Chapter 8. Hormones and Sex
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, or subscribe to our mailing list, to receive news updates. Learn more.
By Bob Grant Scientists delving into the neurological underpinnings of traumatic brain injuries (TBI) are finding that there may be crucial differences in the long-term effects of the events that depend not only on the insult, but also on the victim. “No two brain injuries are identical,” University of Pennsylvania neuroscientist Akiva Cohen said during a press conference held at the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) annual meeting in Chicago on Monday (October 19). “Brain injury, like many pathologies these days, constitutes a spectrum.” In addition to a severity spectrum that spans mild to severe, brain injuries may differ in terms of how male and female animals respond to them, according to Ramesh Raghupathi, a neurobiologist at Drexel University. Raghupathi and his colleagues have found that young male mice suffer more depressive behaviors than female mice at both four and eight weeks after mild TBI, and females display more headache-like symptoms after similar insults, which can include concussion. “All of these animals at these times after injury are cognitively normal,” Raghupathi told reporters. “And they do not have any movement problems.” Raghupathi and his colleagues also found molecular differences that may underlie the sex differences in TBI response that they observed. “In the male mice,” he said, “there is a dramatic difference in dopamine transmission” compared to the uninjured mice.” Researchers have previously linked impaired dopamine signaling to depression. Raghupathi’s team tested for the lingering effects of TBI in mice by subjecting the animals to certain swimming tests—which are accepted as proxies for depression—and by using a thin filament to touch the faces of the rodents and recording their sensitivity as a measure of headache-like behaviors.
By JAMES GORMAN No offense to tenors, but outside of opera, a high male voice is seldom, if ever, considered seductive. Scientific research has shown that women find deep male voices attractive, and the same is true in other species, like howler monkeys. Stories from Our Advertisers But evolution is often stingy in its gifts, and researchers investigating male competition to reproduce have discovered an intriguing trade-off in some species of howler monkeys: the deeper the call, the smaller the testicles. Jacob Dunn of Cambridge University, one of the leaders of the research, said that species evolved either to make lower-frequency sounds, or have larger testicles, but none had both a very low sound and very large testicles. “It’s a great study,” said Stuart Semple, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Roehampton in London who was not involved in the research. “It shows this really clear trade-off.” Dr. Dunn and other researchers, including W. Tecumseh Fitch, of the University of Vienna, and Leslie A. Knapp, of the University of Utah, studied the size of a bone in the vocal apparatus, which is directly related to how deep the calls are, and the size of testicles, to come up for averages in nine species of howlers. They had been intrigued by great variations in both the size of the howlers’ hyoid bones in museum collections and in the size of the monkeys’ testicles as seen in the field. Dr. Knapp said that some of them are large enough that they are quite obvious “when you look up into the trees.” They used the museum samples of the bone and living monkeys in zoos for testicle measurements, and reported their findings Thursday in the journal Current Biology. © 2015 The New York Times Company
By Hanae Armitage CHICAGO, ILLINOIS—When prairie voles choose a mate, there’s no turning back—the “love chemical” oxytocin increases in their brains and they devote themselves to only each other. Although scientists have observed the behavioral and chemical side of prairie vole love, the neural networks behind commitment are still a mystery. Now, a group of scientists are working toward clearing up the neuronal backdrop of long-term love, and yesterday, presented their findings here at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. Studies have long suggested the nucleus accumbens, a part of the brain involved in reward processing, plays a crucial role in this type of devotion. To get a better look at the neuronal activity of this region, the scientists mounted a small-scale microscope that monitors calcium flux on top of a male prairie vole’s head (the more calcium into the neuron, the more neuronal activity). They saw that when male prairie voles interacted with their special lady vole, neuronal activity in the nucleus accumbens jumped 20% compared with when they interacted with a random female. Upon closer inspection, scientists saw that specific neurons that fired when the voles interacted with their mates stayed silent when they interacting with a different female. The result, though preliminary, indicates that mates stimulate the brain’s reward center in ways that nonmates cannot. © 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science.
