Harvard President Says “Innate Ability” Keeps Women from Science Jobs

Former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers may wish he hadn’t taken the job of President of Harvard. At a conference organized by the National Bureau of Economic Research, he said that the lack of female engineers and scientists might be due to genetic differences between the sexes. He claims he didn’t say it nor does he believe it, or something to that effect. The record is already being muddled in the press. However, he does raise an interesting question – specifically “so what?”

First of all, the entire idea that genetics determines much about each individual gets undermined with each advance in biology. Most recent estimates are that a human being has between 20,000 and 25,000 genes. And when one considers that just under 99% of these genes are identical to those of chimpanzees, a genetic determinist view of unique human behavior just doesn’t work.

Putting aside the basis for differences among individuals (race, sex, age, and the rest), there is no disputing that these differences exist. There are fewer female engineers and scientists than their representation in the broader society suggests there should be if sex is not in some way linked to this field of knowledge (although statistics can’t rule out coincidence, either). And it is legitimate to ask “why?” And it is further legitimate to pursue that question until a satisfactory answer turns up. But the answer probably doesn’t mean much.

What is not legitimate is the formulation of social policy that fails to address individual differentiation. Suppose for the sake of argument that males, as a group, are from birth predisposed to be “better” at science than females as a group. Would such a finding justify excluding Madam Curie from Nobel Prize consideration? Would it make John Doe a contender simply by virtue of his sex?

Athletics offers the best examples of individual differentiation from the group. As a general rule, males run faster than females. Track records prove this. But, to suggest that the average male, who probably hasn’t run a mile in the last decade or two, could possibly have beaten the late great Florence Griffith Joyner in a race doesn’t pass the credibility test. Social policy that suggests otherwise is patently wrongheaded.

Some people are naturally better at some things than others – this makes specialization not only useful but possible. And some groups are going to have traits that yield advantages in certain activities. But no group holds a monopoly on genius – unless the group is that of geniuses.



© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.

Home