Department of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Graduate Program in Zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
eNeuro. 2017 Nov 9;4(6). doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0278-17.2017. eCollection 2017 Nov-Dec.
Neuroscience research has historically ignored female animals. This neglect comes in two general forms. The first is sex bias, defined as favoring one sex over another; in this case, male over female. The second is sex omission, which is the lack of reporting sex. The recognition of this phenomenon has generated fierce debate across the sciences. Here we test whether sex bias and omission are still present in the neuroscience literature, whether studies employing both males and females neglect sex as an experimental variable, and whether sex bias and omission differs between animal models and journals. To accomplish this, we analyzed the largest-ever number of neuroscience articles for sex bias and omission: 6636 articles using mice or rats in 6 journals published from 2010 to 2014. Sex omission is declining, as increasing numbers of articles report sex. Sex bias remains present, as increasing numbers of articles report the sole use of males. Articles using both males and females are also increasing, but few report assessing sex as an experimental variable. Sex bias and omission varies substantially by animal model and journal. These findings are essential for understanding the complex status of sex bias and omission in neuroscience research and may inform effective decisions regarding policy action.
神经科学研究历来忽视雌性动物。这种忽视有两种常见形式。第一种是性别偏见,定义为偏爱一种性别而不是另一种性别;在这种情况下,是偏爱雄性而不是雌性。第二种是性别遗漏,即缺乏对性别的报告。对这一现象的认识在整个科学界引发了激烈的争论。在这里,我们测试了性别偏见和遗漏是否仍然存在于神经科学文献中,是否同时使用雄性和雌性的研究将性别作为实验变量忽略,以及性别偏见和遗漏是否在动物模型和期刊之间存在差异。为了实现这一目标,我们分析了有史以来数量最多的神经科学文章中的性别偏见和遗漏:6 本期刊在 2010 年至 2014 年期间发表的 6636 篇使用老鼠的文章。随着越来越多的文章报告性别,性别遗漏的情况正在减少。性别偏见仍然存在,因为越来越多的文章报告仅使用雄性。同时使用雄性和雌性的文章也在增加,但很少有文章报告将性别作为实验变量进行评估。性别偏见和遗漏因动物模型和期刊而异。这些发现对于理解神经科学研究中性别偏见和遗漏的复杂状况至关重要,并可能为有关政策行动的有效决策提供信息。