RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Problems and Progress regarding Sex Bias and Omission in Neuroscience Research
JF eneuro
JO eNeuro
FD Society for Neuroscience
SP ENEURO.0278-17.2017
DO 10.1523/ENEURO.0278-17.2017
VO 4
IS 6
A1 Tyler R. Will
A1 Stephanie B. Proaño
A1 Anly M. Thomas
A1 Lindsey M. Kunz
A1 Kelly C. Thompson
A1 Laura A. Ginnari
A1 Clay H. Jones
A1 Sarah-Catherine Lucas
A1 Elizabeth M. Reavis
A1 David M. Dorris
A1 John Meitzen
YR 2017
UL http://www.eneuro.org/content/4/6/ENEURO.0278-17.2017.abstract
AB 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.