The good folks at The Situationist blog point us to an excellent article in the Scientific American by Diane F. Halpern, Camilla P. Benbow, David C. Geary, Ruben C. Gur, Janet Shibley Hyde and Morton Ann Gernsbacher. The subject is something that we have discussed quite a bit in this blog: "Sex, Math and Scientific Achievement".
The Situationist post has a bunch of links to several other online resources on this subject, so I recommend clicking through to that post. Let me just excerpt the concluding paragraphs of the SciAm article:
Where We Go from Here
If Larry Summers’s comments had one appealing feature, it was the benefit of simplicity. If the lack of women in science were a reflection, in part, of lack of ability, then the take-home lesson would seem to be that we can do nothing but accept the natural order of things.
As this article shows, however, the truth is not so simple. Both sexes, on average, have their strengths and weaknesses. Nevertheless, the research argues much could be done to try to help more women—and men for that matter—excel in science and coax them to choose it as a profession. The challenges are many, requiring innovations in education, targeted mentoring and career guidance, and a commitment to uncover and root out bias, discrimination and inequality. In the end, tackling these issues will benefit women, men and science itself.