Advancing Science: How Bias Holds Us Back

Researchers' sex/gender identity influences how sex/gender question is investigated in neuroscience: an example from an OHBM meeting

Gender inequality and diversity in STEM is a challenging field of research. Although the relation between the sex/gender of the researcher and the scientific research practices has been previously examined, less interest has been demonstrated towards the relation between sex/gender of the researcher and the way sex/gender as a variable is explored. Here, we examine, from a neurofeminist perspective, both questions: whether sex/gender identity is related to the examination of sex/gender as a variable and whether different approaches towards examining sex/gender are being used in different topics of study within neuroscience. Using the database of submitted posters to the Organization of Human Brain Mapping 2022 annual conference, we identified abstracts examining a sex/gender-related research question. Among these target abstracts, we identified four analytical categories, varying in their degree of content-related complexity: (1) sex/gender as a covariate, (2) sex/gender as a binary variable for the study of sex/gender differences, (3) sex/gender with additional biological information, and (4) sex/gender with additional social information. Statistical comparisons between sex/gender of researcher and the target abstract showed that the proportion of abstracts from Non-binary or Other first authors compared to both Women and Men was lower for all submitted abstracts than for the target abstracts; that more researchers with sex/gender-identity other than man implemented analytical category of sex/gender with additional social information; and, for instance, that research involving cognitive, affective, and behavioural neuroscience more frequently fit into the sex/gender with additional social information-category. Word cloud analysis confirmed the validity of the four exploratorily identified analytical categories. We conclude by discussing how raising awareness about contemporary neurofeminist approaches, including perspectives from the global south, is critical to neuroscientific and societal progress.

COVID-19 as a chronic stressor and the importance of individual identity: A data-driven look at academic productivity during the pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted personal and professional life. For academics, research, teaching, and service tasks were upended and we all had to navigate the altered landscape. However, some individuals faced a disproportionate burden, particularly academics with minoritized identities or those who were early career, were caregivers, or had intersecting identities. As comparative endocrinologists, we determine how aspects of individual and species-level variation influence response to, recovery from, and resilience in the face of stressors. Here, we flip that framework and apply an integrative biological lens to the impact of the COVID-19 chronic stressor on our endocrine community. We address how the pandemic altered impact factors of academia (e.g., scholarly products) and relatedly, how factors of impact (e.g., sex, gender, race, career stage, caregiver status, etc.) altered the way in which individuals could respond. We predict the pandemic will have long-term impacts on the population dynamics, composition, and landscape of our academic ecosystem. Impact factors of research, namely journal submissions, were altered by COVID-19, and women authors saw a big dip. We discuss this broadly and then report General and Comparative Endocrinology (GCE) manuscript submission and acceptance status by gender and geographic region from 2019 to 2023. We also summarize how the pandemic impacted individuals with different axes of identity, how academic institutions have responded, compile proposed solutions, and conclude with a discussion on what we can all do to (re)build the academy in an equitable way. At GCE, the first author positions had gender parity, but men outnumbered women at the corresponding author position. Region of manuscript origin mattered for submission and acceptance rates, and women authors from Asia and the Middle East were the most heavily impacted by the pandemic. The number of manuscripts submitted dropped after year 1 of the pandemic and has not yet recovered. Thus, COVID-19 was a chronic stressor for the GCE community.

A comparative review on neuroethical issues in neuroscientific and neuroethical journals

This study is a pilot literature review that compares the interest of neuroethicists and neuroscientists. It aims to determine whether there is a significant gap between the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics journals and neuroscience journals. We retrieved 614 articles from two specialist neuroethics journals (Neuroethics and AJOB Neuroscience) and 82 neuroethics-focused articles from three specialist neuroscience journals (Neuron, Nature Neuroscience, and Nature Reviews Neuroscience). We classified these articles in light of the neuroethical issue in question before we compared the neuroethical issues addressed in philosophical neuroethics with those addressed by neuroscientists. A notable result is a parallelism between them as a general tendency. Neuroscientific articles cover most neuroethical issues discussed by philosophical ethicists and vice versa. Subsequently, there are notable discrepancies between the two bodies of neuroethics literature. For instance, theoretical questions, such as the ethics of moral enhancement and the philosophical implications of neuroscientific findings on our conception of personhood, are more intensely discussed in philosophical-neuroethical articles. Conversely, neuroscientific articles tend to emphasize practical questions, such as how to successfully integrate ethical perspectives into scientific research projects and justifiable practices of animal-involving neuroscientific research. These observations will help us settle the common starting point of the attempt at "ethics integration" in emerging neuroscience, contributing to better governance design and neuroethical practice.

