But these sciences, even if they have been mostly studied by men, have been also studied in great extend by women over the years. While some scholars support that considerable biological differences between men and women affect their representation in science, there is a substantive body of evidence indicating that overall intelligence does not differ between men and women. Still controversy persists as to whether specific aspects of cognitive ability differ. But there is no ideal constellation of cognitive abilities required to be a scientist. To become a successful scientist, one needs to have deductive reasoning abilities, adequate verbal skills, quantitative reasoning, intuition, and social skills. Even if we accept that men and women differ in some of these abilities, there is no basis on which one may assume that men will have greater success than women in science, because different academic backgrounds, personal skills and mental abilities create equally successful approaches and styles. Moreover, there is no convincing evidence that women’s representation in science is limited by innate ability. For example, between 1970 and 2003 a considerable 30 percent increase occurred in the proportion of Ph.D.’s granted to women in engineering. Since people support that this was the outcome of dramatic changes in attitudes and laws relevant to gender, the fact that more women were able to successfully graduate from their PhD’s programs provides strong evidence of the cultural and structural impediments to women.

Moral and legal imperatives to ensure equal opportunity provide sufficient reasons to examine the causes of the disparities and to attempt to rectify them. Equally compelling is the impact that equity will have on the quality of today’s universities and the competitiveness of any nation. Heterogeneity among students, faculty, and staff can strengthen universities’ role in fundamental ways. Specifically, the design of more innovative solutions to problems is the outcome of heteroclite groups, which can bring a higher level of critical analysis to decisions. Furthermore, institutions that welcome women foster more favorable working environments for all community members.

Concluding, institutional transformation necessitates collective examination of attitudes and the behaviors observed, which can be rather disquieting, since it requires engagement with issues of life-style, reproduction, hiring, and academic customs. But, the most uncomfortable of every possible discovery is the realization that all people have their own unconscious biases, which can shape behavior patterns and lead to such gaps.

One of the most excising and growing fields of science today is DNA testing.

DNA Testing is one of the most effective means of solving crime scenes. DNA Testing is one of the few branches of science that can not be refuted. No one in the world has your exact DNA. In recent years DNA testing has been used to reopen old cases and free innocent people from jail.

A recent discovery in the science of DNA testing may open up even more old cases and allow even better accuracy at crime scenes. A new computer program has been developed that can separate one persons DNA from an object. In many cases the DNA was too mixed up to tell which person actually committed the crime. This new science makes DNA testing easier.

The science of DNA testing has come a long way since its humble beginnings. In fact with this new advance in DNA testing its results are so accurate they can not be refuted even in a court of law. Popular television shows such as the CSI franchise and Law & Order depict realistic experiences with the science of DNA testing.

DNA testing as a science is about much more than finding out who committed a crime. It could now help you get in touch with your roots! At reasonable prices many commercial DNA testing laboratories can tell you exactly where your ancestors came from. The science is so accurate they can even tell you where your ancestors lived, and moved and point out specific characteristics.

This science is a great tool if you are looking to explore your families ancestry or when looking to establish paternity or maternity in parents. The science of DNA testing will only continue to grow as our society advances.

Our needs at this point in Humanity’s evolution are not for more and more sophisticated missiles, computers, and electronic gadgets but rather for a purpose and reason for man to continue to evolve on earth. The main paradigm of science since Newton has been to dominate and control out total environment for our own needs and desires. The fact that these desires were usually selfish, nationalistic and petty has not stopped science (and its handmaiden technology) from pushing humans to the brink of extinction. It is apparent that science in its 200 year quest to create a world of good and plenty has neglected to set any conceptual goals of limits in its search.As the myth of man’s superiority over his environment crumbles, science has neglected to look for a replacement, and consequently it continues to use the same old solutions for an entirely new set of problems.

As the 20th century comes to an end, the scientific community is being confronted with more and more discoveries and theories that ate totally incompatible with the three dimensional five sense world that was defined scientifically over three hundred years ago.In order for science to face this confrontation over the next twenty-five years it will have to do three things:1. Discard if necessary, any three dimensional sense based paradigms that are no longer relevant to mans total evolution.2. Develop new paradigms that will make the apparently incomprehensible discoveries and disciplines of today more meaningful so that they might give us a renewed perspective on our world.3. Use this perspective to build a broader, more relevant myth so that will enable humanity to define a renewed purpose and goal for its evolution. Point one looks simple, but, it is really quite difficult. Over the years, science has made a lot of assumptions that it accepts as fact. To convenience scientists otherwise is extremely difficult due to a smug assumption of their own intelligence and wisdom.One of the first ideas of science that will have to for is that if a theory cannot be proved analytically by some sort of empirical means, it is of no value and should be ignored.

Potentially valuable disciplines like Yoga, Astrology, and acupuncture are discarded using this logic.This thought is further reinforced by a corollary principle that says if something does not have the potential to either make someone rich of fulfill a paranoid need for collective protection it is not worth pursuing. Solar energy suffers under the former and the Pentagon thrives on the latter.A more esoteric and obsolete principle of science that is rarely defined is the assumption that present knowledge is the culmination of a long trail of experimentation and error. The scientists of Galileo’s time felt that the earth was the center of the solar system. They “proved” it according to their subjective notions, and felt that the idea was “right”.We smugly look back and consider the acceptance of the heliocentric solar system as a naive but necessary step in our attempt to understand the solar system, which we now consider completely understood. It is obvious if you think about it that our current knowledge is no more complete in an absolute sense than that of Copernicus. His theory was a big step above Galileo just as Galileo was a big step above Cro-Magnon’s.

