Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Planet Earth

Top-to-Bottom Sex Bias in Labs Skews Results

"Blind spot" could skew research results and threaten public health.

gender-bias.jpg
Bull's Eye/ImageZoo/Corbis

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Gender and sex imbalance infects science at every level, from the demographics of lab personnel right down to the tissue samples used in experiments. This bias is skewing research results in ways that threaten public health, warn top officials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“It’s a real blind spot that’s resulted in huge gaps in our knowledge,” says Janine Clayton, associate director of Research on Women’s Health at NIH. “Too often we rely on male animals, even when studying diseases that are more prevalent in women.”

Traditionally, researchers avoided using female animals because they worried hormonal fluctuations and reproductive cycles would skew results. But because women respond to medications and develop some diseases differently than men, researchers need to include female lab animals, tissues and cells in their experiments, according to a Nature commentary Clayton co-wrote in May.

Even a scientist’s gender can compromise research, according to a Canadian study published in April. The paper found that the mere presence of men in the lab induced such intense stress in rodents that it altered how the animals reacted to pain.

“Males can be perceived as dangerous, and stress can muffle pain responses,” says Jeffrey Mogil, the study’s lead author and a pain researcher at McGill University in Montreal. “This can affect a very large set of experiments. What’s amazing is that this is 2014, and we didn’t know about this until now.”

    2 Free Articles Left

    Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

    Want unlimited access?

    Subscribe today and save 70%

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In