Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Why science research still focuses mostly on males
In spite of a government mandate, females are often treated as afterthoughts in scientific research.
- A new study finds that though more females are included in experiments, sex-specific data often goes un-analyzed.
- Only about a third of studies analyzed published participant breakdown by sex.
- Some researchers say considering females more fully as research subjects is logistically too challenging.
In 2016, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a directive that scientists receiving NIH funding must consider sex as a biological variable in pre-clinical research on vertebrate animals and human cells and tissues. According to a new study published in eLife that looked at over 700 journal articles, the number of women included as participants in pre-clinical research has jumped from 28 percent in 2009 to 49 percent in 2019. However, it's also unfortunately still the case that few studies actually consider sex as a biological influence that may potentially affect outcomes, and that data from women participants continues to be simply combined with data from men.
Study co-author Nicole C. Woitowich of Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine tells INSIDE Higher Ed, "In the last 10 years, there has been a major in increase in sex inclusion, but it's still not where it's needs to be."
What's missing in current research
Image source: Hush Naidoo/Unsplash
Woitowich and others see two particularly problematic aspects to the continuing disregard of sex as a meaningful biological research variable.
First, female-specific data is rarely considered in study conclusions, despite the fact that it may have implications for women's health. According to L. Syd M Johnson of SUNY Update Medical University, who was not involved with the study, "This becomes highly problematic both scientifically and ethically, because women, children, and the elderly also need medical care, and they shouldn't be treated as if they have adult, male bodies. When they are excluded from research, and from the reported results, treatment for them becomes, effectively, off-label.
Second, Woitowich tells INSIDE Higher Ed it's, "troublesome to me as a scientist [that] a little under one-third [of studies] did not even report the number of males and females used as subjects." This makes it impossible for scientists to replicate the results. "If I don't have all the information," Woitowich says, "I'm left guessing."
On top of that, Woitowich laments that too much of the female-focused research that is undertaken is what's been called "bikini science," research surrounding issues related to female reproductive organs.
Why is this happening?
Image source: Image Point Fr/Shutterstock
"Many scientists, I don't even know if this is on their radar," says Woitowich. She proposes, therefore, that in the short term it may be the research gatekeepers — the funding entities, journal editors, and peer reviewers — who will have to step up and demand more inclusive science. She expresses surprise that they aren't already doing more to enforce the NIH's mandate. In the longer term, training for medical students should include a fuller awareness of the role that can be played by sex differences in research.
In a 2014 letter to the journal Nature, Janine A. Clayton and Francis S. Collins of the NIH admitted the problem even extends to female researchers. Noting that roughly half of the scientists doing NIH-funded research are women: "There has not been a corresponding revolution in experimental design and analyses in cell and animal research — despite multiple calls to action."
Another possible explanation
Image source: Ousa Chea/Unsplash
There are some researchers who feel that a greater inclusion of women and their data in studies would unnecessarily complicate the problems inherent in designing research and getting it funded.
In a 2015 letter to the journal Science, a group of researchers wrote that sex considerations added an additional investigational layer to research, one that was often irrelevant to the purpose of a research project. They asserted that, "nonhypothesis-driven documentation of sex differences in basic laboratory research is more likely to introduce conceptual and empirical problems in research on sex and gender than bring new clarity to differences in men's and women's health outcomes."
The writers also suggested that sex may be less of a biological variable than gender and weight. If, for example, women are more likely to be taking multiple pharmaceuticals than men and tend to be lighter in weight, these factors may be more influential on experiment outcomes than sex. Reluctant to commit to considering sex as a variable, they suggested instead two generalized studies to determine if it should be, writing, "we see a stronger empirical basis for directed funding initiatives in two areas: scientific validation of preclinical models for studying human sex differences, and human studies of the interaction of sex- and gender-related variables in producing health outcomes that vary by sex."
Image source: Valeriy Lebedev/Shutterstock
A 2019 analysis by Harvard University's GenderSci Lab found that basic science researchers, "repeated again and again that their experiments were in large part constrained by practicalities of various sorts. These practicalities were often used to explain why they don't or can't account for sex in their research," says the lab's Annika Gompers. Among the practicalities noted were the acquisition of study materials such as cells from deceased patients, test animals, fat from cosmetic surgery patients, and so on. Gompers said researchers often simply work with what they can get.
She adds, "While my participants recognize that considering sex can be important for the generalizability of results, in practice it is often impractical if not impossible to incorporate sex as a variable into biomedical research. Such a finding is consistent with scholars who have long looked at science as practice and observed how practicalities — as mundane as the availability of materials — are often central to the reduction of complexity into 'doable problems.'"
As far as sample composition goes, the choice of subjects may have to do with researchers wanting to avoid the constraints and costs of the safety regulations that accompany studies of pregnant women, women of child-bearing age whom may become pregnant, children, and the elderly.
Finally, though it may be that having enough females in a sample to draw valid conclusions would likely require larger participant cohorts. Woitowich's co-author, Smith College's Anneliese Beery, says that fears of doubled sample sizes are overblown, asserting that such increases in participant numbers would be "not actually necessary."
Avoiding wasted research opportunities
One of the authors of that Science letter was Harvard's Sarah S. Richardson, who suggests a sort of middle path, though it does give researchers license to ignore the NIH requirement as they see fit. Richardson proposes something she calls "sex contextualism," which is the "simple view that the definition of sex and sex-related variables, and whether they are relevant in biological research, depends on the research context."
