The irony of your closing statement ("any result that just so happens....to agree with preconceived notions about "how things are" should be considered extremely suspicious and scrutinised....and noone who really wants to understand the relevant subjects should feel comfortable accepting such results as settled") is that such "settled" facts in the scientific community are exactly the things that Cahill has been challenging in the neuroscience field.

Specifically to his point that:

> the rationale was there aren’t any differences between males and females, so you avoid the unnecessarily complicated feature of the female hormonal cycle and study the male.

In other words...the "settled" science actually excludes the explicit study of, and furtherance of our understanding of, the female brain. Which in turn leads to a lessened ability to treat and address all sorts of conditions.

So by all means decry bias...but be aware that bias can be introduced by scientists wanting to cut corners and make research faster and easier so they can publish more just as much as they can be introduced by gender superiority zealots.