Contemporary gender issues such as the under-representation of women in science and engineering have re-invigorated debates about biological sex differences and their part in determining gender roles. There is a long history of scientific arguments being used (and misused) to legitimise differences in gender roles – the ‘biology is destiny’ argument. This tradition is continuing, with new brain imaging techniques being hailed as sources of evidence of the “essential” differences between men and women. But the field is littered with just the same sort of problems that have characterised 18th, 19th and 20th century research in this area. In other words, ‘neurononsense’.
Some of it is based on the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what brain imaging studies are actually telling us, often the product of ill-informed journalism or populist ‘science’ writings. Other problems involve bad science, or ‘neurosexism’, where scientists themselves contribute to the accumulation of neurotrash, by asking the wrong questions in the wrong way and using outdated and disproved stereotypes to explain their findings.
But there is good research – neuronews - where brain imaging can make positive contributions to the saga by informing the real story – are there really any differences in male and female brains, what is the impact of a gendered environment on the developing brain , can we ‘better’ our brains?
The aim of this session is to help everyone develop a ‘nose for neurononsense’, so we can root out the neurotrash, stamp out the neurosexism and make way for the neuronews.

Having trained up an army of neurotrash warriors at last year’s WOW festival we have set ourselves the task of busting a few of the brain-based gender myths that are still being propped up, in some instances by more or less hapless peddlars of neurotrash but in others, more worryingly, by brain researchers showing marked symptoms of neurosexism.
As with many brain myths there is some general inquisitorial ammunition that you can arm yourself with. Can we ‘sex’ the brain? When is a difference not a difference? Do we know everything we need to know about the people whose brains are being compared- what if all the males are taxi-drivers and all the women are bilingual jugglers? Do our brain images show ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’? Are our brain scientists rigorously objective with wonderfully value-free paradigms or is there ever a whiff of stereotyping in their choice of measures?
We’re going to focus on a few myths to start with, chosen because they illustrate nicely some of the “I Think You’ll Find It’s a Bit More Complicated Than That” [thanks to Ben Goldacre] tenets outlined above. As with many myths, sometimes there is a kernel of truth which we must hold our hands up to, but sometimes it’s a ‘truth’ which has changed over time or has become part of a self-fulfilling prophecy. And sometimes mega-myths have mini-myths embedded within them!
So if you want to know whether bigger brains are better brains , if male brains are map-reading brains, if female brains can’t be maths brains, and if male ‘spotlight’ brains can’t multi-task, then come along to WOW on Saturday, where Professor Gina Rippon aims to take us beyond Mars and Venus and bring us back to Earth.
[http://wow.southbankcentre.co.uk/whats-on/mythbusters-beyond-mars-venus-....

Many neuroscientists believe disorders of the mind will be solved when we understand the differences between the male and female brain. Yet is is frequently argued that men and women are not born but made. Are mental differences between the sexes real? Or is this just sexism dressed up as science?

There is a long history of debate about biological sex differences and their part in determining gender roles, with the ‘biology is destiny’ mantra being used to legitimise imbalances in these roles. The tradition is continuing, with new brain imaging techniques being hailed as sources of evidence of the ‘essential’ differences between men and women, and the concept of ‘hardwiring’ sneaking into popular parlance as a brain-based explanation for all kinds of gender issues. This includes the failure of numerous well-meaning initiatives attempting to address the marked gender imbalances in many areas of society, including industry, business, politics and science. There are assumptions (not always unspoken) that women don’t succeed in such spheres because they can’t, with rather patronising (sic) references to ‘complementarity ‘, ‘vulnerability’ and ‘the natural order of things’.
This talk outlines a model demonstrating how there is indeed a ‘brain problem’. Existing gender stereotypes can and do (mis) construct brain function and even structure, with negative consequences on the education, expectations and achievements of women. But it also highlights the possibilities offered by a greater understanding of how plastic and permeable our brains are, how we can build internal and external defences against “toxic stereotypes” and how the concept of ‘hard-wiring’ can be condemned to the dustbin of neurohistory.

There is a long history of debate about biological sex differences and their part in determining gender roles, with the ‘biology is destiny’ mantra being used to legitimise imbalances in these roles. The tradition is continuing, with new brain imaging techniques being hailed as sources of evidence of the ‘essential’ differences between men and women, and the concept of ‘hardwiring’ sneaking into popular parlance as a brain-based explanation for all kinds of gender gaps.
But the field is littered with many problems. Some are the product of ill-informed popular science writing ( neurotrash) based on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what brain imaging can tell us. Some, unfortunately, involve poor science with scientists using outdated and disproved stereotypes to design and interpret their research (neurosexism). These problems obscure or ignore the ‘neuronews’, the breakthroughs in our understanding of how plastic and permeable our brains are, and how the concept of ‘hard-wiring’ should be condemned to the dustbin of neurohistory.
This talk aims to offer ways of rooting out the neurotrash, stamping out the neurosexism and making way for neuronews.