Science is unpopular. Many, especially among the uneducated branches of the religious right, reject evolution.
It is equally unpopular among many liberals, who reject what science says about sex differences.
As educated liberals have much more influence over the formation of national policy than uneducated religionists, I’m more concerned about liberals.
For instance, yet another study came out showing, once again, that males have a much greater variance in math achievement than females. That is, female scores tend to bunch together near the mean, while male scales are more likely to be way up or way down. While this leaves the average unchanged, it implies both more math PhDs and more special education students will be males. More of the typical ‘good students’ (but not overachievers) that teachers like are females.
Unsurprisingly, the New York Times reports the study as finding no sex differences. Other liberal publications, such as the Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, and The Chronicle of Higher Education toe the party line. This would be like a Jack Chick pamphlet describing modern biology as reporting no evidence for evolution.
Fortunately, the Wall Street Journal (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who supports science) gets it right.
Thanks to gnxp, Marginal Revolution, and Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science for helping to uncover this story.