One question that perpetually fascinates scientists is: Nature or Nurture? As employers making decisions about who to hire and for what skills, Larry Summers got our attention recently when he spoke at an academic conference about women in the workforce. Summers opened up a can of worms with his suggestion that math skills were sex based, and inferred that males had superior skills. This is a familiar can of worms and welcome, in that everyone has an opinion.
Many commentators use these occasions to chime in with their opinions, posed with authority guised as predetermined bias. The media busily tries to disentangle truth from fiction, but authors simplify the issues and editorials are other no more than a writer's opportunity to hold forth with personal opinions.
Scientific research in this area can look just as suspect. We recently came across work from Allison Bailey and Peter Hurd at the University of Alberta who published research in Biological Psychology. They say that the ratio of finger length in men varies according to how much testosterone they are exposed to in utero. Men with smaller index fingers relative to their ring fingers, according to their research, display a statistically relevant tendency towards aggressive behavior. The theory doesn't apply to women. The authors point out that their finding should not be grounds for any normative action. But does that sort of cautionary endnote really to convince people? Or will the media go on and on suggesting that violent tenancies can can be attributed and predicted by finger lengths?
Good parts of society (and a good number of MDs) are convinced that genetics is wholly responsible for complex behavior patterns. This is a dangerous assumption which can be used for nefarious purposes. Self-labeled "organizationally challenged" Lisa Belkin jokes on 2/27/05 in the NYT; "Chaos and The Cubicle", that desk tidiness is hardwired. She doesn't mention it, but genetic studies have been connected to neatness and the presence of certain certain genes. Belkin then quotes a production specialty consultant who said: My H.R. clients have flat-out told me: 'I'd promote someone with a tidy office over someone with a messy office any day.'" Could the preference for neat office workers be supplied with genetic screening -- pre-interview phase?
If behavior traits were genetically determined, should they used to promoted or demote people? To steer people towards different career paths? Should people be disallowed from certain jobs for carrying them? Could those who show traits for alcoholism be dissuaded from restaurant jobs and public transport driving jobs? Should those with compromised longevity traits be placed in jobs bound for obsolescence...computer programming perhaps?
Larry Summers tried to evade being labeled sexist by defending his suggestion that women were intellectually not as capable as men as a "hypothesis". He has many supporters who chime in, saying -- why steer away from what "could be true"? Wrong, wrong, wrong. This research has been done already. More likely Summers' is convinced that now is a politically opportune time to share his true colors. He feels so confident in fact, that he shares this at a meeting of academics focused on diversity in the workplace.
