Dr. Potomac, knowing that I am is a.) the only female on this blog and b.) the only member of this blog who has a degree in the sciences, has requested that I say a few well-chosen words on the Larry Summers kafuffle.

I intended to weigh in earlier on this topic, but I when I saw that the Manolo has placed us on his list of blogs, I was overcome with emotion and had to take several moments to recover. But having now recovered, I am ready to take on the question: Do innate differences predispose more men than women to careers in science and engineering?

Frankly, dear readers, I don't give a damn. The point of science is not who does the science but how good is the science that they do? I am disappointed but not at all surprised to see that the sciences, which are supposed to place a premium on objectivity, i.e. the quality of scholarship, are as bogged down in the stupid subjectivity of who did the scholarship, as the humanities. For goodness sake, you science types, stop behaving like English professors. Put down your op-ed pens and pick up your pipettes and start working on something that will actually affect the state of humanity, instead of whining that discrimination keeps you down or that you have a biological edge over the competition.

Curious though isn't that these scientists whose knickers are so twisted over who does the science, don't get their knickers twisted at all over whether some science should even be done (except to be upset that some ill bred and obviously stupid people would dare raise that issue. ) Yes indeed, when faced with issues about morality in science, suddenly scientists become vastly concerned about nothing but terminal objectivity.