By Nicholas Bakalar Sleep apnea may be even more dangerous for women than for men, a new study suggests. Epidemiological studies have linked sleep apnea to heart disease in men, but the differences in risk between men and women have been largely unexplored. For the current study, researchers measured sleep quality electronically in 737 men and 879 women, average age 63, who were free of cardiovascular disease at the start of the study. They also tested all of them for troponin T, a protein that can be released into the bloodstream if the heart is damaged, and whose presence in otherwise healthy people indicates an increased risk for heart disease. They tracked the participants for 14 years, recording incidents of coronary artery disease, heart failure and death from cardiovascular disease or other causes. The study was published in Circulation. Obstructive sleep apnea was independently associated with increased troponin T, heart failure and death in women, but not in men. And in women, but not men, sleep apnea was associated with an enlarged heart, another risk factor for cardiovascular disease. “Most people who have sleep apnea have a lot of other risks for heart disease,” said the lead author, Dr. Amil M. Shah, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard. “But in women, the relationship between sleep apnea and heart disease persisted even after accounting for the other risks.” “Even among women with sleep apnea who don’t get heart failure,” he continued, “it’s associated with changes in the heart that lead to worse outcomes.” © 2015 The New York Times Company
Sara Reardon Naked mole rats are among the ugliest creatures in the animal kingdom, and they engage in acts that seem repulsive — such as eating one another’s, and their own, faeces. Now researchers have found one biological motivation for this behaviour. When a queen mole rat’s subordinates feed on her hormone-filled faeces, the resulting oestrogen boost causes the beta rats to take care of the queen’s pups, according to results presented on 18 October at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Chicago, Illinois. Like bees, naked mole rats live in eusocial colonies, with only one queen rat and a few males that can reproduce. The rest of the colony consists of dozens of infertile subordinates that help with tasks such as foraging and defending the nest. The subordinate rats also take care of the queen’s pups as though the babies were their own: they build the nests, lick the pups and keep them warm with their body heat. Because they have no mature sex organs, subordinate rats cannot produce the hormones that would usually drive parenting behaviour. To look at what generates the rats’ caring ways, animal biologist Akiyuki Watarai and behavioural scientist Takefumi Kikusui at Azabu University in Japan played recordings of crying mole-rat pups to subordinate rats. Animals whose queens had just given birth paid more attention to the crying than those from other groups, suggesting that the pregnancy itself triggered subordinates’ maternal instincts. © 2015 Nature Publishing Group
By Brook Borel and Spectrum In a lab in Sacramento, California, a wall of plastic boxes lined with corncob bedding holds around 800 mice. Even in this clean and bright room, the smell of so many mice concentrated in one place is overpowering — pungent, and familiar to anyone who has spent time with a pet hamster or gerbil. Most of the boxes hold four adult mice, which flit about, noses twitching as they stare out at the humans staring in. But in one of the boxes, a sleek white mouse is tucked in a corner suckling her litter of half a dozen or so squirmy, dark-furred pups. In most research labs, the fate of these pups would be determined by their sex. The males would spend their lives as test subjects. The females would either be kept for breeding or simply euthanized because they’re not ideal for experiments: They’re supposedly more difficult to work with and generate less consistent data than males do, and it costs too much to maintain both males and females, which must be housed separately. Or so the rationale has gone. But these little female pups are different. The lab where they live is run by Jill Silverman and Mu Yang, researchers at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) MIND Institute. The two scientists study the behavior of about 15 autism mouse models, and they have always included both males and females in their work. When the pups get older, they will learn to paddle through water mazes or bury black marbles in their bedding, giving researchers insight into how their memory and behavior compare with that of typical mice. Finding the best animal behavioral models of autism is essential because behavior is at the heart of the disorder. In people, autism is diagnosed based on behavioral criteria: abnormal social interactions, difficulties with communication and repetitive actions. © 2015 Scientific American
