ABC News suggests that Lawrence Summers is justified
<p align="left">On the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=537795&page=1">ABC Evening News yesterday (March 1, 2005)</a> Peter Jennings indicated that Lawrence Summers is justified in suggesting that biological differences are a significant reason why women are underrepresented in engineering, mathematics, and science. </p><p align="left">Historically, science has pointed to various physical differences in women to "explain" their inferiority, especially in the realm of intelligence. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/science/24women.html?ex=1109912400&en=19c7ed4c1aeb7d00&ei=5070&oref=login">According to the NY Times, "A century ago, the French scientist Gustav Le Bon pointed to the smaller brains of women - closer in size to gorillas', he said - and said that explained the "fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason" in women.</a>"</p><p align="left">There are clear biological differences between men and women, which applies to our brains as well. I think it begs the question that one brain structure should be superior to the other. Scientific paradigms tend to favor male (atomistic/positivistic) thinking and discriminate against female (contextual and interconnected) thinking styles.  Shouldn't quality problem solving involve multiple thinking strategies and paradigms? <a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_2_31/ai_71634867">"The Gendered Atom"</a> does a nice job of explaining how science has been biased against women, and does not adequately represent the complex interconnected reality of science.</p><p align="left">Despite the brain research that currently exists, I think it is inexcusable to suggest that women are not cut-out to be scientists or anything else for that matter. It's time to retire Summers!</p>