Whenever it's relevant (when feminism comes up, or materialism) I talk to my students about the studies of sex differences in the brain. The press always reports any difference discovered by researchers as proof of innate differences in cognition. Of course, the biggest problem with that interpretation is that environmental factors affect the brain, so finding something in the brain is not useful for determining where it came from, but I also mention the small sample sizes the studies usually have (a couple of dozen participants at most).
A friend is getting his Ph.D. in neuroscience (incidentally, according to him MRI studies, which are the kind that usually get such press, are all crap) decided to practice his thesis defense presentation on his friends before doing the real thing, so I heard about his research. It had nothing to do with sex differences (it was about some details of how motor control works in the brain), but I learned something about sample sizes. I was somewhat shocked to discover that it involved two experiments with a grand total of three monkeys (two per experiment; one monkey was involved in both). I guess these were hideously expensive cyber-monkeys (they had electronic implants to measure brain activity very precisely during the experiments), so it wasn't practical to use more, but it seems like one could get very deceptive results this way if one were unlucky and got even one atypical monkey.
My skepticism of overly confident neuroscience claims has been further increased.