I may have been generalizing. But there was a post here on HN with a link to such article about that PNAS one that was a bit selective on the parts it picked an

I may have been generalizing. But there was a post here on HN with a link to such article about that PNAS one that was a bit selective on the parts it picked and ignoring some answers already in PNAS article to questions it asked, and that's what I don't like. For instance the reason why there wasn't enough backed ventures that were led by women.. The PNAS article hinted that the fact women pursue less (and those who do, do mainly in cosmetics and such matters) has something to do with that.. Yet the article chose to ignore that and asked the question as if there were no answer to it, and then picked the part good-looking men get funding, and used that to answer the question. Sorry for late answer.