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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

I also wonder if the old analysis by Nietzsche doesn’t apply. The notions of God given by traditional religion, taken to their logical ends seems rather nihilistic. The premises which at Nietzsche’s time had not been followed through have been this century. At best scientists adopt a Spinoza like God. But at that time, is calling this belief a belief in God really apt?

The last explanation I might give is the positivist one. Scientists come, at least in their discussions, to only want to discuss what can positively and publicly be “established.” Anything else is “metaphysics” and not to be trusted. While it may shock people who read my web site, I had through most of my college career a *very* anti-metaphysical stance. I considered even such questioning evidence of a frenzied mind. (Like many physics students I also had a strong dash of a Jehovah complex and looked down my nose strongly at the humanities) Given those biases, which I find rather common in the hard sciences, how would a scientist go about approaching the God question?

A scientist – thanks for the stats to back up my claim that most scientists are not religious. Don’t get me started on the annoying Richard Dawkins, however.

Kaimi – I have talked to a few women that have said the attitude of some men in the MD/PhD
program here at UT Southwestern is exactly that–
don’t accept women because they will have children and drop out. There’s usually only one or two that get in every year, I happen to know a few. They are all unmarried or don’t have children.

Gordon – I don’t think it makes much of a difference in general if LDS women are not part of the scientific community. However, I think it would be beneficial if more religious people became scientists. As “a Scientist” pointed out, the big-wig scientists run the science policy in this country and in the international community e.g. the UN. Their beliefs do impact social policy. I’m going to post later on how scientists
have helped change social policy e.g. advocating zero population growth and global warming.

Michelle- It sure would be great if we could put down science, have a family, and then go back to it once the kids are old enough. There are more and more “mature” people getting advanced degrees nowadays. Perhaps in the future there will be more opportunities for part-time and electronic courses for degrees in the sciences like there are for business and humanities degrees.

Jim & Clark – I can’t deny my faith and also I can’t deny that there is much persuasive scientific evidence supporting evolution. But I don’t really worry about what I consider clashes between the two, because I know that there is much that I don’t know right now, both spiritually and physically. I try to be patient, but occasionally I’ll stay up nights trying to figure out an intriguing problem, burn myself out trying to find the answers, and then go back to patiently waiting.

I tend to see Adam in certain ways like Lehi, Jared, or even Noah. A person sent by God to a new world. He speaks of his descendents but more than likely he entered into a world with existing inhabitants.