Multicollinearity is the usual suspect as JoFrhwld mentioned.  Basically, if your variables are positively correlated, then the coefficients will be negatively correlated, which can lead to a wrong sign on one of the coefficients.

One check would be to perform a principal components regression or ridge regression.  This reduces the dimensionality of the regression space, handling the multicollinearity.  You end up with biased estimates but a possibly lower MSE and corrected signs.  Whether you go with those particular results or not, it's a good diagnostic check.  If you still get sign changes, it may be theoretically interesting.  

UPDATE

Following from the comment in John Christie's answer, this might be interesting.  Reversal in association (magnitude or direction) are examples of Simpson's Paradox, Lord's Paradox and Suppression Effects.  The differences essentially relate to the type of variable.  It's more useful to understand the underlying phenomenon rather than think in terms of a particular "paradox" or effect.  For a causal perspective, the paper below does a good job of explaining why and I'll quote at length their introduction and conclusion to whet your appetite.

- [The role of causal reasoning in understanding Simpson's paradox, Lord's paradox, and the suppression effect: covariate selection in the analysis of observational studies][1]

> Tu et al present an analysis of the equivalence of three paradoxes, concluding that all three simply reiterate the unsurprising change in the association of any two variables when a third variable is statistically controlled for. I call this unsurprising because reversal or change in magnitude is common in conditional analysis. To avoid either, we must avoid conditional analysis altogether. What is it about Simpson's and Lord's paradoxes or the suppression effect, beyond their pointing out the obvious, that attracts the intermittent and sometimes alarmist interests seen in the literature?

> [...]

> In conclusion, it cannot be overemphasized that although Simpson's and related paradoxes reveal the perils of using statistical criteria to guide causal analysis, they hold neither the explanations of the phenomenon they purport to depict nor the pointers on how to avoid them. The explanations and solutions lie in causal reasoning which relies on background knowledge, not statistical criteria. It is high time we stopped treating misinterpreted signs and symptoms ('paradoxes'), and got on with the business of handling the disease ('causality'). We should rightly turn our attention to the perennial problem of covariate selection for causal analysis using non-experimental data.

  [1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266743/