Changing the Academic Gender Narrative through Open Access

In this article, we ask whether dominant narratives of gender and performance within academic institutions are masking stories that may be both more complex and potentially more hopeful than those which are often told using publication-related data. Influenced by world university rankings, institutions emphasise so-called ‘excellent’ research practices: publish in ‘high impact’, elite subscription journals indexed by the commercial bibliographic databases that inform the various ranking systems. In particular, we ask whether data relating to institutional demographics and open access publications could support a different story about the roles that women are playing as pioneers and practitioners of open scholarship. We review gender bias in scholarly publications and discuss examples of open access research publications that highlight a positive advantage for women. Using analysis of workforce demographics and open research data from our Open Knowledge Initiative project, we explore relationships and correlations between academic gender and open access research output from universities in Australia and the United Kingdom. This opens a conversation about different possibilities and models for exploring research output by gender and changing the dominant narrative of deficit in academic publishing.

Interview with an avatar: Comparing online and virtual reality perspective taking for gender bias in STEM hiring decisions

Virtual perspective taking can reduce unconscious bias and increase empathy and prosocial behavior toward individuals who are marginalized based on group stereotypes such as age, race, or socioeconomic status. However, the question remains whether this approach might reduce implicit gender bias, and the degree to which virtual immersion contributes to behavioral modulation following perspective taking tasks is unknown. Accordingly, we investigate the role of virtual perspective taking for binary gender using an online platform (Study 1) and immersive virtual reality (Study 2). Female and male undergraduates performed a simulated interview while virtually represented by an avatar that was either congruent or incongruent with their own gender. All participants rated a male and a female candidate on competence, hireability, likeability, empathy, and interpersonal closeness and then chose one of these two equivalently qualified candidates to hire for a laboratory assistant position in the male dominated industry of information technology. Online perspective taking did not reveal a significant influence of avatar gender on candidate ratings or candidate choice, whereas virtual reality perspective taking resulted in significant changes to participant behavior following exposure to a gender-incongruent avatar (e.g., male embodied as female), such that men showed preference for the female candidate and women showed preference for the male candidate. Although between-group differences in candidate ratings were subtle, rating trends were consistent with substantial differences in candidate choice, and this effect was greater for men. Compared to an online approach, virtual reality perspective taking appears to exert greater influence on acute behavioral modulation for gender bias due to its ability to fully immerse participants in the experience of (temporarily) becoming someone else, with empathy as a potential mechanism underlying this phenomenon.

A Diverse Physician-Scientist Pipeline to Fight Structural Racism

Translational research plays a pivotal role in leveraging good science to serve humanity. Structural racism and a lack of diversity severely limit our potential as scientists to exert a maximum impact. This moment calls for a renewed commitment to ridding science of racism and bias and promoting diversity, which makes us more effective at innovating and delivering therapeutics to the patients we serve.

How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students

Researchers must conduct research responsibly for it to have an impact and to safeguard trust in science. Essential responsibilities of researchers include using rigorous, reproducible research methods, reporting findings in a trustworthy manner, and giving the researchers who contributed appropriate authorship credit. This "how-to" guide covers strategies and practices for doing reproducible research and being a responsible author. The article also covers how to utilize decision-making strategies when uncertain about the best way to proceed in a challenging situation. The advice focuses especially on graduate students, but is appropriate for undergraduates and experienced researchers. It begins with an overview of responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and ethical behavior in the scientific workplace. The takeaway message is that responsible conduct of research requires a thoughtful approach to doing research in order to ensure trustworthy results and conclusions, and that researchers receive fair credit. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Women's role in neurosurgical research: is the gender gap improving?