Kerri Smith Scientists have discovered two extra neurons in a worm species that — they thought — already had its entire nervous system mapped. “It is a bit of a shock,” says Richard Poole, a developmental biologist at University College London (UCL), and one of the team that found the neurons by accident. The researchers call them mystery cells of the male, or MCMs, because they are found only in male nematode worms. The neurons help the worms learn when to prioritize mating over eating, revealing how a seemingly simple brain can be capable of a complex learned behaviour — and one that differs between the sexes. Caenorhabditis elegans worms are the model animal of choice for many neuroscientists, because their neural circuits are so simple that they can be mapped in full. They have two sexes: hermaphrodite and male. Hermaphrodites, the best studied, have just 302 neurons, but males have more — the MCMs raise their total to 385 neurons1. The two ‘mystery’ cells were discovered when Poole’s colleague at UCL, Arantza Barrios, was looking at the distribution of a peptide often found in neurons, called pdf-1. She saw cells light up where she thought they should not — near the worm’s nose. The neurons develop when male worms reach maturity, the researchers worked out. Their report is published in Nature1. Sex or food? © 2015 Nature Publishing Group,
By SINDYA N. BHANOO Tiny nematode worms called Caenorhabditis elegans have a peculiar reproductive story: Most females are hermaphrodites that make sperm, self-fertilize and produce more hermaphrodites. Males are few, and are known to mate with each other. Now, a new study reports that a variation in a single gene results in male worms with excretory pores that attract the sexual attentions of other males. “Other males copulate with this excretory pore, located on the neck,” said Matthew Rockman, a biologist at New York University. He and his colleagues reported their findings in the journal Current Biology. Although male worms are rare in the wild, they are easily bred in the laboratory. Researchers report that the gene variant, known as plep-1, may somehow be altering the chemical profile of the excretions in a way that makes them more attractive to other males. Copulation often does not work out well for the male that is approached, Dr. Rockman said. Males that mate with the excretory pore of another male usually leave behind a plug that weakens the worm and reduces life expectancy. Hermaphrodites with the variation of the same gene also have a lower life expectancy and do not reproduce as well. Next, the researchers want to learn what it is about a mutation in the plep-1 gene that makes males attractive to other males. © 2015 The New York Times Company
Ed Yong This week, a team from the University of California, Los Angeles claimed to have found several epigenetic marks—chemical modifications of DNA that don’t change the underlying sequence—that are associated with homosexuality in men. Postdoc Tuck Ngun presented the results yesterday at the American Society of Human Genetics 2015 conference. Nature News were among the first to break the story based on a press release issued by the conference organisers. Others quickly followed suit. “Have They Found The Gay Gene?” said the front page of Metro, a London paper, on Friday morning. Meanwhile, the mood at the conference has been decidedly less complimentary, with several geneticists criticizing the methods presented in the talk, the validity of the results, and the coverage in the press. Ngun’s study was based on 37 pairs of identical male twins who were discordant—that is, one twin in each pair was gay, while the other was straight—and 10 pairs who were both gay. He analysed 140,000 regions in the genomes of the twins and looked for methylation marks—chemical Post-It notes that dictate when and where genes are activated. He whittled these down to around 6,000 regions of interest, and then built a computer model that would use data from these regions to classify people based on their sexual orientation. The best model used just five of the methylation marks, and correctly classified the twins 67 percent of the time. “To our knowledge, this is the first example of a biomarker-based predictive model for sexual orientation,” Ngun wrote in his abstract. The problems begin with the size of the study, which is tiny. The field of epigenetics is littered with the corpses of statistically underpowered studies like these, which simply lack the numbers to produce reliable, reproducible results.
