Display options
Cite
Tannenbaum C, Schwarz JM, Clayton JA, et al. Evaluating sex as a biological variable in preclinical research: the devil in the details. Biol Sex Differ. 2016;7:13doi: 10.1186/s13293-016-0066-x.
Tannenbaum, C., Schwarz, J. M., Clayton, J. A., de Vries, G. J., & Sullivan, C. (2016). Evaluating sex as a biological variable in preclinical research: the devil in the details. Biology of sex differences, 713. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-016-0066-x
Tannenbaum, Cara, et al. "Evaluating sex as a biological variable in preclinical research: the devil in the details." Biology of sex differences vol. 7 (2016): 13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-016-0066-x
Tannenbaum C, Schwarz JM, Clayton JA, de Vries GJ, Sullivan C. Evaluating sex as a biological variable in preclinical research: the devil in the details. Biol Sex Differ. 2016 Feb 11;7:13. doi: 10.1186/s13293-016-0066-x. eCollection 2016. PMID: 26870316; PMCID: PMC4750169.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Biol Sex Differ. 2016 Feb 11;7:13. doi: 10.1186/s13293-016-0066-x. eCollection 2016.

Evaluating sex as a biological variable in preclinical research: the devil in the details.

Biology of sex differences

Cara Tannenbaum, Jaclyn M Schwarz, Janine A Clayton, Geert J de Vries, Casey Sullivan

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Gender and Health, The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Montreal, Canada.
  2. Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE USA ; Organization for the Study of Sex Differences, USA.
  3. U.S. National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health, Bethesda, MD USA.
  4. Neuroscience Institute, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA USA ; Organization for the Study of Sex Differences, USA.

PMID: 26870316 PMCID: PMC4750169 DOI: 10.1186/s13293-016-0066-x

Abstract

Translating policy into action is a complex task, with much debate surrounding the process whereby US and Canadian health funding agencies intend to integrate sex and gender science as an integral component of methodological rigor and reporting in health research. Effective January 25, 2016, the US National Institutes of Health implemented a policy that expects scientists to account for the possible role of sex as a biological variable (SABV) in vertebrate animal and human studies. Applicants for NIH-funded research and career development awards will be asked to explain how they plan to factor consideration of SABV into their research design, analysis, and reporting; strong justification will be required for proposing single-sex studies. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is revising their peer review accreditation process to ensure that peer reviewers are skilled in applying a critical lens to protocols that should be incorporating sex and gender science. The current paper outlines the components that peer reviewers in North America will be asked to assess when considering whether SABV is appropriately integrated into research designs, analyses, and reporting. Consensus argues against narrowly defining rules of engagement in applying SABV, with criteria provided for reviewers as guidance only. Scores will not be given for each criterion; applications will be judged on the overall merit of scientific innovation, rigor, reproducibility, and potential impact.

Keywords: CIHR; Evaluation criteria; NIH policy; Peer review; Sex as a biological variable (SABV)

References

  1. Biol Sex Differ. 2014 Oct 03;5:15 - PubMed
  2. Can J Public Health. 2012 Nov 08;104(1):e80-1 - PubMed
  3. Int J Equity Health. 2009 May 06;8:14 - PubMed
  4. Nature. 2014 May 15;509(7500):282-3 - PubMed
  5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Apr 28;112(17):5257-8 - PubMed
  6. Public Health Rep. 2014 Jan-Feb;129 Suppl 2:19-31 - PubMed
  7. FASEB J. 2015 May;29(5):1646-52 - PubMed
  8. PLoS One. 2014 Jun 25;9(6):e99900 - PubMed
  9. Nat Neurosci. 2015 Aug;18(8):1081-3 - PubMed
  10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Nov 3;112(44):13419-20 - PubMed
  11. Schizophr Bull. 2015 Sep;41(5):1016-20 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support