Kosslyn said that there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that differences in innate abilities account for female underrepresentation in the sciences. But, Kosslyn stressed, Summers only “suggested that this is one hypothesis that should be considered. By definition, a hypothesis remains to be tested.”

Kosslyn said that separating indirect from direct factors is a key first step toward increasing the number of female scientists. “For example, if indirect innate factors affecting temperament are at work, it might be easiest to change the relevant aspects of the culture of science,” Kosslyn said.

WALKING OUT

Several scholars questioned the decision of MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins ’64 to walk out of Summers’ talk at the National Bureau for Economic Research last week—although Hopkins insists that she only left because Summers’ remarks were so repugnant that she became physically ill.

“[S]cience entails listening to opposing points of view and then refuting them with arguments and evidence,” Gilbert wrote. “Any scientist who has to leave the room when their point-of-view is challenged is really in the wrong business.”

“[T]he saddest thing about this incident is that it puts a chill on the open exchange of ideas about a solution,” Gilbert said.

Others questioned Hopkins’ decision to go the press with her concerns.

“[Summers] was specifically asked to be ‘provocative,’ and the meeting was defined as a private event at which participants could speak their mind freely without worry of being quoted...in the press,” Kosslyn wrote. “Given those ground rules, President Summers was absolutely being appropriate.”

—Staff writer Daniel J. Hemel can be reached at hemel@fas.harvard.edu.