Discrimination is to be blamed for fewer women scientists.

Lawrence summers, the director of Harvard University, is the original “culprit”. His now famous comment about “women not succeeding in the field of science” has subjected us to reams of newsprint and debates on gender equality. Now another scientist has joined the male chauvinistic diatribe. Peter Lawrence, a biologist and fellow of the Royal Society, has accused the journal Science of being “gutless” after its editors rejected his article, which claims that men and women “think differently”. Didn’t we know it already?

In his paper, Lawrence makes the pertinent point that 60 per cent of biology students are females and yet only 10 per cent go on to become professors. This problem has been generally blamed on gender discrimination and a lack of choice for women which, if corrected, will produce equal opportunities for men and women in science.

Lawrence, however, dismisses “this cult of political correctness” that insists men and women are “equivalent and even identical” and argues that “men and women are born different”.

So what should be an apt retort for his audacious outburst?

The strongest criticism comes from Nancy Hopkins, a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who accuses him of “mashing together true genetic differences between men and women with old-fashioned stereotypes”. She adds, “In so doing, he perpetuates the very problem he is trying to address about why so few women get to the top in science.”

Don’t “men scientists” realise that women are not cerebrally disadvantaged and that there are larger compulsions that drive them away from science as a career? There’s a family to sustain, an absent-minded husband to nurture, unruly children to control. So a woman’s own aspirations and dreams of a career get crushed while trying to fulfil each of these other responsibilities.

Moreover, as we all know, pursuing scientific research is no child’s play; it takes years of dedication and commitment. So it’s not that women aren’t capable of that commitment, but rather they give greater priority to their personal commitments over professional ones.

All of us ideally prefer a 9 to 5 relaxed job, with a chance to take an emergency off as and when the child is ill. So should women to be blamed genetically for a no-show in the sciences?

In fact, we are much more capable than men are since we are blessed with the ability to exercise all our 46 chromosomes. And Shakespeare’s description (“creatures of infinite variety, thy name is woman”) holds good even now.