NC3Rs: National Centre for the Replacement Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research
Webinar and video

Tackling sex bias in research: Introducing the Sex Inclusive Research Framework

The Sex Inclusive Research Framework (SIRF) is a collection of resources to help assess if research proposals have taken sex into account in the design of experiments and analysis plans. Ensuring experiments are sex-inclusive is one part of designing a robust in vivo study that produces reproducible, generalisable and meaningful results using the fewest number of animals. Many institutions are adopting sex-inclusive research policies to ensure research is robust and representative of the biology and health of the whole population. For example, NC3Rs grant holders are required to use female and male animals in any studies they perform unless there is a strong justification to use only one sex.

This webinar explores common misconceptions around sex-inclusive research and explains how and why SIRF was developed. Talks cover how the framework can be used by scientists, ethical review bodies and funders.

Speakers and topics:

  • Inclusion by default: Assisting the paradigm shift.
    Dr Natasha Karp, AstraZeneca.
  • SIRF: Virtual tool for ethics committees
    Dr Matt Leach, Newcastle University.
  • Embedding sex-inclusive research design: A funder's perspective.
    Dr Jacqui Marshall, Cancer Research UK.

On this page

Webinar recordings

Inclusion by default: Assisting the paradigm shift

Dr Natasha Karp, AstraZeneca

SIRF: Virtual tool for ethics committees

Dr Matt Leach, Newcastle University

Embedding sex-inclusive research design: A funder's perspective

Dr Jacqui Marshall, Cancer Research UK

Further resources

Access the interactive SIRF tool and read the SIRF publication.

Publications cited in the webinar

  1. Morgan R et al. (2021). Beyond a zero-sum game: how does the impact of COVID-19 vary by gender? Frontiers in Sociology 6:650729. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.650729
  2. Bwire GM (2020). Coronavirus: why men are more vulnerable to Covid-19 than women? SN comprehensive clinical medicine 2(7):874-876. doi: 10.1007/s42399-020-00341-w
  3. Yoon DY et al. (2014). Sex bias exists in basic science and translational surgical research. Surgery 156(3):508-16. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2014.07.001
  4. Woitowich NC et al. (2020). A 10-year follow-up study of sex inclusion in the biological sciences. elife 9:e56344. doi: 10.7554/eLife.56344
  5. Shah K et al. (2014). Do you know the sex of your cells? American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology 306(1):C3-C18. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00281.2013
  6. Taylor KE et al. (2011). Reporting of sex as a variable in cardiovascular studies using cultured cells. Biology of sex differences 2(1):11. doi: 10.1186/2042-6410-2-11
  7. Garcia-Sifuentes Y and Maney DL (2021). Reporting and misreporting of sex differences in the biological sciences. Elife 10. doi: 10.7554/eLife.70817
  8. Zakiniaeiz Y et al. (2016). Balance of the Sexes: Addressing Sex Differences in Preclinical Research. Yale J Biol Med 89(2):255-9. PMCID: 4918870
  9. Zopf Y et al. (2008). Women encounter ADRs more often than do men. European journal of clinical pharmacology 64(10):999-1004. doi: 10.1007/s00228-008-0494-6
  10. Safety D (2001). Most drugs withdrawn in recent years had greater health risk for women. United States General Accounting Office. URL: www.gao.gov/products/gao-01-286r (last accessed September 2025)
  11. Mogil JS (2020). Qualitative sex differences in pain processing: emerging evidence of a biased literature. Nat Rev Neurosci 21(7):353-365. doi: 10.1038/s41583-020-0310-6
  12. Karp NA (2025). Navigating the paradigm shift of sex inclusive preclinical research and lessons learnt. Communications Biology 8(1):681. doi: 10.1038/s42003-025-08118-4
  13. Nunamaker EA and Turner PV (2023). Unmasking the adverse impacts of sex bias on science and research animal welfare. Animals 13(17):2792. doi: 10.3390/ani13172792
  14. McCarthy MM (2015). Incorporating Sex as a Variable in Preclinical Neuropsychiatric Research. Schizophr Bull 41(5):1016-20. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbv077
  15. Hunt L et al. (2022). A framework for sex, gender, and diversity analysis in research. Science 377(6614):1492-1495. doi:10.1126/science.abp9775
  16. Clayton JA and Collins FS (2014). Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies. Nature 509(7500):282-3. doi:10.1038/509282a
  17. Child SA et al. (2025). Developing the evidence-base to inform policy on inclusive research design. Royal Society Open Science 12(3):241380. doi:10.1098/rsos.241380