60.        This editorial argues that, since career advancement for scientists typically require:
60 to 80 hours of work per week, affordable all-day child care must be made available
to scientists of both genders if they are to advance in their fields. Moreover, the editorial
urges that requirements for career advancement be made more flexible to insure that
pre-school children can spend a significant amount of time each day with a parent. This
argument is problematic in two crucial respects.
      The major problem with the view expressed in the article is that inconsistent
recommendations are endorsed in the argument. On the one hand, scientists are urged to
put their children in all-day child-care facilities in order to advance their careers. On the
other hand, they are encouraged to spend a significant amount of time each day with
their children. Obviously, scientists cannot be expected to adhere to both of these
recommendations.
      Another problem is that the recommendations are based on the assumption that e
or at least most. scientists have young or preschool-age children. But the editorial
provides no evidence to support this assumption, nor is this assumption very likely to be
true. Since, childless scientists or scientists whose children are old enough t: take care of
themselves will have no need for the services advocated in this article it is doubtful that
these recommendations will receive much widespread support.
      In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing. To strengthen it, the author must
show that most scientists have preschool children and consequently are in need c the
recommended services. Additionally, the author must address and resolve the apparent
conflict between the recommendations.