Neuroethics Can Help Scientists Use Sex As A Biological Variable
By Kristie Garza
![]() |
Image courtesy of Pixabay. |
I worked with Dr. Deboleena Roy, Neuroscience Professor and Chair of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department at Emory University on a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded project. The project examined how neuroscientists and social justice advocates are responding to the National Institute of Health (NIH) policy change requiring the use of sex as a biological variable in preclinical studies. While this policy directly affects scientists by influencing research practices, the conclusions from these changing research practices also affect society and consequentially, social justice. For these reasons, both neuroscientists and social justice advocates are stakeholders in the production of knowledge based on this policy change, which is why we designed our project to start a conversation between these two groups. Specifically, we interviewed top experts in the fields of sex-difference neuroscience and reproductive social justice. We asked individuals from both groups questions with similar themes in an attempt to understand each field’s perspective on the NIH policy. Through this research, we identified gaps between researchers studying sex differences in neuroscience and advocates studying societal implications of this work. In this post, I argue for the necessity of neuroethics in this conversation. As feminist scholars have previously suggested, neuroethics, specifically feminist neuroethics, provides a unique avenue to fill this existing gap between neuroscience research in the laboratory and societal implications of the work (Chalfin, Murphy, and Karkazis 2008; Roy 2012).
![]() |
Image courtesy of Flickr. |
![]() |
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. |
Neuroethics provides a framework to build a bridge between sciences and society and tackle issues such as vocabulary. However, through listening to reproductive justice advocates in our research, I also learned there are issues which may be more difficult to address. Although the 2014 policy change has actively influenced the scientific studies being funded and run in the U.S., there are still questions and topics that receive insufficiently focus. For example, while sex and gender have their own respective definitions within different fields, is it possible to disentangle sex and gender in the laboratory as research variables? Further, how/when will science address heteronormative issues and include trans neuroscience research in scientific laboratories? Neuroethics as a discipline provides a platform for discourse of these questions. As a scientist myself, I know it is difficult to isolate and conduct rigorous research with these kinds of variables, yet we should begin to build conversations around these questions because this research is crucial to understanding human biology.
Still, recent (sex and gender) research has increased knowledge about the female brain and body, and our project questioned the potential outcomes of this expanding knowledge on society. Neuroethics defines value sets and examines how neuroscience research informs these values. Neuroethicists often explore topics by studying how a new technology or scientific finding is deviating from normal. However, when studying sex and gender, what is “normal” and who stated it was so? Will we learn more about the differences between sex and gender or males and females? What are the consequences of discovering that males and females may be more similar than previously thought or in fact, are much more different? Is our society ready to celebrate difference or would the emergence of difference provide an avenue for further division?
![]() |
Image courtesy of Pixabay. |
This is where I urge neuroethicists to step in. It is important to formally ask and answer these types of questions before negative stereotypes form based on overinterpretations of science. Neuroethics teaches us to identify such dogmas and unspoken assumptions, therefore providing an avenue for researchers to constantly question the dogmas that are taught and guide research.
This post is an attempt to summarize an in-depth look at the intersection of molecular biology and reproductive justice. To learn more about the project, please visit the project website.
________________
Kristie is a PhD candidate in the Neuroscience graduate program at Emory University. Her research focuses on understanding how exogenously driving different brain rhythms can impact the brain’s immune environment. Kristie is also an editorial intern for The American Journal for Bioethics Neuroscience and a supporting editor of The Neuroethics Blog.
Want to cite this post?
Garza, K. (2019). Neuroethics Can Help Scientists Use Sex As A Biological Variable . The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on , from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2019/07/neuroethics-can-help-scientists-use-sex.html