The issue is not whether the science should be undertaken - of course it should if the sicentist think it is worthwhile.

I agree that it's not really an issue, though some (such as Mr. Boyle) seem to think it is.

The issue is what does Summers have to do with that? He is not in the business of creating hypothesis for study of genetics and biology.  He's the President of the University.

That's not the issue, or at least not the one I care about.  As I said in a lower response to you, I'm not trying to reach any judgment about Summers here.  I'm simply trying to incorporate what he said into a discussion about sexism/feminism, and use it as a bit of dialogue-kindling.

And as President of the University, he has some explaining to do about Harvard's problems attracting women for the sciences. You see, while htere is a general problem, Harvard's is worse than most.

Perhaps, but why is it up to him to explain?  University presidents, by and large, have only one real official role: raising cash.  They don't really set policy, they're just a figurehead that tries to get the big donors.  Harvard may have a systemic problem, but it's not one you can pin on Summers, and in any case it's not one I think you can really pin on anyone or solve immediately.  It's an issue that has improved with time, and I think will continue to do so.  I'm not saying we shouldn't fight to improve the situation, but different problems require different approaches.

Did you see the NYT's editorial? I think any reasonable attempt to defend Summers MUST address those points. You simply do not here.

I did not see it prior to writing this: I've now briefly perused it, and might address some of them.  Suffice it to say that, again, I am not defending Summers.  I am using his words as a starting point, and saying that many of his critics seem misguided, but that is a far cry from defending him.  Though I do think that, even though his comments were controversial, he is a far cry from some TV show host.  He did at least frame them in a rather intellectual manner, which is much more than the likes of Jerry Springer do.

That  in particular is why I object to your title. You don't deal with the issue of sexism in the least.

Again, objection noted, and again, the title was purposefully general.  I really couldn't think of what else to title it.  I suppose "Feminism" might have been more appropriate, but then I'd have likely come off as even more chauvinistic to the folks who seem to be bothered by my post.