Cargando…

Women in science: myth, harsh reality, or advantage

To initiate discussion on women in science, we begin with Gerald Edelman’s definition: “Science is imagination in the service of the verifiable truth,” which underscores “verifiability,” truth reached by evidence, as the pathway science charts to Truth. “Verifiability” is named after the Roman Godde...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Feldman, Ruth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10654634/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38021232
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1247242
_version_ 1785136667812691968
author Feldman, Ruth
author_facet Feldman, Ruth
author_sort Feldman, Ruth
collection PubMed
description To initiate discussion on women in science, we begin with Gerald Edelman’s definition: “Science is imagination in the service of the verifiable truth,” which underscores “verifiability,” truth reached by evidence, as the pathway science charts to Truth. “Verifiability” is named after the Roman Goddess Veritas, the daughter of Cronos and the mother of Virtus, suggesting that mythology viewed science as embodied by a female, embedded in its historical time, and aimed to breed values. We contemplate three perspectives on the topic and discuss their potential risks. The Veracity (Veritas) Perspective holds that science is impartial to the gender, race, political camp, or religious affiliation of its practitioner and from this perspective “women in sciences” is an oxymoron; science is, essentially, genderless. We argue that this perspective is misleading. Becoming a scientist requires education, resources, encouragement, training, role models, time, and funding, and the lack of such provisions banned women from the gates of Truth. The Harsh Reality perspective brings data presenting a grim picture. From 1902 to 2022 only 3.6% of Nobel Prizes in sciences were awarded to women and percentages of women in top academic positions are a third or lower across the US and Europe despite earning about 50% of PhDs in sciences. We contemplate internal and external reasons for this reality. Finally, the Potential Advantage position asks whether women may have unique sensitivities in the road to cumulative knowledge. We base our discussion on 20th century philosophical models that call to move from the metaphysical and abstract to the daily and contextual in the acquisition of knowledge and on research describing the distinct neural pathways to motherhood and fatherhood. We conclude by highlighting our unique historical time and the emergence of novel topics in neuroscience through the work of female and male scientists; interaction synchrony, inter-brain communication, and social and affiliative neuroscience.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10654634
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106546342023-01-01 Women in science: myth, harsh reality, or advantage Feldman, Ruth Front Hum Neurosci Human Neuroscience To initiate discussion on women in science, we begin with Gerald Edelman’s definition: “Science is imagination in the service of the verifiable truth,” which underscores “verifiability,” truth reached by evidence, as the pathway science charts to Truth. “Verifiability” is named after the Roman Goddess Veritas, the daughter of Cronos and the mother of Virtus, suggesting that mythology viewed science as embodied by a female, embedded in its historical time, and aimed to breed values. We contemplate three perspectives on the topic and discuss their potential risks. The Veracity (Veritas) Perspective holds that science is impartial to the gender, race, political camp, or religious affiliation of its practitioner and from this perspective “women in sciences” is an oxymoron; science is, essentially, genderless. We argue that this perspective is misleading. Becoming a scientist requires education, resources, encouragement, training, role models, time, and funding, and the lack of such provisions banned women from the gates of Truth. The Harsh Reality perspective brings data presenting a grim picture. From 1902 to 2022 only 3.6% of Nobel Prizes in sciences were awarded to women and percentages of women in top academic positions are a third or lower across the US and Europe despite earning about 50% of PhDs in sciences. We contemplate internal and external reasons for this reality. Finally, the Potential Advantage position asks whether women may have unique sensitivities in the road to cumulative knowledge. We base our discussion on 20th century philosophical models that call to move from the metaphysical and abstract to the daily and contextual in the acquisition of knowledge and on research describing the distinct neural pathways to motherhood and fatherhood. We conclude by highlighting our unique historical time and the emergence of novel topics in neuroscience through the work of female and male scientists; interaction synchrony, inter-brain communication, and social and affiliative neuroscience. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10654634/ /pubmed/38021232 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1247242 Text en Copyright © 2023 Feldman. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Human Neuroscience
Feldman, Ruth
Women in science: myth, harsh reality, or advantage
title Women in science: myth, harsh reality, or advantage
title_full Women in science: myth, harsh reality, or advantage
title_fullStr Women in science: myth, harsh reality, or advantage
title_full_unstemmed Women in science: myth, harsh reality, or advantage
title_short Women in science: myth, harsh reality, or advantage
title_sort women in science: myth, harsh reality, or advantage
topic Human Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10654634/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38021232
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1247242
work_keys_str_mv AT feldmanruth womeninsciencemythharshrealityoradvantage