Gender and knowledge in science

¶ … Brain, and Heart: A Feminist Epistemology for the Natural Sciences," Hilary Rose attempts to create a philosophy of science that is not contingent upon female scientists seeing the world 'like men,' or as male scientists do. In other words, Rose suggests that rather than suggesting that the scientific perspective is gender neutral and can be assumed by both male and female individuals, females in the scientific profession must create a different epistemology or way of understanding and learning about the world that transcends the binaries created by the men whom have dominated the scientific profession until now.

Rose states that the sciences have traditionally created a sharp division between what is done by the hand, the mind, and the heart -- or through craft, intellect, and emotion. Rose suggests that such a division has not simply traditionally and falsely been used to exclude women from excelling in the intellectual, objective sphere of the sciences -- as in 'women feel, but cannot think,' therefore women cannot 'do' science -- but also has class implications in that it excludes what is construed as 'working class' from the mental realm of the sciences and feeling, artistic realms.

By arguing for women to create a more female and feminist friendly methodology of scientific understanding, therefore, Rose suggests that science itself becomes more accessible to those who might be excluded from current scientific modalities of knowing because of class as well as gender. Science, she suggests, has economic as well as academic implications. For instance, because society posits that labor that is primarily emotionally oriented, such as childcare, is unpaid, while work accomplished with the mind should be paid most highly, while work done with the hands should be paid less, an objective discourse with no real connections to the material is valued unquestioningly, with negative implications for science as well as for women and working class individuals. Science values the theoretical, without considering its practical responsibilities and needs to the manual, material realm.

Rose's main issue is with notions of Cartesian dualisms, that create a separation with scientist and the object of 'his' study. Instead, personal biases and influences must be recognized, as well as the connection, however unacknowledged between the scientist and his or her work.

Second Section: Reader/writers response to the article's argument

Although Rose's argument may be at times difficult to follow, when applied to practical examples, it seems stunning in its clarity. Consider the implications for medical research, for instance, which has so often proved inaccurate and arbitrary, because of the different experiences of 'the body' of various subjects. By doctors seeing his or her own body reflected in the body of his or her own patient, doctors are forced to take into consideration subjective experiences of the patient that influence different drug trials and medical tests.

Perhaps, had doctors done so, some of the implications of estrogen theory, positive and negative, would have been taken into consideration, had doctors listened more to the anecdotal experiences of their patients. The prescription of pain curtailing drugs and the need to control pain and the potentiality for addiction requires a doctor to monitor something that cannot be 'objectively' measured that is purely subjective in nature. Taking note of the material forces doctors to consider drug costs and the social class of who is likely to benefit from the information generated from their studies.