Abstract:Although neurosciences have made notable progress in theory and technology, a significant methodological issue persists with the continued reliance on homogeneous sample groups (Burns et al., 2019). This observation is neither new nor recent, as several authors have already raised concerns about the fact that behavioral scientists base their conclusions mostly on samples composed almost exclusively of people from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies, even though these groups are very peculiar, representing only 12% of all humans and may be considered outliers (Henrich et al., 2010). The problem is exacerbated by the frequent use of convenience samples, which tend to consist primarily of university students, resulting in a narrower demographic range that fails to represent the broader diversity within society. The inclusion of more diverse populations is crucial, notably in light of the nature versus nurture debate. It is indeed now widely accepted that both cultural and biological factors contribute to shaping human psychology and behaviors (Chiao and Ambady, 2007). However, the lack of diversity in population samples diminishes the impact of cultural (nurture) factors in the obtained results and makes it difficult to claim whether neurocognitive processes are universal or culture specific (Burns et al., 2019). Beyond cultural differences, the lack of access to diverse populations can hinder the exploration of innovative research questions in the field, which may require targeting specific populations that use, for instance, different metric systems, have unique hierarchical structures, or have experienced a unique historical event. A critical question thus remains: Why does the pursuit of greater diversity in population samples remain so limited? Part of the answer is undoubtedly tied to the unequal distribution of funding and the number of scientists in specific parts of the world who lack the resources to conduct research ... Correspondence should be addressed to Emilie A. Caspar at emilie.caspar{at}ugent.be.

Science needs neurodiversity

Unraveling Neurodiversity: Insights from Neuroscientific Perspectives

Guidelines for Inclusive and Diverse Human Neuroscience Research Practices

Annual Research Review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science

Neurodiversity in the Minds of Students: From Perception to Campus Programming

Putting the “Biology” Back into “Neurobiology”: The Strength of Diversity in Animal Model Systems for Neuroscience Research

Stop trying to carve Nature at its joints! The importance of a process-based developmental science for understanding neurodiversity

Diversity, epistemic injustice and medicalization

Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults

Building a Neurodiverse High-tech Workforce.

Five interdisciplinary tensions and opportunities in neurodiversity research

The advantages and challenges of neurodiversity employment in organizations

Diversity of contributions is not efficient but is essential for science

The importance of diversity in cognitive neuroscience

The Neurodiversity Approach(es): What Are They and What Do They Mean for Researchers?

Considering sex as a biological variable will require a global shift in science culture

Gender on the Brain: A Case Study of Science Communication in the New Media Environment

Neurodiversity in the healthcare profession

The Neurochemistry of Science Bias

Neurodiversity and the Social Ecology of Mental Functions

Science Needs You: Mobilizing for Diversity in Award Recognition