Sir

I was disappointed by your recent Editorial (“Why Harvard needs Summers” Nature 434, 1; 2005 10.1038/434001a), published in the aftermath of Harvard president Larry Summers' suggestion that women fail to advance in science because they are innately less able than men. His comments have done incalculable harm, contributing greatly to the hostile environment that causes women to leave science.

Summers' views are opposed by an avalanche of data showing that women are as capable as men in science, but often cannot succeed by merit alone because of prejudice. One study (C. Wennerås and A. Wold, Nature 387, 341–343; 1997 ) found that women applying for a research grant needed to be 2.5 times more productive than men in order to be considered equally competent; for many more, see Why so Slow? by Virginia Valian (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999). No wonder women are not succeeding! Summers' views amount to blaming the victim.

As Stephen Jay Gould's wonderful book The Mismeasure of Man (Norton, New York, 1996) shows, theories about the supposed innate inferiority of women and minorities invariably derive from social prejudice. Many well-meaning people have these biases and are unaware of them. We all need to be more aware of our social biases, and we all need to speak out and confront sexism and discrimination whenever we encounter them.

For this reason, I have been disappointed by the failure of our, largely male, scientific leadership to speak out about the inaccuracy of Summers' comments. “Qui tacet consentire videtur : he who keeps silent is assumed to consent” — and the silence has been deafening. It is difficult for women scientists: if they speak out, they are viewed as asking for undeserved benefits, whereas if they keep silent, progress cannot be made. That's why I think the MIT professor who brought Summers' comments to public attention, Nancy Hopkins, is a hero.

At this point, Summers' arrogant and unscholarly approach has so deeply antagonized the Harvard faculty that there is little chance he can achieve the positive changes enumerated in your Editorial.