Could be an aff perm card or a neg alt solvency card depending on how it’s read I think

Such indictment of gendering in science bears directly on the question of gender in patents, not only as a general critique of objectivity, but also as an indicator of how objectivity may be operating within patent law. If objectivity in science leads to an inaccurate account of the world, if it masks the relationships and interactions that lead to scientific discovery and innovation, and most of all, if it fosters a hierarchy that excludes valuable forms of participation in order to shore up the privileges of a few, then it may be doing the same in patent law. Patent law explicitly draws its legal standards from scientific research and technological development; the PHOSITA standard contemplates a level of skill in the art, that is, in a particular field of technological expertise. If we were to amend the patent system to address the potential bias of objective standards in science and in law, the results for patent law could run the gamut from subtle to profound, depending upon whether we ascribe to feminist empiricist, standpoint, or postmodern critiques. It is to that potential range of reform that we now turn.