Comments From Readers

At the NAS meeting, Linda Wilson's remarks indicated that she deplores competitive machismo in science, which she sees as a male WASP style and one that women can and should change. At the same meeting, MIT astrophysicist Bernard Burke disputed this point, saying, "I think that's a ridiculous idea. That would be a terrible thing to happen for all of science. Above all, we must retain quality. . . . You don't get to do the best science by being a nice guy. Opportunism and competitiveness are essential." But another speaker at the meeting, Judith Liebman, graduate college dean at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, characterized Wilson's view as "epochal." She said: "It marks an end of what I'd call killer science--the attitude that `I must be first with the best of everything--the latest equipment, the best students, the most prestigious journals.'" It would be nice to believe that. But in an era dominated by killer economic competition internationally and killer greed at home, can we seriously expect science not to reflect this spirit? Burke's idea that opportunism and competitiveness are essential if we are to do the best science is based on the vulgar misconception that causes many lay people to regard science and technology as synonymous. As the Japanese have shown, "opportunism and competitiveness" are definitely the driving force in technology, where the objective is not excellence as such but excellence as a means to economic victory. By Burke's criteria, the Japanese should lead the world in scientific innovation as well. However, they do not. The best science arises out of emulation, not competition. Its goal is not the top spot in any pecking order; it is inspired by wholehearted admiration for quality that we, ourselves, would like to achieve. In my own life [as a neuroscientist], I have been greatly influenced by the work of people such as neuroanatomist C.J. Herrick. That doesn't mean I want to top them; it means that they set a standard I would like to meet in whatever I do myself. What Burke seems really to be saying is that this kind of motivation is dying out today, to the point that we must rely on our more primitive motives. If so, we may expect our technology to bloom in the decades ahead, but what will happen to our science is another question. C.M. FAIR Wakefield, R.I. ------- I attended the NAS meeting at which Linda Wilson made her remarks, and, in my opinion, many in the audience misunderstood what she was saying. She predicted that, in order for our research enterprise to continue to flourish, the atmosphere of intense competition will have to be moderated. She was calling for a change in the day-to-day environment in research laboratories, not for a reduction in quality standards in peer review of research proposals and papers. A cutthroat research environment discourages not only women but also men from pursuing careers in science. Our nation cannot afford to lose the talent that is dropping out of science to pursue careers in other fields such as law and business. JUDITH S. LIEBMAN Vice Chancellor for Research and Dean of the Graduate College University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign ------- I agree that there are a lot of high-pressure jerks in research. But believe it or not, a lot of them are women, minorities, and even--yes!--minority women. And it's not the research system that makes them that way; you can find them in office jobs, checkout lines, and churches. Exactly what are those "talents ...that are different [from those of Caucasian males] but equally valuable" [to which Wilson alluded during a question-and-answer session following her NAS speech]? What talents are the exclusive province of women and minorities? Can Wilson show me how I, as a Caucasian male, am lacking in these qualities? If Wilson wants to criticize a certain form of behavior, then she should criticize that behavior itself, wherever it exists. Wilson has indulged in a race-gender-behavior linkage that cries out for supporting evidence. GEOFFREY L. KIDD National Eye Institute Bethesda, Md. ------ In response to the article about Radcliffe president Linda Wilson and "macho science," I feel that [MIT astrophysicist] Bernard Burke's defense [of aggressive competitiveness] was not answered adequately. His comments were: "You don't get to do the best science by being a nice guy. Opportunism and competitiveness are essential" in pursuit of the best science. This is exactly what Wilson was attacking. To suggest that it undermines quality to promote access to science for nontraditional scientists doesn't recognize that there's something to gain from their unique perspectives. By opening a broader practice in terms of varied experience, science will achieve new heights. I have no qualms about quotas--if you give people with degrees from good schools the opportunity of resources, you can't go wrong over the long run. I hope that Burke's attitude represents a dying breed. But I'm afraid that it probably will be around for yet another decade. M. THOMAS Analytical Chemist Micron Technology Boise, Idaho ------ While agreeing that cutthroat competition in academic and industrial science is sometimes a serious problem, I must take issue with the comments made by Linda Wilson on competitiveness in science. She appears to be taking the fashionable path of blaming everything that is wrong in the world on male Caucasians. I have worked in private industry since leaving graduate school, so my experience has been mostly outside of academia. I have seen companies whose corporate cultures encourage the most ruthless competition among their scientists (and other professionals). Many of the most vicious, back-stabbing competitors have been white males, just as many of the most vicious have been women of all races and nonwhite males. In academia, I suspect the same thing may be true. Not too surprisingly, companies that encourage cutthroat competition in their own ranks generally do not fare as successfully in the marketplace as those organizations whose employees demonstrate more of a cooperative team spirit. In academia, it may take longer for the adverse consequences of such conduct to manifest themselves, but eventually they do. In all of this, however, let us refrain from Caucasian male-bashing. Such prejudiced behavior is not only morally wrong but also completely unproductive. JAMES M. CASTRO Missoula, Mont.

Comments From Readers

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of