When we discuss the scientific method and whether science is value-neutral in my General Psychology class, we review the various ways values can be infused into science, willingly or not. This one seems to be willingly value-laden. The editor’s argument against publishing was that there was nothing compelling enough in the article in terms of interpretation. But, I think the best science presents the data, with a side-view toward the implications. It’s just important to have the data out there. In this case, the values of the editors intervened. The author of the rejected article published it in an online journal.
This is via the excellent weblog, MindHacks.
Telegraph | Connected | Scientists are split on the different ways men and women think:
Peter Lawrence, a biologist and fellow of the Royal Society, accused Science of being “gutless” after it explained that its decision was because the piece did not offer “a strategy on how to deal with the gender issue”.
In his paper, Mr Lawrence questioned why, when 60 per cent of biology students are female, only 10 per go on to become professors.
This “leaky pipeline” has been blamed on discrimination and a lack of choice which, if corrected, will produce equal numbers of men and women in science.
But Mr Lawrence dismissed “the cult of political correctness” that insists men and women are “equivalent, identical even” and argued that “men and women are born different”.
The journal considered the article for seven months and, after making a number of changes, gave Mr Lawrence a publication date, proofs and a chance to order reprints.
But at the last minute he received an e-mail from Donald Kennedy, the editor-in-chief, in which he said that the journal was not going to publish the article.
Technorati Tags: science
