Although, she argues that the growth and decline of women in science is much more complicated than a mere cycle, Schiebinger has correctly identified historical context as a focal point. Two World Wars, the Great Depression, the solidification of the public and private spheres of family life, and a myriad of other factors at different moments during the present century have influenced women's participation in science both in numbers and in productivity. These institutional changes have had an immense impact on social life. As Schiebinger argues, scientific organizations have been reconfigured and reconstructed during the past couple of centuries. Cultural influences, which are often negated by science as nonscientific, appear to me to be important aspects of how and why science is done.
Meaning is interpreted through a cultural lens.
They suggest that by using DNA to explain human difference we are determining our lives through scientific knowledge. Similar to Nelkin and Lindee, Schiebinger correctly identifies the social productions of science. First and foremost, science is embedded in society and with this comes reflections of societal beliefs and meanings. Instead, I will merely contend that science is embedded in society and that science contains collusion with culture when knowledge and meaning are constructed. I would have enjoyed reading an attempt at deconstructing the scientific enterprise.