I have lost count of the number of times I've had a particular conversation with young men in my American studies classes when we discuss science in American life and I bring up specific examples of how science in gendered in the U.S. I might ask students to tell me the story of human conception. They say the mightiest sperm swims toward the egg and penetrates it. End of story.

I counter with Emily Martin's work on how the egg and sperm cooperate; Martin has documented a "fairy tale" told by scientists about conception and explains instead that research has demonstrated that egg and sperm actually collaborate at the moment of conception.

I use this as but one subtle example of the multitude of ways that women have been cheated by science. I argue that bad science, coupled with cultural assumptions and attitudes, have effectively kept women from participating fully in the sciences for decades.

"But," one or two young men explain to me rather earnestly, "studies show that men's brains and wired for understanding science, while women's brains are less so."

"That's what some scientists are claiming today," I say. "Yet about 100 years ago, scientists were claiming that a college education would shrivel women's ovaries. What do you think people will be saying about today's research in 100 years? And might the male scientists writing these studies have something at stake in claiming that their own brains are superior at science?"

This usually shuts them up, either because they find my argument convincing or because they don't want to piss off their instructor any further.

I've run across quite a few articles and blog posts lately that detail incidences of bad science, poor lay interpretations of scientific studies, or attempts to quash scientific research that might benefit women as well as men.

My reading began with Beth Skwarecki's article in Bitch Magazine. Skwarecki explains how to identify and deconstruct "bunk reporting in 5 easy steps" by asking these questions:

1. Do the conclusions fit a little too well with cultural stereotypes?

2. Does the study agree with the headline?

3. Can you spot the double standard?

4. Is there another conclusion that would be just as valid?

5. Is the study even science?

Consider Skwarecki's article required reading. Read it today.

Over at Lecturer Notes (formerly Post Doc Ergo Propter Doc), KH complains about an article in a recent issue of Marie Claire:

We had gems like 'chemical free nail varnish' and cleaning products which do not emit 'toxic fluoride fumes':

"If you want something that's truly chemical-free, look for the USDA seal on the label," says Joseph Smillie, whose private agency, Quality Assurance International, certifies organic products for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Now, clearly there is a problem with the definition of chemical-free. To me, nothing can be chemical free. To the average consumer, how is a chemical defined? One assumes it has something to do with the concepts synthetic, toxic, damaging and bad. We need to start calling bullshit on this sort of thing. Natural does not mean good. Chemical does not mean bad. Words like natural, organic and many others have incredible emotional pull for concerned consumers. And they are completely misleading.

In addition to flawed scientific studies and poor interpretations of good and bad studies in the mainstream media, women also face a challenge from groups who would like to quash specific kinds of scientific research altogether. Dr. Kiki Sanford tells one such story about a conservative think tank that is challenging government funding of stem-cell research. She deconstructs their argument and concludes:

They primarily argue that the nature of the research is too speculative. Why should the government fund research that might not amount to anything? Sure, fair enough. Why should it?

But, then again, why shouldn’t the government be a part of promoting science and the search for knowledge? The government can help the economy by putting taxpayer money back into industries like scientific research. Not only will that money increase the number of jobs in that sector (something that is good in this time of a 6.1% unemployment rate), but the result could also be something that will help mankind.

Whether or not cures actually come from basic research is not the point of supporting science with taxpayer money. Besides, didn’t the California taxpayers decide to set a certain amount of money aside for stem cell research? It’s not as though the decision was made by someone other than “the people” in this case.

I am amazed to think that supporting science is “gambl[ing] with taxpayers’ money.” The arguments made in the press release are emotional at best, and not supported by fact in the least. If supporting things can be considered gambling one might as well say that public funding of the educational system is a gamble because we have no idea how any of the kids are going to turn out. They might all end up drug addicts and thieves. I’d like to counter that financial support of science and basic research is rather an investment in the future.

Fortunately for us, there are women scientist bloggers who are more than happy to explain scientific rumors and reporting. One blog that does this regularly is The Beauty Brains. Check out their recent post, for example, on why you shouldn't wear lash-extending mascara with contact lenses. I don't usually wear make-up or use the products the Beauty Brains write about--and time and again they demonstrate why it's a good idea I don't. They aren't anti-beauty products, but their blog posts will be a wake-up call if you use moisturizers, make-up, hair conditioners, or any other beauty products.

Tara C. Smith of Aetiology regularly explains scientific studies and debunks bad science. She's part of a movement to get more microbiologists to share their knowledge online. Check out her recent post "Vaccination doesn't cause autism: volume what-are-we-up-to-now?"

Sandy Szwarc of Junkfood Science also debunks bad science and bad reporting; her specialty is food science.

Don't forget that you can participate in scientific efforts yourself--and not just as a human test subject. Janet Stemwedel (aka Dr. Free-Ride) of Adventures of Ethics and Science is a big champion of the democratization of scientific knowledge. See, for example, her latest post on how you (yes, you) can help scientists track bee populations. Stemwedel explains what the recent effort entails. Basically, you plant sunflowers and count, twice a month, how long it takes for five bees to visit the sunflowers. You also put the bees into basic categories: honeybees, carpenter bees, bumblebees, etc. What a fabulous opportunity for women--gardeners or not (sunflowers are easy to grow)--to contribute to science. I wish I had known about the study at the beginning of the summer's sunflower-growing season.

On a related note, here's another great idea: put Nobel Laureates on street corners to answer questions about science. Yes--there are videos of just such an event at that link to ScienCentral. Who would you like to see answering your science questions on a street corner? (I'd just like to listen to the ScienceBlogs.com women talk amongst themselves.)

Leslie Madsen-Brooks develops learning experiences for K-12, university, and museum clients. She blogs at The Clutter Museum, Museum Blogging, and The Multicultural Toybox.