My theory is this Steven.Men are basically hunters.One half of their brain is connected to their penis,the other half is focused on the hunt.It is this focus that allows them to follow a system of logic to it's ultimate disclosure.

Women on the other hand are gathers,they are gregarious and socially based.They have more connectors between the two cerebal hemispheres.They are good organisers and excellent at multi-tasking but lack focus in persuring problems to their logical conclusions.

Now are there any women who want to pursue this mass debate?

Dear Steven,

Frankly, I am surprised at you.

All you have to do is google the topic
to find the evidence you want.

Anyway, here's a few websites that may help:

1) http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/gender.html

2)http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2008/05/sexism-driven-science.html

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Barres

The New York Times printed an article on July 18, 2006,
entitled, "Dismissing 'sexist opinions' about women's
place in science," by Cornelia Dean.
(A conversation with Ben A. Barres.)

This may also be of interest to you.

Cheers.

FOXY,

I am aware that many female academics CLAIM there is gender discrimination in the sciences. I am also aware the since Larry Summers was literally hounded from office no senior university official has dared disagree with the gender discrimination theory.

At least not in public.

An unfortunate consequence of hounding people like Summers from their jobs for expressing unpopular or contrarian views is that the academic consensus becomes whatever academics who value their jobs, their salaries, their pensions and their research grants are prepared to say in public.

In other words the consensus view on the existence of gender discrimination in the sciences right now is about as meaningful as the mouthings of an Exxon-Mobil spin doctor on the benign nature of of CO2 emissions. There is j no way of deciding whether they're saying what they believe or saying what they feel they have to say.

However my - admittedly limited - personal observation leads me to believe that gender discrimination in the sciences is either non-existent or slight.

I actually do have a theory on why there is a relative dearth of top ranking woman scientists. It is based on an extrapolation from other lines of research. But it's getting late and I need to collect my thoughts before attempting to explain it in 350 words or less.

I'll say this though. It has nothing to do with men being smarter than women. Actually it is a case of testosterone making men, especially young men, somewhat dumber than women.

Steven,I wasn't being entirely jovial.If you study our primordal origins,the basic functions of the hunters and gathers have determined our brain structure.It does not diminish the fuction of the female genda.Without women most businesses would fail,they are the best multi-tasking organisers.They should be paid more but their greatest skill is in raising the next generation.
When people realise that aspirations of being CEO of an organisation are not the ultimate in human existance,then we as a species will have made some progress.

The fact that many brilliant women have contributed, would suggest that they are capable.

If you look at the personal history of these women, it is hardly likely to attract women today into that level of sacrifice. Most scientists work hard family unfriendly hours for low pay. Hardly an attractive career.

When I was at university there were less than 10% of the class as women in spite of the department actively rectruiting, and 20 years later, none of them are using their training.

My mother and god mother were both biologists. My mother dropped out to start a family and ended up teaching. My god mother as a PHD headed up a large research facility. Has never married and has retired alone.

My conclusion is not that they can't, but that they don't want to.

I think Shadow Minister, Arjay and Bugsy have most of the answer. However I would like to add another perspective.

Let's deal with some facts:

(A)

Young men and young women differ in their attitudes towards risk. Young men are more likely to engage in risky behaviour than their female counterparts. For a more in depth analysis of this phenomenon and its evolutionary origins see:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080929144124.htm

(B)

Science is a risky career. Most people who embark on a scientific career fail.

It may be possible to have a satisfactory professional life as an AVERAGE doctor, lawyer, office worker, etc. "Average" scientists have a miserable time of it.

Science is an all or nothing career.

(C)

There are exceptions but if you have not acquired a reputation in the scientific world in your twenties you're probably not going to make it.

I think you can see where this is going. For most women science as a career is too RISKY.

It gets worse. For women the risks are GREATER than for men.

Picture a woman on a research team. She decides to have a baby. Inevitably towards the end of the last trimester of her pregnancy she slows down. She has the baby and returns to work in 6 months. The project has now moved so far ahead that she will never catch up. She has lost her place in the team and will not share in the glory should the team make a great discovery.

Work-life balance may be possible in some other careers. It is not possible for a young scientist. Unless science is your OVERRIDING PASSION, overriding everything else including BABIES and RELATIONSHIPS, you are unlikely to achieve great things. Women find this more difficult than men.

It gets worse. The riskier the research project the more likely it is to fail; but the more likely it is to result in a breakthrough. My observation is that women prefer research project that follow safer, less controversial lines of research. These projects may produce important results but are less likely to result in breakthroughs