Medical science is in fact terribly biased against women because the standard baseline is almost always a typical male body
Source for the 7% statistic
I won't pretend to see the whole picture here but it sounds like we're talking about 7% female specific data vs everything else. Most of the remaining data may be non gender specific.
To present this as 7% female and 93% male is disingenuous.
As a counterpoint, breast cancer research (an issue predominantly affecting women) recieves far more funding than prostate cancer research.
Then again, is breast cancer here counted as female or non gender specific?
They really do make it sound as if 93% goes to male only research, but I highly doubt that's he case
I'm a casual observer, so take this as the understanding of some dumbass on lemmy rather than anybody who's actually been in the medical field. My understanding is that the majority of "non-gendered" medical research done through history has actually been male only, given discrimination and women being hidden inside the home for a lot of history. I've also heard that young male cadavers were WAY more available in like industrial revolution england than young female cadavers (affecting both medical research and training) just given who was more likely to get a dangerous job and die young. I know modern medicine understands how to sample a population a bit better than that, but the absolute vast majority of medical research still happened in places/eras that considered women property.
There is no such thing as "non gender specific". That's a lie you've been sold. "Gender neutral"' means cismale.
Hormones play a huge part in drug interactions and cis men do not cycle like ciswomen.
Look up gender differentiated responsiveness to "non-gendered" SSRI dosages for example.
As a researcher who works in biomedical sciences, a large part of that is lack of women volunteers or consent.
We can't simply force trials onto women, we have to get consent.
How would you suggest we get women to volunteer for early trials?
I promise we'd love to have a perfect sample set, and gender differences are extremely important (Another study we're debating doing is with the lethality of a gene knockout in male mice only, but not female mice, which we found incidentally while doing something else)
the standard baseline is almost always a typical male body
luckily this is not really true anymore.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/biomedical-research-sex-male-female-animal-human-studies
incredibly misleading. piss off with your bullshit
If you read the linked source, it says 7% is research that is aimed at issues that EXCLUSIVELY affect women.
Not true. Most studies nowadays include male & female participants - and more research focuses on exclusively female than exclusively male issues
The real bias is against normal human beings. Nursing/medical students and medical professionals are vastly overrepresented amongst study participants - and young people. These groups of people are much healthier than the average human being. Steps have been taken to address this too, but it is slow going.
Couldn't open the source link, unfortunately. So what's the percentage of women specific health issues? And what % of funding goes to health issues that only impact men?
more than likely medical professionals are more likely to ignore women, when they present symptoms of a disease, they are often balked, or dismissed as attention seeking behaviour. heart disease tends to be ignored in women in some cases.
medical science is less clear on biasing against woman or men. they might focus on certain gender groups for different diseases, like MS is more likely to occur in women, but in men its more severe. some cancers are more likely in men than woman. like P.Dermatitis is more common in women than in men, but some diseases are equally affecting both genders.
also for cancers, they might ignore both genders if you're "too young" for it.
That's wild considering most men never go to the doctors willingly
Yes, but consider that there was likely a financial incentive to be part of the trials.
As many have pointed out, this did not mean 93% is focused on men, it means that 7% is exclusively about women's health. I strongly suspect the vast majority is not gender specific (men's issues I would hope are smaller than 7% by a wide margin, since there's not much that goes too wrong that is inherent to men's physiology and much of it is more cosmetic in nature, while women specific health issues tend to be more dire.
So, to make up a number, it could be that 90% is generic across general human biology. So that the results could be applied to everyone so they catch the women going to the doctor as well as the men, if your assumption were true
This coming from x? Yeah I’m not trusting shit that comes from that fuckhole of a website. Not a stat nor one of its retarded users
Edit: my bad broskis, I’m just feeling a lil aggressive this morning and I am not sure why
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The thought “but how much research is dedicated to just men?” isn’t a salient retort.
Women are 50% of the population, and 100% of the humans alive today grew inside body systems that are exclusive to that population. Why would only 7% of research being about women be ok with that reality?
One great source for the gender gap in science is the book Invisible Women. It shows the dire need for data that studies women specifically, as well as having gender-aggregated data in research that studies both sexes. The current body of science, which is based on hundreds of years of research, mostly studied only men or studied both sexes and didn’t separate the results by sex, so women are mostly invisible in research.
Is this even a childfree topic? I'm blocking this community.
It's certainly an argument for not having them. In the US, women in Texas are dying of sepsis because they can't abort non-viable fetuses. Health care for women in some places is terrible. I think it was Nigeria where a huge percentage of women die in childbirth.
I don’t doubt that women are underrepresented in medical research, but at the same time I suspect most medical research targets issues that affect both men and women, since that is true of most medical issues. The 7% statistic would be more impactful if we could compare it to the percentage of medical research focused on medical issues specific to men.
Edit: after further consideration, my initial take here isn’t great either, because women face more medical issues specific to their gender. I still think the 7% statistic is a little misleading.
Issues that affect both women and men still often tend to affect both in different ways -- but the majority of medical research tends to just take what works for the standard male body and apply that to everyone regardless of sex instead of investigating sex-specific effects and tailoring solutions around that
"In 2020, only 1% of funding for healthcare research and innovation (beyond oncology) was invested in women's health."
That's not what that means at all. It means gynecological research + research into other issues that only affect female physiology only accounts of 7% of all medical research. The other 93% is either focused on general or male-specific issues (and conducted mostly on men).