Link to the paper

This paper examined whether the belief that ASD is more common in males is an accurate representation of sex difference in ASD’s prevalence, or if it is representative of “measurement bias [that] hinder[s] early diagnosis in females.” Through modeling social communication (SC) and repetitive behaviors (RRB) for both males and females through directly assessing two groups of children from 6 to 60 months of age, the authors were able determine two latent classes in both models that had an equal sex ratio for the high-concern clusters. This paper’s findings indicate that it is important to avoid sex-related measurement bias in diagnoses by identifying sex-specific patterns of ASD emergence; and that the currently presumed discrepancy of ASD prevalence between men and women may be partially due to sex-related measurement bias in the past.

Read the paper here for more information!

Link to the paper

Here is a twitter thread by one of the authors

This Comment by J. M. Jebsen, K. Nicoll Baines, R. A. Oliver, and I. Jayasinghe discusses the disparity in STEM research funding, and how the funding process must be restructured in order to reduce biases against minoritized groups, such as women (particularly women of color). The authors explain the many reasons for this disparity, such as cumulative disadvantage and institutional gatekeeping, and discuss how the Universal Basic Research Grant may help–in which every eligible researcher will be given a certain amount of funding every year.

Read the paper here for more information!

Link to the paper

Here is a twitter thread by the author

This paper by Rebecca Schwarzlose discusses the biases often in place among neuroscience and psychology researchers, particularly in terms of assumptions concerning what type of brain is superior, and what counts as a deficit: “The standard approach to studying aging or stigmatized conditions is to compare neural or cognitive measures from the stigmatized group with those of a control group without the condition. While this approach is scientifically sound, our interpretations of the findings are often biased by the assumption that people without stigmatized conditions are neurally and mentally ideal.”

These assumptions can lead to poorer interpretations of results, as well as bias the data collection process itself. In addition to discussing this problem in research, this paper suggest several strategies to combat these biases–such as collecting other data potentially related to performance (i.e. sleep quality and hearing) and asking stigmatized groups about points of confusion within the protocol during the Pilot (and adjusting accordingly prior to capturing data).

Link to the paper

This paper by Linzie Taylor and Karen S. Rommelfanger discusses how currently, neuroscience is not meeting its full potential–and how this can be improved. They argue that this is due to white Western individualist bias (WWIB), which leads to the ignorance of many factors in neuroscience research that would otherwise promote equality. One such example from the paper, among many given, is EEG scans, and how despite the fact that they have much more noise when used on scalps of people with coarse and curly hair (i.e. in populations of African descent), neuroscience has continued heavily depending on using EEG globally for about 100 years. After illustrating this problem, the authors develop a framework for a more “relational” approach to science–an approach that, if adopted by neuroscientists, will hopefully increase the inclusivity of research as a whole.

This week’s BWN Friday Post brings you the Alba Network, a team and network dedicated to promoting diversity and equity in the brain sciences. They have so many amazing resources and so much information on their website, but we especially wanted to highlight their resources section (particularly their guide for organizing a diverse conference), as well their many working groups! Check out the website, share their resources, and get involved here!

This week’s BWN Friday Post brings you a paper by Perry Zurn, Joseph Stramondo, Joel Reynolds, and Dani Bassett. In it, they discuss the importance of expanding DEI efforts within the field of biological psychiatry to include disability justice, what has been done so far, and concrete recommendations to continue working upon this going forward.

Read the full paper here.

This week’s BWN Friday Post brings you an article by Eva Amsen, titled “Neuroscientists Want To Make Music Science Studies More Diverse.” In it, she highlights the conversation between this paper and this response, in which the authors discuss how many music science studies focus on the way the brain processes Western music–without considering other musical forms–and do not recruit diverse enough participants (with relation to the type of music they listen to). These papers, as well as Amsen’s article, discuss how that can be changed and why it’s important.

Read the article here.

This week’s BWN Friday Post brings you a paper by Eleanor Palser, Maia Lazerwitz, and Aikaterini Fotopoulou titled “Gender and geographical disparity in editorial boards of journals in psychology and neuroscience.” They investigated the makeup of the editorial boards of several journals, and found that there is a disproportionate amount of editors from the US compared to other countries, as well as a disproportionate amount of male editors vs female ones.

Read the article here.

This week’s BWN Friday Post brings you an article by Dr. Pragya Agarwal in Scientific American, titled “What Neuroimaging Can Tell Us about Our Unconscious Biases”

Read the article here.