As a biology major planning on a career in scientific research, Wylie's article on "Feminist Critiques of Science" was most thought-provoking to me. I am curious to know whether Wylie's argument, that socially constructed gender inequities seep into the sciences and cause biased results, applies to fields of research outside of psychology and gender-related development or cognizance studies. I have been developing questions as a researcher of biology (not feminist-biology, just biology in general, both animal and plant-based) and the idea that there is an invisible undercurrent of male-ness directing my hypotheses is completely alien to me. Conceivably there is/would be a bias if patriarchal institutions who fund researchers are driving scientists in particular directions for financial interest (i.e. pharmaceutical companies or biotechnology engineers), but the fundamentals of science revolve around a basic curiosity of all things, not "all things pertaining to males." I fail to understand how research on reproduction in oak trees, for instance, would have any bearing on human gender relations or hierarchy. Obviously there are entire categories of sciences that Wylie overlooks in her criticism of scientific output ("garbage in; garbage out," page 50 - really? let's just regress a few thousand years...).

I do, however, agree with her points about women lacking in the scientific fields (delineated in the section "Equity Issues in Science" p. 36-44). I believe this ties in with the general economic inequities felt by all working women, because one of the factors remains that women must choose between devotion to a graduate program for advanced studies or family, or maintain a far more hectic schedule than a male graduate student if balancing the two.