OBJECTIVE

The percentage of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research might be perceived as a representation of our specialty and may influence the perpetuation of the existing gender gap. This study investigated whether the trend in women taking lead roles in neurosurgical research has mirrored the increase in female neurosurgeons during the past decade and whether our most prestigious publications portray enough female role models to stimulate gender diversity among the new generation of neurosurgeons.

METHODS

Two of the most prominent neurosurgical journals-Journal of Neurosurgery and Neurosurgery-were selected for this study, and every original article that was published in 2009 and 2019 in each of those journals was investigated according to the gender of the first and senior authors, their academic titles, their affiliations, and their institutions' region.

RESULTS

A total of 1328 articles were analyzed. The percentage of female authors was significantly higher in Europe and Russia compared with the US and Canada (first authors: 60/302 [19.9%] vs 109/829 [13.1%], p = 0.005; and senior authors: 32/302 [10.6%] vs 57/829 [6.9%], p = 0.040). Significantly increased female authorship was observed from 2009 to 2019, and overall numbers of both first and senior female authors almost doubled. However, when analyzing by regions, female authorship increased significantly only in the US and Canada. Female authors of neurosurgical research articles were significantly less likely to hold an MD degree compared with men. Female neurosurgeons serving as senior authors were represented in only 3.6% (48/1328) of articles. Women serving as senior authors were more likely to have a female colleague listed as the first author of their research (29/97 [29.9%] vs 155/1231 [12.6%]; χ2 = 22.561, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although this work showed an encouraging increase in the number of women publishing high-impact neurosurgical research, the stagnant trend in Europe may suggest that a glass ceiling has been reached and further advances in equity would require more aggressive measures. The differences in the researchers' profiles (academic title and affiliation) suggest an even wider gender gap. Cultural unconscious bias may explain why female senior authors have more than double the number of women serving as their junior authors compared with men. While changes in the workforce happen, strategies such as publishing specific issues on women, encouraging female editorials, and working toward more gender-balanced editorial boards may help our journals to portray a more equitable specialty that would not discourage bright female candidates.

On the relationship between supervisor–supervisee gender difference and scientific impact of doctoral dissertations: Evidence from Humanities and Social Sciences in China

This article explores the relationships between supervisor–supervisee gender difference and the scientific impact of doctoral dissertations. We use the China Doctoral Dissertations Full-text Database and pay special attention to the fields of Humanities and Social Sciences in China in our empirical study. By establishing regression models, we find that the ranks of the scientific impact regarding doctoral dissertations are female–female (first), female–male (second), male–male (third) and male–female (fourth) pairs (sequence: student gender and then supervisor gender). The finding has many interesting implications for science policy and gender inequality.

From panic to pedagogy: Using online active learning to promote inclusive instruction in ecology and evolutionary biology courses and beyond

The rapid shift to online teaching in spring 2020 meant most of us were teaching in panic mode. As we move forward with course planning for fall and beyond, we can invest more time and energy into improving the online experience for our students. We advocate that instructors use inclusive teaching practices, specifically through active learning, in their online classes. Incorporating pedagogical practices that work to maximize active and inclusive teaching concepts will be beneficial for all students, and especially those from minoritized or underserved groups. Like many STEM fields, Ecology and Evolution shows achievement gaps and faces a leaky pipeline issue for students from groups traditionally underserved in science. Making online classes both active and inclusive will aid student learning and will also help students feel more connected to their learning, their peers, and their campus. This approach will likely help with performance, retention, and persistence of students. In this paper, we offer broadly applicable strategies and techniques that weave together active and inclusive teaching practices. We challenge instructors to commit to making small changes as a first step to more inclusive teaching in ecology and evolutionary biology courses.

Unconscious Bias in Speaker Introductions at a Surgical Oncology Meeting: Hierarchy Reigns Over Gender

BACKGROUND

Recent reviews of medical conferences have shown that women were less likely to receive a formal introduction compared with men. We examined speaker introductions at the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) annual meeting to determine whether similar biases exist within our organization.

