University President Lawrence H. Summers wandered off his terra firma of economics and into the tricky realm of behavioral genetics last Friday when he speculated that innate ability might account for the underrepresentation of females in the natural sciences.

In the days after Summers’ remarks made national headlines, several Harvard psychologists have weighed in on their validity, with some rallying to Summers’ defense and others lamenting his lack of tact.

Pierce Professor of Psychology Ken Nakayama wrote in an e-mail Tuesday that Summers’ comments “undermine our faculty’s otherwise diligent efforts in the recruitment and retention of outstanding female scientists.”

Summers responded Tuesday night that attracting more women to Harvard’s science faculty remains a top priority. “[N]othing I said bears on the way any individuals should be viewed,” he told The Crimson.

But Hobbs Professor in Cognition and Education Howard E. Gardner ’65 suggested that Summers—in keeping with his high-profile post—should have phrased his remarks more sensitively. “President Summers was absolutely within the pale of normal academic discourse,” Gardner wrote in an e-mail. But, Gardner added, “if he wanted to make these remarks publicly, it would pay him to run them by some colleagues—including people like me—to reduce the chance that he would be misunderstood.”

While Summers spoke extemporaneously from a set of notes, “I would have advised him to have spoken from a written text,” Gardner said.

Gardner said that “Summers is correct that men are overrepresented at both ends of the bell curve in terms of math-science-spatial capabilities, just as they are overrepresented at both ends in terms of many conditions, both positive and pathological.”

But Gardner said that “overrepresentation is not necessarily due to genetic factors.” He noted that Asians tend to outperform non-Asians on several tests that predict scientific aptitude—a phenomenon that likely reflects societal influences rather than biological differences.

Summers’ remarks last Friday touched upon the age-old “nature-versus-nurture” debate—a question that psychologists have increasingly dismissed as excessively simplistic.

“It rarely makes sense to talk about genetic versus environmental influences,” wrote Professor of Psychology Daniel T. Gilbert in an e-mail. “The ‘nature versus nurture’ debate is over. Nobody won and the game was called on account of pointlessness.”

INNATE INFLUENCE

Lindsley Professor of Psychology Stephen M. Kosslyn explained in an e-mail yesterday that “there are two types offactors that could allow innate characteristics to explain whether a person (male or female) chooses a career in science, namely ‘indirect’ and ‘direct.’”

“Science is combative,” Kosslyn wrote. “People argue aggressively and get into intense disputes.”

If biological factors determine comfort level in combative situations, then gender differences could partially explain the underrepresentation of females in elite academic science, Kosslyn said. But he noted that “one’s comfort level in combative situations might have nothing to do with innate factors...but instead might reflect socialization.”

As for “direct” influences on academic achievement, Kosslyn said that “solid evidence” supports the hypothesis that men may have stronger spatial abilities while females may have stronger verbal abilities. Even so, Kosslyn said, “some women will be better than some men at spatial abilities, and some men will be better than some women at verbal abilities.”