On Monday, March 21, the Radcliffe Institute held a forum on women in science. The event was billed as a discussion of why, "to many women scientists, the promise of equity can seem like a receding mirage." In a sense, it was Radcliffe's response to Harvard President Larry Summers's recent controversial remarks on women's innate abilities in science and math.

The theater was packed. About a quarter of the attendees were male. The panel of speakers consisted of five women and one man.

Harvard psychology professor Elizabeth Spelke pointed to evidence refuting theories of innate female inferiority in science and math. "Why," she asked, "are claims like Summers's being taken so seriously?"

MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins - who famously walked out of Summers's January 14 speech - received a standing ovation.

Of her highly publicized walk-out she mused, "I have to say I do regret it."

The lone male on the panel, Harvard history of science professor Charles Rosenberg, described the fears of earlier eras that studious women would bear unhealthy children.

During the question-and-answer period, one young woman, a postdoctoral fellow in chemistry, suggested that the innate abilities question may be moot. "To become a top scientist," she pointed out, "you need ambition, management skills, common sense, and quantitative ability. You don't have to be an autistic savant."

A tall, middle-aged man briefly punctured the event's supportive atmosphere, accusing the organizers of stacking the panel. "You all agree with each other," he said. "And the gender and science studies you point to all agree with what you want to say. I thought this was supposed to be debated openly and honestly."

After the event, a caterer took me aside. "You want to know something about Larry Summers?" she asked. "He gets a side of mayonnaise to go with his potato chips. That's disgusting! You can't trust a guy like that."