The article was very interesting and tries to explain the psyche of scientists (male or female) who are caught in the conflict of self interest v/s the larger interest of the society or humankind, or in this case Nature itself. \n\nAs may be noted, most of the examples quoted are related to biological phenomena, about the survival of one kind of species over another or a choice between two different worlds. It is difficult to fathom such a scenario for physicists or chemists since the application of these disciplines is usually universal and not gender or species specific. There are, however, exceptions to this scenario, a case in point being the film, "Contact" where Jodie Foster plays the role of a physicist trying to find intelligent life on other planets in the Universe. And when she does so, she shows the heart of a true scientist by accepting the truth, but also that of a mother who has blind faith in her child (in this case, again the truth she has discovered) and will go to any extent to protect it, risking her career and position in society in the process. She tries to unite science and (human) Nature and personally comes out trumps, but she cannot make a believer out of everybody, not even her fellow scientists.\n\nWhat drives scientists (male or female) 'mad' is the opposition they face from the society in general and their peers in particular for some of their pet theories or ideas, but more often than not, ideals. Every scientist has accepted the cold truths about science, but they often have their own set of principles that are applicable to thier work. It is the passion for science and Nature that makes competent scientists out of ordinary humans. And most of these scientists see the world as belonging equally to everyone. The decision to obliterate a species is hard to accept or justify for most of them. Let me explain this with an example-\n\nSome time ago it was decided NOT to destroy the remaining worldwide stocks of smallpox vaccine even though the disease has been eradicated. Though there was a gamut of political reasons provided to do so, as a biology scientist myself, I would have voted against the destruction simply because these were the last remaining samples of a very competent virus that has mutated over generations to acheive an evolutionary edge over its host. Politicians may get to decide which person can or cannot live, but they surely should not get to decide which species is allowed to survive. That is purely the ethos of the scientists. As always, the differences will remain amongst them, but it is important to understand that it is not always pure logic that decides such matters, the ideals about life and science and Nature are what drives the reasoning behind passionate scientists.