 |
SPEAKING OUT: Schiebinger and
three colleagues formed a panel to address the
Harvard president's recent remarks.
Linda A. Cicero |
HARVARD PRESIDENT Lawrence
Summers caused a nationwide ruckus when he remarked
at an academic conference that innate biological factors
may help explain why fewer women succeed at the highest
levels of math and science. Londa Schiebinger, director
of Stanford’s Institute for Research on Women
and Gender (IRWG), says she is “disappointed and
saddened that a leader at a major university is holding
these views. We felt we had won this battle.”
She ought to know.
Schiebinger, a leading scholar on gender and the history
of science, wrote her doctoral dissertation at Harvard
on women, gender and the scientific revolution. She
has been a force in moving the debate away from whether
women are good at math and science and toward transforming
institutions and removing barriers to entry and success.
Now, Schiebinger is bringing her expertise to bear on
IRWG. She joined Stanford in spring 2004 as its director
and as professor of history. The 31-year-old institute
“has drifted a bit to the side” of the University,
Schiebinger observes. “It needs to plug back into
the intellectual core of Stanford.” She is helping
raise $10 million to support the institute, including
funds for research fellowships.
The first two or three fellows, who will arrive in the
fall, will study aspects of gender and science. “In
light of the Harvard president’s recent remarks,
we clearly need more scientific investigation of how
gender impacts scientific thinking, from choice of topic
to hypothesis proposal to modes of collecting data,”
says Virginia Walbot, a biological sciences professor
and member of IRWG’s faculty advisory board.
“The question we seek to answer is, how would
knowledge change if you included gender analytics in
your design?” Schiebinger says. This topic also
will be explored on April 15 and 16 during an IRWG conference
titled “Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering.”
“Since its inception, the institute has been a
place of scholarship,” explains founding director
Myra Strober, a professor of education. “It stays
vital because each new director takes it in the direction
of her own expertise.”
Schiebinger has examined gender in both the substance
and the culture of science. Her 1999 book, Has Feminism
Changed Science?, cites many examples of how thinking
in various scientific fields has shifted: The FDA requires
that drugs be tested in women as well as men. Primatology
changed its focus from the alpha male to the whole of
primate life. “Lucy,” a 3.2 million-year-old
fossil hominid, may in fact be “Linus.”
She holds up a picture of a Volvo designed by a team
of women, pointing out that the seat belts accommodate
pregnant bellies.
On the cultural side, Schiebinger is concerned that
female scientists miss out on opportunities because
they have less job mobility, especially if they are
part of a two-career academic couple. “This problem
has an acute impact on women: 43 percent of married
female physicists are married to other physicists, whereas
only 6 percent of male physicists are married to other
physicists.”
Schiebinger acknowledges that some confusion can accompany
a massive cultural shift such as the redefining of gender
roles, but views it positively. “We’re in
a period of creative ferment,” she says. “Gender
roles are more flexible and people are freer to explore
the type of gender identity they want to adopt. It’s
an exciting time for both men and women.” |