There is no real reason to believe that a different model of the solar system might not be discovered which will make our present knowledge seem just as naive as Galileo.Another paradigm that is obsolete is the statement that an observable fact is more valid than a subjective one. The word valid in this context is defined as being useful for social or personal growth enhancement.One fact that comes to mind that is not particularly valid is that the earth is round. We all know it’s round, but subjectively, seeing it as flat is just as valid. Deep down we do not believe that is round anyway, otherwise we would be afraid of going to Australia; as we might fall off into space. Considering the world subjectively as flat has no disadvantages and in fact is more useful for our functional conception of the world.Another related fact that has no practical meaning to our everyday life is that the sun is the center of the solar system and the earth revolves around it at 17,000 mph. A moments thought will convince anybody that we are forced by our senses to deny this as we see the sun revolving around the earth and consider the earth as being stationery.Any fact has to be looked at in this manner. As the meaning of facts is relative to our sense of reality. Considering the earth as the relative center of the solar system enabled humanity to utilize the earth’s biosphere in a functional practical manner, as the concept of day, month, and growing season are easier to conceptualize assuming the sun revolves around the earth. It turns out that the only use a heliocentric conception of the solar system has is in esoteric technological abstractions such as launching space ships and satellites.

It must be stated that I am not advocating the re-acceptance of the geocentric solar system, rather, I am presenting the idea that both views are valid for different things, and for science to totally disregard the subjective aspects of observable phenomena is not in humanities best interest.Another attitude of science that is no longer functional is that present knowledge is always valid and anything new must be subjected to years of proving and analysis to be accepted. The introduction of antiseptic procedures and anesthetics into medicine are two of the most famous examples.The paradigms that I have mentioned are not all inclusive, as science has many more that could be changed. It must be understood that I am not advocating the examination and editing of every scientific axiom, but rather a change of perspective about scientific discoveries that would put the accent on what humanity needs a opposed to what it wants.The elimination of these various principle and axioms automatically implies establishing new ones.

The ones I just mentioned were relevant and useful in their time frame, and grew out of the experience of humans during different periods that make this period ideal for reformulating our most basic scientific concepts.The first new principles I propose is that a discovery of theory will be accepted and disseminated if it shows a definite potential to fulfill a social need. Society as an entity often asks questions in its own way. The answer to these questions is best met by the symbol. A theory should be judged by its symbolic power to either alter humanities perception or to fulfill a collective need. The idea of ” proving” it should be secondary. As a corollary to this principal, I propose that a scientific discovery or theory be submitted to other disciplines for analysis. If artists and philosophers could have had a say in the use of napalm, a lot of human suffering might have been avoided.Another principle that I feel would enable science to arrive at more valid conclusions to today’s phenomena would be to accept the idea that our three dimensional world is real, but does not encompass reality. This statement has been accepted as fact for years by all occult societies, some religions, and many philosophers. The scientists have dealt with it by ignoring it.

The physics of sub-atomic particles would be the obvious place for this principle to be applied. Two of the established conclusions of this discipline already postulate that atoms, which compose ” solid” objects are mostly space, and are moving rapidly and that matter is not an actual substance but rather a particular form of energy.Throughout history, visions, ideas, and dreams, although not ” real ” have altered the world and its people. Concepts like the Jewish state, Christianity, and Communism are three of the best examples. If science could accept ideas like ESP and telepathy without insisting on three dimensional proof, our world might progress differently.A companion to the above principle is that phenomena that is experienced by senses other than the obvious five be considered to have an equal potential for becoming valid and useful. Carl Jung’s dream analysis and the ideas of Robert Assagioli offer tremendous potential for improving psychology’s usefulness if they could be applied with a more pragmatic attitude.These new principles of science would only be a start. Using them would cause a weakening of the uniqueness of the scientific method.

The positive aspects would be to make science more closely aligned with the other evolutionary disciplines of art and philosophy. The potential of such a synthetic discipline formed from the best aspects of art, philosophy, science and mathematics would be tremendous. Such a discipline could be called homosynthesis and would be ideal for humanities apparent future needs.As things stand now, the implications of today’s discoveries will become more and more unreal and fantastic if we continue using present phenomena, the further examination of such ” scientific” discoveries as black holes and quarks must be done within a less rigid framework in order for them to ever become meaningful for humanity. At present, the conclusion that ” modern science” has drawn from them sounds ridiculous. Black holes imply a disappearance of time, matter, and space itself out of the universe possess a quality so exotic that it is referred to as “charm”, for want of a better word. Neutrinos have no mass, no charge and do not leave a trail in a bubble chamber, yet science admits their existence.

Using some of the principles I have postulated would be a good start to make some sense out of the apparent nonsense described above.People look to science for many of the myths we use to give subjective meaning to our existence. The myth that humans have the wisdom and ability to distort natural processes without any negative effects has strongly defined our reality over the last fifty years. Another one is that humans have an infinite capacity for wisdom, and that the rapid application of every scientific discovery, regardless of our understanding of the affects of the implications, is in our best interest.The new principles that I have proposed could lead to new myths. The idea that an individual is part of something beyond his comprehension can lead to an intelligent humility that would convert man from a paranoid antagonist against an unknown foe to an enlightened part of a vast cosmic whole. Instead of seeing things like black holes and quarks as fantastic outside concepts attacking our cherished notions, we could accept them as doors that open into a higher level of cosmic integration. We could become conscious cooperators in our own evolution, with each new discovery leading us to another in a never ending path toward our ultimate destiny.