Comments on: On Being a Female LDS Scientist

By: Ady Hahn a.k.a Fly_killa

Ady Hahn a.k.a Fly_killa — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Um, I posted this entry, but for some reason my name is not listed as the author. Can anyone help me out? Thanks.

By: Kaimi

Kaimi — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Nice post, Ady. There is certainly lots of substance in this issue.

Wasn’t there a time when the conventional wisdom in graduate programs was “Don’t accept women, because they will only have children and drop out”? Attitudes have changed (at least slightly) in the academy, and it is refreshing to at last see a female LDS scientists (on our blog, no less :) ). I like to think I run in somewhat educated circles, and I believe you’re the first one I know (even if only through blog).

As far as reconciling religion with science, I had a great physics professor who liked to say that anyone who thought that religion and science were incompatible didn’t understand either of them.

By: Kaimi

Kaimi — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

One more note on science and religion:

I was intrigued by Greg Easterbrook’s recent suggestion (link http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=717) that dark energy (which, according to the NYT science page — source of all of my science information — is now believed to comprise something like 75% of all energy and matter in the universe) might be a form of spirit world or immaterial world. It seems like an interesting reconciliation of science and religion, especially for us as LDS members, given some of the D & C discussion of “light” in sections 84 or 88.

By: clark

clark — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I find the idea that dark matter is spirit matter fairly problematic, if only because of the gravitational effects of dark matter. Further it doesn’t really resolve the larger issues of the big bang and the eventual outcome of the universe. I’ve discussed that a bit on my web site, albeit probably in too technical a way for most to enjoy.

Regarding women and science, I must agree. It would be a very big sacrifice for a Mormon woman to do 4 – 5 years of undergrad and then 5-6 years of grad school and possibly more in research before having a hope of getting a possibly low paying job at a college. If you add in children and the economic issues then it gets that much more complicated. I truly respect those who manage it. Actually I respect those who manage to go on and be a professor, man or woman. Mammon called to me far too early.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I wonder whether the problem of evolution is really the problem that many LDS scientists feel that it is. Perhaps they are responding to a vocal minority or to things that were problems in the past. At least in my experience most students no longer worry much about the problem. That may be because they don’t care. I don’t know. But it doesn’t seem to me to be the issue that it was twenty years ago. In fact, I think that the people most likely to raise the issues are scientists.

I also wonder whether it is true that most scientists are not religious. There is evidence to the contrary: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html

By: Gordon

Gordon — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Nice post, Ady. A lot here, but since the main theme is women in science, let me say something provacative about that. Before doing so, however, I would like to note that I married a woman who loves science. She majored in neurology and worked for several years in research laboratories, but gave that up when we started having children. (Just to illustrate your point!)

OK, with that background, I would be interested in hearing responses to this: do we care whether LDS women pursue careers in science?

I like the notion that LDS women should have the option, and I plan to encourage one of my daughters in this direction, since she seems to have some talent in math and science. But it is not clear to me that we should make any efforts to change the culture to encourage this. Will the world be a better place if more LDS women pursue careers in science? Hmm. Not clear to me either way.

By the way, why is it that only men have commented on this post?

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Gordon,
Most likely because, as indicated here, http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000150.html#000589, we’re not likely to be taken seriously.

For those that are interested, women in science are great. Just like women in other fields, they offer distinct characteristics and attributes — new solutions to old problems, and of course, old solutions to new problems. Are women necessary to the advancement of science? I don’t think so. I doubt that scientific progress is gender specific.

As for the mommy issue – it’s a serious one. And it will continue, oftentimes appropriately, to be a barrier to women pursuing the sciences. But it’s not impossible – as Ady proves. My sister-in-law will finish her Ph.D. in horticulture this spring. It’s a great achievement, and it fills her soul. Her children, male and female, will be inspired to pursue doctoral degrees themselves. And her field will be better, is in fact better, because of her contributions.

By: clark

clark — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Why do I want more women in science? I think the more people educated in science the better and that the more women in science the more the social climate among women will change for the better. I fully admit to thinking that the better educated society becomes of science the better society will be. I don’t think it will cure all the ills of society, but I remain convinced it will cure a surprising number.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Not to minimize the discussion about whether we want to encourage women in science, but I wonder how much the world would be improved if men shared some of the opportunity cost involved in raising children? I think I would have liked more time with my father growing up.

By: A Scientist

A Scientist — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

The guardian article that Jim references quotes a 1997 Nature paper (vol 386 p435) which reports a survey done of 1000 scientists, including physicists, mathematicians, and biologists. Only 39% report believing in a God that answers prayers, and 38% in human immortality. I would interpret this as “most scientists are not religious.”

A follow-up paper by the same authors (Nature vol 394 p313) in 1998 surveyed members of the National Academy of Sciences and found only 7% believing in a personal God, and 8% in human immortality. These prominent scientists define the tone and substance of the science/religion debate (ie Richard Dawkins and his ilk).

An interesting question then is: are these “greater” scientists smarter than the rest of us, and therefore realize to a greater degree the inconsistencies, or maybe free themselves better from the shackles of supernaturalism and superstition? Or does a strong commitment to naturalism and materialism motivate them more to do science? Or perhaps is there a selection mechanism whereby the scientific inner circle recognizes their bias and rewards them with MIT jobs, large grants, and eventually membership in the NAS and nobel prizes?