Original assertion was "highly credentialed biologists", which is different than "highly credentialed in biology", and I would agree with your objection to the later statement, her credentials lie mostly outside biology.
She's highly credentialed by the nature of her PhD from Yale, teaching at Hopkins & UCSC. She's a biologist by training, achieving her PhD in the field.
I asked for a list of social scientists so I could pick one and attack their PhD's or credentials under the same premise you criticized Haraway's, to demonstrate the absurdity of that line of thinking.
Marx's PhD was in philosophy, thesis something about greek philosophy being superior to religion. Spent most of his life as a journalist, so he's not credentialed in the social/political science field he's most notable for.
^^^ makes me sound foolish
Marx's PhD thesis https://archive.org/details/Marx_Karl_-_Doctoral_Thesis_-_Th...
"highly credentialed biologists",
which is different than
"highly credentialed in biology"
- highly credentialed soccer player
- highly credentialed surfer
- highly credentialed linguist
and many more variants. All of the above would be misleading because clearly statements like "X is a highly credentialed Y" are usually assumed to mean that X's credentials are in subject Y. Since a persistent and widely known criticism of Gender Studies and the concept of gender is the severed link with biology in general, and the biology of fertility in particular, is remarkable, and it is difficult to believe it is done in good faith.
[1] https://monoskop.org/images/5/58/Haraway_Donna_Crystals_Fabr...
Haraway did not play a few games of chess as a child, she studied 7+ years to get a PhD.
I'm with you that gender studies has an evidence/science problem in general, baselessly attacking a researchers credentials does not prove that point.
The content of her Yale PhD is not in biology, in the way this term is usually understood (DNA, proteins, signalling chains, PCR, bench work, taxonomy of animals, ... i.e. studying the physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, development and evolution of living organisms).
Since the scientific credibility of subjects like "Feminist Studies" is controversial (unlike biology) claiming high credentials where there are none, makes me think of HN guidelines [7]: when discussing highly controversial subjects like, discussions about scientific credentials, should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less.
I don't see why this is relevant for Haraway, not every great scientist has a great dissertation or written their dissertation in the field they later became famous for. The "bottom line" is that Haraway has no substantial credentials in biology, and certainly she has not done research in biology in the sense the term is usually understood. Anyway, to take up your challenge, I'm fairly familiar with the following highly credentialed social scientists: Karl Marx (PhD in philosophy on ancient Greek philosophy, I have been unable to locate it, if you have a link to the text, I'd be grateful), Max Weber (PhD in law about commercial law in Italy [2, 3]), Talcott Parsons (PhD is [4]), Émile Durkheim (PhD is on the division of labour [5]) and Niklas Luhmann (PhD about automation in administrations [6]). How is all this relevant regarding Donna Haraway?[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway
[2] http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/research/weber1.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zur_Geschichte_der_Handelsgese...
[4] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820700?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Division_of_Labour_in_Soci...
[6] https://www.amazon.de/Recht-Automation-%C3%B6ffentlichen-Ver...
[7] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html