By Kat Long In the delivery room, the (slight) odds are that a newborn is a baby boy, not a girl. Males make up 51.3 percent of live births in the U.S., a rate that has remained about constant for the past seven decades. Experts assumed that this male-skewed sex ratio began at conception, but a new analysis of fetal records shows that the chances overall of finding a boy or a girl start out at 50–50 and change over the course of pregnancy—leaning female, then male, then female again as nine months pass. In the most comprehensive study of its kind to date, biologist Steven Hecht Orzack of the Fresh Pond Research Institute in Massachusetts and his collaborators analyzed roughly 36 million fertility treatment records, prenatal tests, induced abortions and U.S. Census data points. They discovered several nodes at which the sex ratio wavered from 50–50. Those vacillations most likely arise because of genetic and chromosomal abnormalities that cause natural abortions at various stages of gestation, write the study's authors in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. “This is basic knowledge about human pregnancy that we didn't have before,” Orzack says. “Demographers, developmental biologists, and many more can all get something out of this study.” © 2015 Scientific American
Keyword: Sexual Behavior
Link ID: 21500 - Posted: 10.12.2015
By Bill Berkrot (Reuters) - U.S. researchers on Thursday said they had found a way to predict male sexual orientation based on molecular markers that control DNA function, but genetics experts warned that the research has important limitations and will not provide definitive answers to a potential biological basis for sexual preference. Findings from the study, which has yet to be published or reviewed in detail by other scientists, were presented at a meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics in Baltimore. It followed 37 pairs of identical male twins in which one was homosexual and one heterosexual, and 10 sets of twins in which both males were homosexual. The study found that the presence of specific epigenetic marks in nine areas of the human genome could predict homosexual preference with up to 70% accuracy. The epigenome is sometimes described as molecular "switches" that can turn on or silence individual genes in DNA. Scientists believe epigenetic differences can be influenced by environmental and lifestyle factors, from exposure to chemicals to parental nurturing. "To our knowledge, this is the first example of a predictive model for sexual orientation based on molecular markers," Tuck Ngun, lead researcher on the study from the David Geffen School of Medicine of the University of California, Los Angeles, said in a statement. Genetics experts who critiqued the findings said it was premature to draw any conclusions on the predictive powers of epigenetic markers. © 2015 Scientific American
Gay or straight? A saliva test can predict the answer, and get it right 67 per cent of the time – for male identical twins at least. The test, which uses clues from tiny modifications to a person’s genome, is the first that claims to detect sexual orientation. Many scientists have expressed caution over the results, while concerns over potential misuse of the test have led the study’s lead researcher to quit the project entirely. “The scientific benefit to understanding [why people vary in sexual orientation] is obvious to anyone with an iota of curiosity,” says Michael Bailey at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. “The predictive test needs replication on larger samples in order to know how good it is, but in theory it’s quite interesting.” Over the last two decades, several studies have suggested that sexual orientation is, in part, down to our genes. Perhaps the biggest splash was made in 1993 by Dean Hamer’s team at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, when they found that gay brothers tended to share a sequence of five genetic markers in a region of the X chromosome. The same region has been implicated in other studies of sexual orientation since, although researchers haven’t been able to single out “gay genes”. Other observations also suggest a genetic basis for sexual orientation, such as the mysterious fraternal birth order effect. For every male pregnancy a woman has, a subsequent son has a 33 per cent higher chance of being homosexual, although no one knows why. The overall chance is still low, however, rising from around 2 per cent to just 6 per cent for a third son. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
By Somer Bishop Subtle, significant. In a nutshell, these two words capture the symptoms of many girls with autism. Like many in my field, I’ve seen this subtlety firsthand. One 6-year-old girl I met several years ago seemed, at first, to have good social skills. She responded appropriately when I introduced myself, complimented my outfit, and politely answered all of my questions. It was only when I saw her again a few days later that I understood her family’s concerns: She made nearly identical overtures, as if our interaction were part of a play she had rehearsed. I also met a teenage girl with autism who was highly intelligent. Because she could not relate to the other girls at her high school, she began interacting exclusively with boys, whose social behaviors she found easier to imitate. She even went through a period of wanting to become a boy, reasoning that she might have more success navigating the social world as a male. The past several years have seen an explosion of studies aimed at backing up these one-off observations about how autism presents differently in girls than in boys. This is a welcome development, as understanding the unique presentation of autism in girls will help us to better identify and treat the disorder. Consistently recognizing autism in girls can be challenging, however. This is not only because girls with autism are as diverse as any other group of individuals with the disorder but also because most autism screening and diagnostic tools were developed based primarily on observations of behaviors in boys. © 2015 The Slate Group LLC.