METHODS

An observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2018 and 2019 SSO annual meetings was conducted. Professional address was defined as professional title followed by full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with form of address.

RESULTS

There were 499 speaker introductions reviewed. Speakers included 290 (58%) men and 238 (49%) post-graduate trainees (residents and fellows). A non-professional form of address was used to introduce 148 (30%) speakers and was most often used for post-graduate trainees (33%). Full professors were more likely than junior faculty to introduce speakers with a non-professional form of address (37% of full professors vs 18% of assistant professors, p < 0.001). In multivariable regression analysis these findings persisted. Trainees were 2.8 times more likely to receive a non-professional form of address (p = 0.003). Use of a non-professional introduction did not significantly vary by the speaker's nor the introducer's gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Residents and fellows were more likely to receive a non-professional form of address, and the likelihood of this increased with rising seniority of the introducer. The manner of speaker introduction did not vary by gender in our organization. More research is needed to explore the influence of these disparities on academic advancement for the next generation of surgical oncologists.

I Can't Breathe: The Continued Disproportionate Exclusion of Black Physicians in the United States Radiation Oncology Workforce

Purpose

Black physicians remain disproportionately underrepresented in certain medical specialties, yet comprehensive assessments in radiation oncology (RO) are lacking. Our purpose was to report current and historical representation trends for Black physicians in the US RO workforce.

Methods and Materials

Public registries were used to assess significant differences in 2016 representation for US vs RO Black academic full-time faculty, residents, and applicants. Historical changes from 1970 to 2016 were reported descriptively. Linear regression was used to assess significant changes for Black residents and faculty from 1995 to 2016.

Results

In 2016, Black people represented 3.2% vs 1.5% (P < .001), 5.6% vs 3.2% (P = .005), and 6.5% vs 5.4% (P = .352) of US vs RO faculty, residents, and applicants, respectively. Although RO residents nearly doubled from 374 (1974) to 720 (2016), Black residents peaked at 31 in 1984 (5.9%; 31 of 522) and fell to 23 (3.2%; 23 of 720) in 2016 across 91 accredited programs; Black US graduate medical education trainees nearly doubled over the same period: 3506 (1984) to 6905 (2016). From 1995 to 2016, Black US resident representation significantly increased by 0.03%/y, but decreased significantly in RO by –0.20%/y before 2006 and did not change significantly thereafter. Over the same period, Black US faculty representation significantly increased by 0.02%/y, whereas Black RO faculty significantly increased by 0.07%/y before 2006, then decreased significantly by –0.16%/y thereafter. The number of Black RO faculty peaked at 37 in 2006 (3.1%; 37 of 1203) and was 27 (1.5%; 27 of 1769) in 2016, despite the nearly 1.5-fold increase in the number of both RO faculty and Black US faculty overall (4169 in 2006 and 6047 in 2016) during that period.

Conclusions

Black physicians remain disproportionately underrepresented in RO despite an increasing available pipeline in the US physician workforce. Deliberate efforts to understand barriers to specialty training and inclusion, along with evidence-based targeted interventions to overcome them, are needed to ensure diversification of the RO physician workforce.

Subconscious Biases in Coral Reef Fish Studies

In complex, diverse ecosystems, one is faced with an exceptionally challenging decision: which species to examine first and why? This raises the question: Is there evidence of subconscious biases in study species selection? Likewise, is there evidence of this bias in selecting methods, locations, and times? We addressed these questions by surveying the literature on the most diverse group of vertebrates (fishes) in an iconic high-diversity ecosystem (coral reefs). The evidence suggests that we select study species that are predominantly yellow. Reef fish studies also selectively examine fishes that are behaviorally bold and in warm, calm, attractive locations. Our findings call for a reevaluation of study species selection and methodological approaches, recognizing the potential for subconscious biases to drive selection for species that are attractive rather than important and for methods that give only a partial view of ecosystems. Given the challenges faced by high-diversity ecosystems, we may need to question our decision-making processes.