Science is also male dominated

Re: "Science offers evidence, religion blind faith", Letters, February 13.

Mr Peter Filicietti does not seem to think that scientific culture has been "male created" and "male dominated". Where he got this idea, I do not know. It's quite plain that the origins of Western science are largely with men. It's also quite clear that, with the rare and bright exceptions of countries like Thailand, many sciences (such as chemistry, physics or engineering) have a very disproportionately male workforce.

Does Mr Filicetti think this has had no impact on scientific culture? Does he think that we scientists are so noble that this imbalance of power has not gone to our heads? Does he think we have not abused it? Does he think that the way we frame our ideas has not been affected by being part of a privileged social group? Meanwhile, he attacks religions as clearly "male dominated" and "male created". What a remarkable conclusion, given that most religious and community groups have a disproportionately large number of active women. I should wonder if they want their communities attacked like this.

It's probably a good idea to ask why these observations have been missed.

Practising Scientist

Bangkok