10、Sex and academia
Birdbrained
Jan 20th 2005 From The Economist print edition
Are women naturally bad scientists?
IN HIS three-and-a-half years in the job, the president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, seems to have upset a large number of people. First, he said students were getting too many “A” grades because of grade inflation (which was correct). Then he took on Cornel West, a black professor, over his dodgy extra-curricular activities (again, Mr Summers had a point). Now he has suggested that one of the reasons women achieve less in science and maths is that they have less innate ability.
Mr Summers’s comments were off the record; but he has since confirmed that he did draw attention to the possibility that innate differences, rather than social factors (such as education and treatment in the workplace) might have a role to play. This has drawn howls of complaint from the usual quarters. But, scientifically speaking, is he correct?
There is certainly evidence to suggest that the average male and female brains may be different, with men better able to “systemise” about the world and women better at “empathising”. So are we wired differently from birth?
Some clues come from a theory that autism is a developmental disorder that produces an “extreme male brain”. Autism is up to four times more common in boys, and is thought to be caused by high levels of testosterone in the womb. Those who have it tend to be better at puzzles and pattern-related tasks than at verbal communication. Maybe males, with more testosterone in the womb, are simply better at non-verbal skills? A medical description of autism practically reads like a scientific job description. Clumsy and overwhelmed by the physical world, autistic minds are often far more comfortable with the virtual realms of maths, symbols and code.
However, even if geeks are naturally male, says Susan Ganter, executive director of the Association for Women in Science in Washington, DC (and a mathematician by training), it would not warrant Mr Summers’s comments. Nobody knows to what extent such variations are actually important. They may well be a minor factor, while there are plenty of others that undoubtedly affect female success in science. One of these is that it is very difficult to return to science after a career break to have a child—something Mr Summers also talked about in his speech.
Worse, from a scientific viewpoint, Mr Summers may have compounded the problem by mentioning it. A slew of scientific research shows that if people are told they will fail, they will do so.
10、哈佛大学校长Larry Summers三年半的研究，似乎要让很多人大跌眼镜。首先，他认为学生们得到了太多的“A”是由于分数膨胀的结果(的确也是这样)。而后，他又攻击黑人教授Cornel West的“伪”课外活动(Mr Summers又下一城)。现在，他又提出女性在科学和数学方面成就较少的原因之一是女性缺乏此类天赋。
Mr Summers的这一论述是非正式的;不过他已经证实他的确注意到了天生差异起到的作用要胜过社会因素的可能性(例如教育及工作场所的待遇等)。这引来了普通人的怨声载道。但是，从科学上来讲，他是否正确呢?
的确有证据显示，通常男女大脑是有差异的，男性更擅长于“系统思维”、而女性则更强于“感性思维”。那么我们是不是从出生就如此不同呢?
有的线索来源于孤独症是不断发展的紊乱这一理论，这种紊乱会产生一种“极端男性的大脑”。男孩孤独症发生的比率要高出4倍，而且被认为是由于在胎儿期睾丸激素水平过高所引起。孤独症患儿在完成猜谜和有关图案的作业时，要比语言交流方面好一些。可能在胎儿期睾丸激素水平较高的男性仅在非语言技能上表现较好?孤独症的医学定义读起来就像是科学的职业描述。由于头脑愚笨并遭现实物质世界打击，孤独症患儿的头脑常常更乐于接受数学、符号和代码等虚拟领域。
然而，华盛顿科学妇女联合会执行董事兼数学家Susan Ganter说，即使这些家伙(孤独症)天生是男性，也不能证明Mr Summers的解释。没人知道这种差异实际上会重要到何种程度。可能这仅仅是次要因素，而其他许多原因无疑也影响着女性在科学上的成功。其中一个就是，由于生孩子而造成职业中断一段时间后，再重返科学领域是非常困难的—这一点Mr Summers发言中也提到了。
从科学的观点来看更糟糕的是，Mr Summers可能在提及这一问题时将其复杂化了。大量科学研究说明如果人们被告知会失败，他们就真的会失败。
如果您需要翻译，请拨打400 688 3621或者发邮件至alice.han@translationinchina.com,或访问至尚翻译公司网址：http://www.translationinchina.com
Should you need our service, please feel free to call 400 688 3621 or send email to:alice.han@translationinchina.com or visit SIS Shanghai Translation Company Website http://www.translationinchina.com