Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

niyad

(113,342 posts)
Wed Jul 29, 2015, 09:42 PM Jul 2015

Science’s Gender Gap is Worse Than You Thought


Science’s Gender Gap is Worse Than You Thought



Female mice experience pain differently than male mice, according to a study published last week in the scientific journal Nature Neuroscience. That means pain medication that works on a male mouse might not work for a human woman, researchers say.



Those findings might seem trivial to people who don’t spend their days wearing white lab coats, but the study highlights a larger, oft-overlooked issue in scientific research: Males—both animal and human—are regularly used as proxies for females, furthering the assumption that the female experience of biological phenomena is always the same as the male’s. Yet from heart attacks to multiple sclerosis (MS), this assumption has proven untrue. And it has potentially dire consequences.

“In many disciplines, the animals used to study diseases and drugs are overwhelmingly male,” wrote The New York Times editorial board in an op-ed published Saturday, “which may significantly reduce the reliability of research and lead to drugs that won’t work in half the population.”

. . . .

Eight out of 10 biological disciplines have a bias towards using male animals, a 2010 study found. For example, neuroscience used 5.5 male animals to every one female, while pharmacology’s 5 to 1 animal ratio was not much better. (This bias may be especially dangerous, NIH executives pointed out in a Nature editorial, because women tend to experience more adverse drug reactions than men.) Moreover, the same study discovered that 75 percent of studies in three highly regarded immunology journals did not disclose their animal subjects’ sex at all.

Scientists frequently explain the dearth of female animals in basic and preclinical research by insisting that females are more complex and variable than male animals, since they undergo an “estrous cycle” (called a menstrual cycle in humans). They claim that female test subjects’ hormonal variability can disrupt experiments and hinder scientists’ ability to make conclusions. However, a 2014 meta-analysis of academic articles on neuroscience and biomedical research found that females are no more variable than males.

. . . .

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2015/07/28/sciences-gender-gap-is-worse-than-you-thought/
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

SunSeeker

(51,571 posts)
1. Geez. It appears to be based on sexist assumptions of hysterical females on their periods.
Wed Jul 29, 2015, 10:22 PM
Jul 2015

Seriously, they thought menstrual mice would be suddenly rendered untestable?! It's a menstrual cycle, not shape shifting. Gah!

It is so sad to see men of science driven by utterly unscientific prejudices.

We so need more women in science.

Igel

(35,320 posts)
7. It's a catch-22.
Wed Jul 29, 2015, 11:24 PM
Jul 2015

The first study assumes no meaningful difference when there are some, and it's screwed.

The second assumes there are meaningful differences when there aren't, and it's screwed.

To say that males and females are different and may react differently is sexist. The assumption is there aren't any, and to set out to prove it can be problematic.

To say that they're not differently and don't react differently is sexist. The assumption must there are some, and to fail to assume it until proven otherwise can be problematic.

You see the problem?

It's the same with race.

Too many people playing gotcha.

SunSeeker

(51,571 posts)
9. Science should be based on a search for truth, not avoiding "gotcha."
Thu Jul 30, 2015, 01:59 AM
Jul 2015

There is no catch-22 or playing gotcha here if you report facts. Facts are not sexist.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
8. In humans, it's used to cut down on the reported side effects.
Thu Jul 30, 2015, 12:14 AM
Jul 2015

Say a woman experiences cramps with every period. If she's in a drug study and happens to start her period, those cramps have to be reported as a possible side-effect.

Only test men, and you don't have to put that on the label as a possible side effect.

(Not a good idea, but that's the scheme the drug companies are running)

SunSeeker

(51,571 posts)
10. The article says the reason is fear of "hormonal variability."
Thu Jul 30, 2015, 02:11 AM
Jul 2015

You are saying it is fear of women reporting their menstrual cramps as a side affect. I would think that women who experience their normal menstrual cramps would not report that as a side effect. But even if they did, then that would be a characteristic of all drug trials and it would not cause any sort of alarming flag for the drug.

Anyway, those package inserts, regardless of drug, always have such a long list of possible side effects that adding menstrual cramps to it would hardly make much difference. Isn't that tiny burden more than outweighed by the benefits of having tested the drug on women, who comprise half the population and half of the folks who may take the drug?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Science’s Gender Gap is W...