By Jessica Schmerler Many studies trumpet the positive effects of oxytocin. The hormone facilitates bonding, increases trust and promotes altruism. Such findings earned oxytocin its famous nickname, the “love hormone.” But more recent research has shown oxytocin has a darker side, too: it can increase aggression, risk taking and prejudice. A new analysis of this large body of work reveals that oxytocin's effects on our brain and behavior actually look a lot like another substance that can cut both ways: alcohol. As such, the hormone might point to new treatments for addiction. Researchers led by Ian Mitchell, a psychologist at the University of Birmingham in England, conducted the meta-analysis, which reveals that both oxytocin and alcohol reduce fear, anxiety and stress while increasing trust, generosity and altruism. Yet both also increase aggression, risk taking and “in-group” bias—favoring people similar to ourselves at the expense of others, according to the paper published in August in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. The scientists posit that these similarities probably exist because oxytocin and alcohol act at different points in the same chemical pathway in the brain. Oxytocin stimulates release of the neurotransmitter GABA, which tends to reduce neural activity. Alcohol binds to GABA receptors and ramps up GABA activity. Oxytocin and alcohol therefore both have the general effect of tamping down brain activity—perhaps explaining why they both lower inhibitions. © 2015 Scientific American
Susan Milius Bachelor prairie voles can’t tell females of their species apart. Yet the clueless fellows can change, forming pair-bonds for life with the opposite sex and even distinguishing between two female strangers. Bachelors aren’t blind or stupid; they recognize individual males among their fellow short-tailed Microtus ochrogaster rodents scurrying through old fields in the center of North America. And males are certainly interested in the interchangeable females. In lab tests, bachelors claw and bite at cage dividers between the sexes, says Alexander Ophir of Cornell University. Conquering the divide and mating with a female after just six hours of her company can form a lifelong pair-bond between voles. Only about 5 percent of mammal species live this socially monogamous lifestyle, and the voles have played starring roles in studies of the neurobiology of bonding. (Social monogamists, including both voles and some Homo sapiens, don’t entirely forgo extra-pair encounters.) A pair-bonded couple can crowd three litters of young into their roughly six to nine months of life in the wild, Ophir says. One aid to speeding through family life: Females can get pregnant as soon as they give birth. “You sometimes see pups being delivered as males are trying to copulate with the female,” he says. Pair-bonding requires recognizing at least one female. “It’s all well and good to fall in love, but if you don’t know who you fell in love with, it’s worthless,” Ophir says. And paired-up voles can go further. Tests show they notice the difference between two females they have never mated with, Ophir and former student Tomica Blocker report in the October Animal Behaviour. © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2015
By Margaret M. McCarthy “We have raised our children in a gender-neutral household since the day they were born, and we never allowed any sort of weapons, not even a water pistol,” a young mother told me emphatically from the microphone in the lecture hall where I’d just given a talk on the differences between male and female brains. “But the other day my seven-year-old son bit his peanut butter and jelly sandwich into the shape of a gun and started shooting his little sister with it!” The audience laughed appreciatively; everyone had a similar story. “What did we do wrong?” she pleaded. This story is a common refrain I hear when discussing my research on sex differences in the brain. There is no single correct answer when it comes to human behavior. Some researchers would insist that there is nothing parents can do to suppress the innate tendencies of boys to gravitate to guns and trucks while girls prefer dolls and tea sets. Others would disagree, arguing that there is no inherent biological difference between the brains of boys and girls. Rather, it is the parents’ own implicit biases and those of society at large that influence their children to behave in gender-typical ways. In the end, my response is that sex differences in the brain are more than some would like and less than others believe. Just how large those differences are, however, is the crux of an ongoing debate in science. And how much a brain’s function can be attributed to biology versus cultural expectations is a challenging question to answer. Confounding the issue is the concept of gender, a purely human construct that can itself influence brain development. Gender refers to both personal and societal perceptions of one’s sex, and embodies all the complexities of cultural expectations, inherent biases, and predetermined norms of behavior, each of which differs for boys and girls and can affect the young brain. © 1986-2015 The Scientist
Keyword: Sexual Behavior
Link ID: 21472 - Posted: 10.03.2015
By Kelli Whitlock Burton They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But whether the beholder’s opinion is a product of one's genes or one's environment has long been a question for scientists. Although some research suggests that a preference for certain physical traits, such as height or muscular build, may be encoded in our genes, a new study finds it’s our individual life experiences that lead us to find one face more attractive than another. To get some closure on the nature versus nurture debate in human aesthetics, researchers asked 547 pairs of identical twins and 214 pairs of same-gender fraternal twins to view 200 faces and rate them on a scale of one to seven, with one being the least attractive and seven the most attractive. A group of 660 nontwins then completed the same survey. If genes were more involved in facial preference, identical twins would have had similar ratings; if the influence of a familial environment carried more weight, fraternal twins would have also answered similarly. However, most twins’ scores were quite different from one another, suggesting that something else was at play. The researchers suspect that it’s an individual’s life experiences that guide our opinions of attractiveness. The findings, reported today in Current Biology, build on earlier work by the same team that shows the ability to recognize faces is largely a genetic trait. The research is ongoing, and you can participate, too. Just complete the facial preference survey through the researchers’ website at: www.TestMyBrain.org. © 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science.
