Message from the Director
Two Human Genomes - One Male, One Female
Huntington F. Willard, PhD
For anyone who knows what my research in genetics and genomics focuses on, it won't come as a surprise that I keep a file on male/female differences in various aspects of health and biology. Many – such as heart health, bone density, height, various genetic conditions, mental retardation, and MRI scans of the brain –are health-related, clearly biologically-determined measures that differ significantly between the sexes. Other measures, however, such as performance on aptitude tests, are more nuanced and socially contextualized, and interpretation of such data requires great sensitivity to hidden (or not so hidden) bias.
"What I am saying is that there is a case to be made for genetic differences between the sexes."Aside from a brief flirtation with New York Times' columnist Maureen Dowd on the potential (and largely tongue-in-cheek) social implications of these differences, I have steered clear of any comments about the performance limitations or advantages of what one might (and some do) call "innate differences" between the sexes. It was Larry Summers, former President of Harvard, who so famously (or infamously) conjectured about the role of such "innate differences" as an explanation for why women do not advance in their scientific careers to the same degree as their male peers.
After all the jaws hit the floor, Summers repeatedly attempted to explain – and then apologize for – his comments. Caught in a maelstrom of controversies stemming from those comments as well as more general issues of leadership style, Summers resigned, to be replaced this fall by – wonder of ironies – Drew Faust, a female history scholar whose sex would barely be relevant if not for the circumstances surrounding her predecessor's fall.
So why raise the issue now? And why in the context of genome sciences and policy?
First, let's review what is undeniably different between the sexes. We have different chromosomes and different genes. Genes on the Y chromosome, a bit less than a hundred, are found only in males and not in females. And at least some genes on the X chromosome – perhaps another few hundred – function at a higher level in females than in males. As well, genes all over the genome respond differently to their hormonal environment, which is characteristically different between males and females. So, at least a few percent (and perhaps many more) of the genes in our genomes are "innately" different between males and females. While we may indeed be created equal, we are not created the same.
And, there is increasing evidence that female scientists behave, well, differently than male scientists. Regardless of the cause – and there's no shortage of debate and certainly no shortage of historical bias on this point – female scientists on average publish less than their male counterparts and take out fewer patents when they make inventions. Summers suggested these differences might be "innate"; others counter that they reflect age-old prejudices and stereotypes.
And so the debate continues. Changing the sex of the Harvard President won't change minds, but research might help inform both sides. And it's the type of complex, interdisciplinary area where Duke should be able to mount a rigorously balanced research program that spans the social and behavioral sciences at one end and the biological and health sciences at the other.
A recent event sharpened the issues for me. During 25 years of leading a lab team, I have mentored numerous female scientists and have benefited from collaborations and productive discussions with many others. This summer, attending a scientific conference, I wandered into the opening social event and immediately saw a group of my former students, gathered together with several collaborators of mine. All female. As I approached the group, it seemed to me that the group closed ranks; the circle tightened, gazes fixed. A few nodded hello in my direction, but then quickly turned their attention away from me and back to the group. All female. I was, literally and figuratively, on the outside. For perhaps the first time in my career, I experienced what I imagine my female colleagues experience all too frequently. Part of me wanted to say "good for them!" I suspect that some might be inclined to say that it was "good for him" to experience what it feels like, even for a moment.
Let me be clear about what I'm saying and what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that genetic differences underlie what are documented or perceived as behavioral, cultural or biological differences between males and females. What I am saying is that there is a case to be made for genetic differences between the sexes. And that such a case is much stronger than any argument about genetic differences between, say, racial groups or groups of different geographic ancestry. And that therefore, the possible social consequences of male/female genetic differences are a legitimate subject of scholarly research into gene/environment interactions.
The problem here is not that there are recognizable or measurable differences – perhaps even 'innate' ones – between males and females. After all, for every test that shows that males 'excel', there's another one that shows that females are 'better'. The problem is what we make of those differences and how we stack the deck – culturally,academically, scientifically, vocationally – in favor of or against one or the other sex. The social issues stare us in the face every day, but become even more obvious when a class's sex ratio deviates significantly, when groups of leaders assemble and not a woman is to be seen, when an Ivy League President speaks his mind, or when, as I found, an "old girls' club" leaves men on the outside looking in.
Decades of study have shown that boys and girls play differently, that male and female students learn differently, that men and women get sick differently. Irrespective of whether any of that – or, more likely, I suspect, how much of that –is due to genetic differences, anyone or anyplace whose success depends on working effectively with both sexes and on maximizing opportunities for both sexes has a shared obligation: to be sure that there are equivalent paths – though not necessarily or even likely the same paths – to success. And in the meantime, as we move down those paths, let us not shy away from examining what are undeniably important and endlessly fascinating questions about the two human genomes – one male, one female – that together shape our intertwined lives.
Huntington F. Willard
Director