Sex differences are everywhere – we market products, assign gender roles, and encourage certain careers based on the idea that females and males have different interests, different desires. For years, neuroscience has investigated whether or not these perceived behavioral differences are reflected biologically in our brains. While this research is medically important – previous studies have shown sex differences in recovery from traumatic brain injury and presentation of certain psychological disorders – it also carries broad societal implications. In this series, we will investigate not only how research into sex differences affects society, but also how society influences the conception, development, and dissemination of such research.
Bigger is Better?
Before we fully immerse ourselves in the neuroethics of specific examples of research that focuses on sex differences, let’s start out by defining what sex differences are. At first glance, this seems simple; a sex difference exists if something (i.e., size of the brain) is different in females than in males. However, things become less clear when we account for how certain biases (implicit or otherwise) affect the design and dissemination of research.
Let’s keep with our example of sex differences in brain size. Per the scientific method, the first step is to ask a question, and in this case the question is obvious – are female brains different from male brains? At first glance, the answer too, is obvious – either a difference exists, or it does not. However, while the question (and answer) appears obvious, the interpretation is not. In this case, the question of brain size can be traced back to the seventeenth century, when the brain was viewed as the seat of wisdom. ). During this time period, women were viewed as being submissive to men, and with the Scientific Revolution in full swing, the pressure was on to prove that this gender inequality was due to a fundamental inferiority that women possessed. While we know now that larger size does not mean greater cognitive ability, in the seventeenth century (and continuing on through the nineteenth century), size definitely mattered. In fact, size mattered so much, that scientists readily changed opinions of what parts of the brain were the most important based on which parts they found were larger in males than in females.
So, when we account for the social context in which this research was disseminated (the prevailing view was that females were inferior to males), the reported sex difference changes – it becomes proof that females are inferior to males. Research does not occur in a vacuum; it is not free from the constraints of the social context in which it occurs. Looking back through centuries of research, we can say that yes, some size differences between male and female brains exist. Unfortunately, the interpretation of these results has a long history of being deeply influenced by current social constructs. Even Paul Broca (1824-1880), the venerated neuroanatomist, was not immune from the prevailing belief of male superiority, writing:
But we must not forget that women are, on the average, a little less intelligent than men, a difference which we should not exaggerate but which is, nonetheless, real. We are therefore permitted to suppose that the relatively small size of the female brain depends in part upon her physical inferiority and in part upon her intellectual inferiority.
Now, the objective sex difference (there exist some size differences between male and female brains) has warped into something different: males are intellectually superior to females, as evidenced by their larger brains, which provides a rationale for maintaining the submissive position of females in society.
Although it is easy to write this example off as a product of times long gone, it still raises important ethical questions – What is the potential impact of a neuroscientific study? How are we responsible for the interpretation of study results? No longer do people have to crawl into the bowels of a university library, dust off a long-forgotten journal or encyclopedia, and set to work searching for the answer to their questions. Today, almost everyone has access to a wealth of information via the Internet. However, with the expanded accessibility of information comes the expanded responsibility to ensure that the information is accurate and that the science is answering appropriate questions.
Who is responsible?
While much has changed since Broca’s time, a lot has stayed the same. The academic sphere has largely improved on how sex differences are reported in publications but the information that trickles down to the general public is still tainted with sexism. For example, in 2024, the Daily Mail published an article summarizing several studies; claiming in the title that a study has ‘proved’ that the sexes are ‘wired differently’. The article features a large graphic depicting men and women engaged in a battle of tug of war. On each side are the supposed ‘facts’ about each sex; women have better memory, men are funnier. While these assertions make quite a sexy news article, is this ‘pop’ science accurate?
Let’s investigate the claim that men are ‘funnier’ than women. In the section of the article devoted to humor, the author does note that the researchers stated that the differences in humor rating between men and women is ‘small to medium’ and that this could very well be a stereotype. However, this is not accurately reflected in the summary image, which comes across as definitively asserting men are funnier on average. Luckily, the article does provide a link to the original meta-analysis it is basing its conclusions on.
When reading the meta-analysis, it becomes clear that The Daily Mail left out some vital pieces of information. First, the analysis focused on humor production – i.e., the ability to deliver humor, and the authors assert that this is just one aspect of humor, and the results should not be extrapolated to other types of humor (i.e., non-verbal humor). Furthermore, the paper cites a multitude of evolutionary and cultural explanations for their results, specifically the history of women being prevented from being comedians and the sexist content of many jokes. The analysis ends with a review of the limitations of the study and the authors express their hope that this will create a more ‘nuanced discussion’ about sex differences and humor. Lastly, and this is important to note, both The Daily Mail article and the study by Greengross et al., tie humor to intelligence.
While this study may have sparked a more nuanced discussion in the academic sphere, this is ultimately not the discussion the general public are privy to. Instead, we end up almost back where we started in the seventeenth century with the sex difference becoming warped again; men are funnier than women, humor is tied to intelligence, men are more intelligent than women making them superior. This is reflected in the reaction of female comedians to the study as mentioned in The Daily Mail: ‘…female comedians dismissed the study as ‘unnecessary’ and said the research could put women off going into comedy.’ This is not a discussion we should still be having.
So, who is responsible for the outcome in this situation? In short, everyone. Researchers, journalists, and the general public need to be aware of the scientific and social contexts in which a research study occurs. We need to think critically about the questions that are asked and why we want to know the answer in the first place. In the seventeenth century, the motivation was to provide a rationale for keeping women in their place. For this humor study, what was the motivation? What does it mean if men are funnier than women? Does this knowledge advance a field in some way? Why is this research important to perform? These are questions that we all must keep in mind to be ethically responsible and stop the spread of misinformation. Furthermore, we must be aware of our own biases, as uncomfortable as that is.
Remember, when reading, doing, or writing science, never stop questioning.
Haven Predale is a Ph.D. candidate at Rowan University in the Molecular Cell Biology and Neuroscience program. Her thesis project focuses on the organizational features and behavioral implications of the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine (LC-NE) projection to cerebellum in the mouse. Specifically, she is looking to increase our understanding of the role of the LC-NE system in motor function and provide a rationale for targeting this system in novel therapies for motor dysfunction resulting from stroke, neurodegenerative/neurodevelopmental disorders, and normal aging.
As a neuroscientist, she aims to improve the quality of life of individuals experiencing difficulties due to the effects of neurological disorders. As editor of the Neuroethics Today blog, she is focused on making neuroscience accessible to the general public by providing education and promoting the dissemination of research in easy-to-understand terms. As both a registered nurse and Ph.D. candidate, she offers a unique perspective to current issues in neuroscience and health.
Comments