By Nicholas Bakalar Breast-feeding has many benefits, but a new study suggests that it has no effect on a child’s IQ from toddlerhood through adolescence. The idea that breast-feeding might have an effect on cognition is plausible, since long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are important in neurological development, are more plentiful in breast-fed babies. British researchers studied 11,582 children born between 1994 and 1996. About two-thirds were breast-fed, for an average of four months. They followed them through age 16 and administered nine intelligence tests at regular intervals over the years. The study is in PLOS One. After controlling for parental education, maternal age, socioeconomic status and other variables, they found that girls who had been breast-fed had a weak but statistically insignificant advantage in early life over those who had not been, but the effect was not apparent in boys. Breast-feeding was not associated with gains in IQ through adolescence for either girls or boys. The lead author, Sophie von Stumm, a senior lecturer in psychology at Goldsmiths University of London, said that mothers who do not breast-feed are sometimes criticized. “It’s almost an accusation these days,” she said, “that you’re purposely harming your child. That’s not the case, and it’s not helpful for new mothers. Kids do lots of things that have an influence on IQ. Breast-feeding has no effect that can be distinguished from family background or socioeconomic status.” © 2015 The New York Times Company
By Puneet Kollipara The list of health problems that scientists can confidently link to exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals has grown to include diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, a new scientific statement suggests. The statement, released today by the Endocrine Society, also adds support to the somewhat controversial idea that even minute doses of these chemicals can interfere with the activity of natural hormones, which play a major role in regulating physiology and behavior. But the report—which updates a similar statement released in 2009—is drawing sharp criticism from the chemical industry. An executive summary of the new statement, which synthesizes 1300 studies on endocrine disrupters, posits that scientists are more confident than ever before in linking these substances to a host of known health issues, including reproductive and developmental problems, thyroid impairment, certain reproductive cancers, and neurodevelopmental problems such as decreased IQ. But studies suggest those links can now be extended to heart and weight problems, and diabetes, says the executive summary's first author, Andrea C. Gore, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Texas, Austin. Six years ago, scientists couldn’t make such a strong case for those links, Gore says, because there weren’t enough good studies. “But this has really been an emerging field where there is much stronger evidence now,” Gore told reporters today on a conference call. Still, some toxicologists and industry groups have long disputed the assertion that endocrine disrupters can trigger effects at minimal doses; this idea can be tough to test in lab animals, which are usually exposed to high doses in toxicology studies. © 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science
By Martin Enserink AMSTERDAM—Is being a woman a disadvantage when you're applying for grant money in the Netherlands? Yes, say the authors of a paper published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) this week. The study showed that women have a lower chance than men of winning early career grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), the country's main grant agency. NWO, which commissioned the study, accepted the results and announced several changes on Monday to rectify the problem. "NWO will devote more explicit attention to the gender awareness of reviewers in its methods and procedures," a statement said. But several Dutch scientists who have taken a close look at the data say they see no evidence of sexism. The PNAS paper, written by Romy van der Lee and Naomi Ellemers of Leiden University's Institute of Psychology, is an example of a classic statistical trap, says statistician Casper Albers of the University of Groningen, who tore the paper apart in a blog post yesterday. (In Dutch; a shortened translation in English is here.) Albers says he plans to send the piece as a commentary to PNAS as well. Van der Lee and Ellemers analyzed 2823 applications for NWO's Veni grants for young researchers in the years 2010, 2011, and 2012. Overall, women had a success rate of 14.9%, compared with 17.7% for men, they wrote, and that difference was statistically significant. But Albers says the difference evaporates if you look more closely at sex ratios and success rates in NWO's nine scientific disciplines. Those data, which Van der Lee and Ellemers provided in a supplement to their paper, show that women simply apply more often in fields where the chance of success is low. © 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science