I am a fan of science and science communication.  I seek it out in all its forms, whether it is communicated in the jargony tech-speak of my people [scientists] or if the intended audience falls within the “five and younger” demographic.  Though I have a few pet areas (like cholesterol biology and pregnancy), I’m generally not picky about the topic.  As long as I can learn about some awesome biological/physical/chemical/ecological/mathematical/geological/astronomical phenomenon, I WANT TO.  However, what I have come to discover is that, despite there being a ton of women like me – women who are just into science – science rarely makes an appearance in women-targeted publications.

But, that doesn’t mean that science doesn’t belong there.

Writing science for women’s (and men’s) magazines and not being ashamed of it, dammit! was the topic of Maryn McKenna and Elizabeth Devita-Raeburn’s session at the recent Science Online 2012 meeting held last weekend in Raleigh, NC. Overall, I found the message to be quite positive.  Maryn made it clear that women’s magazine readers are “an enormous, dedicated, and loyal audience who may be more sophisticated than people realize, and are ready for scientific messages.”  This, along with the fact that women’s magazine editors are desperate for writers who know what they are talking about (as per Elizabeth Devita-Raeburn), just screams for more science in these types of publications.

One can possibly argue that if women wanted to read about science, they would just go and pick up a science-themed magazine, or seek science out on the internet.  While some women do look specifically for science publications, the statistics reflect an overwhelmingly male readership for most scientific magazines.  For instance, Mariette DiChristina, Editor in Chief of Scientific American, provided some stats for her magazine over Twitter:

For Scientific American Online, the median age is 40, and the male/female ratio is 56.5%/43.5%.  For Scientific American print, the median age is 47, with a male female ratio of 70%/30%.

To quote Carl Zimmer, “Science magazines, if you look at the numbers, are actually men’s magazines.”  But, still, this doesn’t answer why science should be a mainstay in traditional women’s magazines like Redbook, Self, Glamour, Cosmo, etc.  The same can be said about online venues that serve women (FYI a “health” section is not really a representative sampling of science *cough*Babble and BlogHer*cough*).

I suppose that there are two ways to interpret this issue.  The first way, mentioned already, is to just assume that women aren’t generally into science, because if they were, they would go and seek it out.  The second argument would be that women are into science and want to know more about science, and therefore, women’s magazines (since they cater to women) should satisfy that demand.  As Emily Willingham suggests, there is an unfulfilled niche where moms, sisters, aunts, cousins, grandmothers, girlfriends, wives, etc., live and they are yelling, “Please, please, PLEASE tell me something that is relevant, awesome, and/or just plain weird in the world of science!”  And, to be clear, I believe in the latter.

Yet, there is another potential issue (for writers) regarding writing for women’s magazines and online forums: do writers want to be associated with a publication that often promotes vanity, poor body image, and maybe even pseudoscience?  Perhaps the pinnacle example of publishing real science in a traditionally non-scientific space is Carl Zimmer’s profiling of Neil deGrasse Tyson in Playboy.  Is writing about science for a venue that makes a living on objectifying women good or bad for science (and women in science)?

These very issues were raised by Arikia Millikan, technology maven and community manager at Wired.com.  While I see this point, my feeling is that for every science article one can shove into the women’s magazine repertoire, that is one less article that focuses on “how to get him to notice you,” or “5 [often unscientific and usually unrealistic] tips to shrink that belly fat.”  Plus, it is an article on science!  And, believe you me, I know that women like (if not LOVE) that sort of thing.  For instance, I think that it is wonderful to see Christie Wilcox – PhD student and scientific voice of reason – on the Dr. Oz-associated site Nutrition Wonderland, especially because she will accurately present scientific topics that are often misrepresented or even skewed to fit a desired viewpoint. (For the record, Arikia does advocate getting the science out there in any way possible, including women’s magazines and Playboy!)

This session was extremely successful and I can confidently say that there are at least 50 ready and willing scientists and/or science writers who were sitting in that room, all looking for a chance to present facts and critical scientific explanations to a population that needs it.  The remaining question is: what will the women’s magazines and online forums do about it?

For the storify on this session, check this out.