Recently, LRC readers were directed to an article about a controversial essay that was rejected by Science Magazine. The essay, "Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science" by Peter Lawrence, was ultimately published by the Public Library of Science's (PLoS) Biology journal. The subject of Dr. Lawrence's essay is the biological differences between men and women, and why he believes this is related to their relative presence in prestigious jobs, especially the low percentage of female professors in science. The essay takes on two touchy subjects: inherent differences between the sexes and the role of women in the job market. It should not be surprising, therefore, that one of the top scientific journals got nervous about printing such an essay.
Avoidance
So why didn't PLoS shy away from such controversy? It is unlikely that the readers, reviewers or editors of PLoS agree with Dr. Lawrence on many of the points he makes in his essay. In fact, Mike Eisen, a co-founder of PLoS, disagrees with Dr. Lawrence on most. Dr. Eisen says, "To argue that [the disparity at the top of the academic hierarchy] is the result of some kind of innate/biological difference, and to therefore accept a male-dominated scientific community, is ridiculous." He is more inclined to attribute this disparity to society.
According to the Telegraph, Science decided not to publish the essay because it was neither novel enough nor persuasive enough considering the apparent saturation of essays on the topic. Additionally, the editor-in-chief of Science said it did not "lead to a clear strategy about how to deal with the gender issue.” Hemai Parthasarathy, editor-in-chief of PLoS Biology, agrees that Dr. Lawrence did not have a clear strategy towards a solution to the gender issue. Dr. Parthasarathy adds that she thinks there is much more to say on "this extremely complicated subject." Apparently the editors disagree on whether the presence of previous opinionated reviews on the topic of gender inequality means the debate is now old hat, or just heating up.
Gary North has written on this site about the role of new technology, especially the internet, in business (click here for a recent one). PLoS has taken advantage of the very low cost of publishing on the internet in an attempt to compete with the likes of Science. Instead of worrying about (Yikes!) illegal photocopying and (Horrors!) multiplying electronic PDF files, they put all content online free of charge to anyone, and look in other places for money. It's too soon to tell if their model will work, but it seems to appeal to many professors, especially in a time of budget cuts for public university libraries (resulting in fewer university subscriptions to journals). Whereas Science may be more wary of controversy after the cloning scandal, PLoS is presumably welcoming publicity to try to win this race. In this context, Dr. Lawrence's theory that Science's official reasons for rejection were lame may be hitting the nail on the head.
What controversy?
Earlier I stated that "Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science" addresses two touchy subjects. Discussions of these topics tend to be controlled by political correctness and emotions, not reasoned argument. I think this is a terrible mistake.
Is there a gender disparity in prominent positions at companies and universities? Of course. For example, the percentage of women professors in the Molecular and Cell Biology Department at UC Berkeley is just under 22%. Keep in mind that biology has historically been the most women-friendly of the hard sciences, and Berkeley has a reputation for social consciousness. The disparity for other science and engineering disciplines is even greater.
Is gender disparity a problem? Science and PLoS agree that it is, but problems are relative ideas. In order to have a problem, there must be a goal that is not met. While the stated goal is an equal number of men and women throughout the work force, what the academic community (and others who profess concern) should ask is: Why is this goal desirable?
Both Dr. Lawrence and Dr. Eisen feel that the average feminine traits can be the foundation for a great scientist and mentor. The average masculine traits are easier to test for, so the disparity is propagated. This may or may not be valid, but the point is that lip service to equality is just that, while deciding whether equality is actually beneficial is what should be discussed. It is accepted by many as a truth that equality is desired. Dr. Lawrence doesn't disagree, he just cuts deeper and hits some nerves along the way. This topic is the less controversial of the two, yet it is surprisingly absent from discussions of gender disparity.
The question of why there is gender inequality is where feelings really start to get hurt. It is difficult to differentiate between what effect biology has on a person compared to environment. To address this question, one must drift away from biology and dive into the social sciences. We may never know the answer, but the overwhelming opinion in academia is summed up well by Steven Pinker of Harvard:
the under-representation of women among tenure-track faculty in elite universities in physical science, math, and engineering … As with many issues in psychology, there are three broad ways explain this phenomenon. One can imagine an extreme “nature” position: that males but not females have the talents and temperaments necessary for science. Needless to say, only a madman could take that view. The extreme nature position has no serious proponents.
While Dr. Lawrence speculates on this phenomenon, and comes close to being a "madman", his essay is not a presentation of facts observed through scientific research. Essays in scientific journals, although they may be peer-reviewed as "Men, Women…" was, are simply a presentation of opinion. Dr. Parthasarathy says this essay was published, in part, because it was "opinionated" and that the goal of such a publication is to discuss "issues that are important to the scientific community" as well as the general public. To that end, PLoS succeeded. Science has merely succeeded in promoting a sad trend in public debate: dismiss inconvenient opinions by ignoring them.
This author declares that she has a conflict of interest. She is a graduate student in biology, hopes to one day be a professor, and has published an article in a PLoS journal, but not in Science.
February 18, 2006
