Having found it necessary in the past to advance unpopular, yet important, ideas, I found the scathing criticism of Harvard President Lawrence Summers in the recently published letter from the University of Florida to be troubling. Summers suggested that there may be biological distinctions between the genders that may account for differences in success rates of men and women in science and engineering curricula.

While I am not currently aware of evidence in support of or in opposition to Summers' suggestion - which doesn't mean there isn't any - he has advanced a legitimate, falsifiable hypothesis, which ought to be - and likely already is - the subject of cognitive research.

It is probable, I might suggest, that cultural and economics factors account for the majority of statistical performance differences between men and women, but we need not discard Summers' idea. I am, in general, wary of making sweeping statements about differences between groups of people who vary more internally than between each other. However, if there are average cognitive differences in the way men and women approach science and engineering, we ought to identify these differences quickly so that society can make informed decisions about the best ways to educate both men and women in science and engineering.

Instead of fighting one another on political grounds, why don't we work together to support cognitive research? If no statistical cognitive differences are found, that fact will stand as scientifically verified and will become a powerful weapon in the arsenal of women's rights groups. If statistical differences are detected, however, then it can only lead to improved educational methods for both men and women alike.

Dan Parente Senior in engineering