lack of a better term, more intelligent questions. I never really did that before I went to Girls in Science." Girls in Science, as well as a similar UK program called Girls in Research, aims to convince girls to pursue careers in math, science, engineering and technology. Both programs challenge students with hands-on experiments in Saturday sessions at southeastern Kentucky colleges. In the summer, the girls go to a one-week science camp at UK. Upon completing the two- and three-year programs -- Girls in Science works with seventh- and eighth-graders, Girls in Research with sixth- through eighth-graders -- each student receives a $1,000 scholarship and a $100 stipend. Combined, there are 180 girls enrolled. The premise behind the programs, which are open only to youngsters in southeastern Kentucky counties, is research showing that many girls begin to lose interest in science and math during middle school, project coordinator Sondra Floyd said. Floyd hopes to boost the children's confidence and tear down stereotypes through interactive classes taught by college professors. The programs also match girls with mentors. "Research shows that by the time girls leave middle school," Floyd said, "their perception is they are not as good at science, that it is more of a boys' thing." Statewide testing data show that boys and girls have roughly the same scores on the science portion of the CATS test in the fourth grade. But by 11th grade, girls tend to fall behind boys. Woman changed her major It pains Lori Bowen to admit she changed her major from chemistry to journalism after seeing few women in her science classes at the University of Kentucky. She had dreamed of being a chemist since she was in the eighth grade, but she convinced herself that science is not a good field for women. "If I was smart, I would have stayed in there with all those guys," said Bowen, who is now the science specialist for Fayette County elementary schools. "I don't regret it, but I regret that I wasn't stronger." Researchers don't know why girls are not as interested as boys in science. Much of it may be societal, since traditional gender roles have usually assigned women to teaching or staying at home with children. Some have suggested it may be biological, but those views are controversial. Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers recently said at an academic conference that innate differences between men and women may explain why fewer women succeed in math and science careers, according to news reports. He later apologized for the remarks after a nationwide firestorm of criticism from female professors. And it may just be that some girls, trying to look feminine, don't want to get their hands dirty, Bowen said. She has observed that girls rarely lead the way when biology classes dissect frogs. "I think sometimes with girls we teach them to be girly. 'Don't get your hands dirty; don't touch that; that's gross,'" she said. "I think unfortunately they lose their interest in an attempt to be feminine, and science is not always perceived to be feminine." ... No room for Barbie You won't find Barbie dolls in 12-year-old Sarah Clevenger's room. It sounds almost like a science museum when you hear her mother describe it. It is filled with fossils and other artifacts, including the centerpiece: a 300 million-year-old piece of dinosaur rib Sarah got when she went on an archaeological dig in Colorado. She has a replica skull of a raptor, and with her Christmas money she bought a life-size mold of a sabertooth cat skull. The seventh-grader, who is in Girls in Science, wants to be a paleontologist when she grows up. She has the kind of intense interest in science the programs hope to cultivate. "It is a very interesting subject, and there is a lot of things to find out about it," said Sarah, who lives in Jackson. "It's got lots of rewards and things." Her mom, Renee Bryant, has encouraged the interest. When Sarah wondered whether there were fossils in the family's yard, she and her mom dug a 5-foot hole looking for some. She discovered some plant fossils, which she proudly showed off at school. Sarah frequently e-mails her mentor, a UK graduate student who is studying archaeology. "It is neat for my daughter to see that yes, girls can succeed in a science career," Bryant said. Parents rave about the program. The students have built electrical circuits, made models of DNA and made hovercraft out of paper plates, rubber bands and Popsicle sticks. Kurstie's dad, Tony, has seen the straight-A student's confidence shoot up. It has also opened her eyes, he said. "Especially being from Eastern Kentucky, it makes her consider that the world is a little bit bigger than what she sees," Dutton said. "There is actually a place she can fit in after school and not just be a housewife." Herald-Leader