Wow, what a fantastic addition of context to my dubious out-of-context snippet! Thank you for the link. For all the philosophy of science I have read, the most

Wow, what a fantastic addition of context to my dubious out-of-context snippet! Thank you for the link. For all the philosophy of science I have read, the most unexpectedly revealing book I have seen was by a specialist in the sociology of science. (IIRC it was in a bookstore in Madison; I forgot the author and I have been sorry I didn't purchase the book; e.g. it pointed out that many Nobel prize winners in separate fields were college room-mates, and explained common elements in their strategies vis-a-vis personal energy-level and proximity to cutting-edge conversations.) Likewise for credence owed to history and anthropology [of science], where (as explained in the article), it is inherent to independent groups practicing Science in the Public Interest (to insert an older term). From there, to me, it is only a slight extension to include gender-specific concerns. However, I have to admit that the quite un-jargony article and interview, versus the apparently jargony snippet, read to me like a night-and-day difference. Perhaps that is my age and time-distance from academia; perhaps there might be some GAO (grant approval optimization) involved in the snippet.