Science journalist Angela Saini agrees , saying, "While it's valuable to include a broad spectrum of people in studies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the sex differences will be significant or important. So disaggregating for sex, while useful sometimes, doesn't always matter."
The above points, however, don't seem to acknowledge the potential for findings important specifically to female health, and seem more concerned with protecting the efficacy of studies that benefit males.
In any event, Woitowich finds that things are progressing more slowly than the NIH and others may have hoped. While Beery says it's "exciting to see increased inclusion of female subjects across so many different fields of biology," there are potentially meaningful scientific insights being lost. The disinclination toward fully collecting and analyzing female data for research experiments "means we are still missing out on the opportunity to understand when there are sex differences and losing statistical power when sex differences go unnoticed."
- Everything we know of female sexuality is changing — because ... ›
- Why women have nearly twice as many adverse drug reactions - Big Think ›
- Study finds a matriarchal society is good for women's health - Big Think ›
- Is this the biggest problem in science today? - Big Think ›
So much for rest in peace.
- Australian scientists found that bodies kept moving for 17 months after being pronounced dead.
- Researchers used photography capture technology in 30-minute intervals every day to capture the movement.
- This study could help better identify time of death.
We're learning more new things about death everyday. Much has been said and theorized about the great divide between life and the Great Beyond. While everyone and every culture has their own philosophies and unique ideas on the subject, we're beginning to learn a lot of new scientific facts about the deceased corporeal form.
An Australian scientist has found that human bodies move for more than a year after being pronounced dead. These findings could have implications for fields as diverse as pathology to criminology.
Dead bodies keep moving
Researcher Alyson Wilson studied and photographed the movements of corpses over a 17 month timeframe. She recently told Agence France Presse about the shocking details of her discovery.
Reportedly, she and her team focused a camera for 17 months at the Australian Facility for Taphonomic Experimental Research (AFTER), taking images of a corpse every 30 minutes during the day. For the entire 17 month duration, the corpse continually moved.
"What we found was that the arms were significantly moving, so that arms that started off down beside the body ended up out to the side of the body," Wilson said.
The researchers mostly expected some kind of movement during the very early stages of decomposition, but Wilson further explained that their continual movement completely surprised the team:
"We think the movements relate to the process of decomposition, as the body mummifies and the ligaments dry out."
During one of the studies, arms that had been next to the body eventually ended up akimbo on their side.
The team's subject was one of the bodies stored at the "body farm," which sits on the outskirts of Sydney. (Wilson took a flight every month to check in on the cadaver.)Her findings were recently published in the journal, Forensic Science International: Synergy.
Implications of the study
The researchers believe that understanding these after death movements and decomposition rate could help better estimate the time of death. Police for example could benefit from this as they'd be able to give a timeframe to missing persons and link that up with an unidentified corpse. According to the team:
"Understanding decomposition rates for a human donor in the Australian environment is important for police, forensic anthropologists, and pathologists for the estimation of PMI to assist with the identification of unknown victims, as well as the investigation of criminal activity."
While scientists haven't found any evidence of necromancy. . . the discovery remains a curious new understanding about what happens with the body after we die.
Metal-like materials have been discovered in a very strange place.
- Bristle worms are odd-looking, spiky, segmented worms with super-strong jaws.
- Researchers have discovered that the jaws contain metal.
- It appears that biological processes could one day be used to manufacture metals.
The bristle worm, also known as polychaetes, has been around for an estimated 500 million years. Scientists believe that the super-resilient species has survived five mass extinctions, and there are some 10,000 species of them.
Be glad if you haven't encountered a bristle worm. Getting stung by one is an extremely itchy affair, as people who own saltwater aquariums can tell you after they've accidentally touched a bristle worm that hitchhiked into a tank aboard a live rock.
Bristle worms are typically one to six inches long when found in a tank, but capable of growing up to 24 inches long. All polychaetes have a segmented body, with each segment possessing a pair of legs, or parapodia, with tiny bristles. ("Polychaeate" is Greek for "much hair.") The parapodia and its bristles can shoot outward to snag prey, which is then transferred to a bristle worm's eversible mouth.
The jaws of one bristle worm — Platynereis dumerilii — are super-tough, virtually unbreakable. It turns out, according to a new study from researchers at the Technical University of Vienna, this strength is due to metal atoms.
Metals, not minerals
Fireworm, a type of bristle wormCredit: prilfish / Flickr
This is pretty unusual. The study's senior author Christian Hellmich explains: "The materials that vertebrates are made of are well researched. Bones, for example, are very hierarchically structured: There are organic and mineral parts, tiny structures are combined to form larger structures, which in turn form even larger structures."
The bristle worm jaw, by contrast, replaces the minerals from which other creatures' bones are built with atoms of magnesium and zinc arranged in a super-strong structure. It's this structure that is key. "On its own," he says, "the fact that there are metal atoms in the bristle worm jaw does not explain its excellent material properties."
Just deformable enough
Credit: by-studio / Adobe Stock
What makes conventional metal so strong is not just its atoms but the interactions between the atoms and the ways in which they slide against each other. The sliding allows for a small amount of elastoplastic deformation when pressure is applied, endowing metals with just enough malleability not to break, crack, or shatter.
Co-author Florian Raible of Max Perutz Labs surmises, "The construction principle that has made bristle worm jaws so successful apparently originated about 500 million years ago."
Raible explains, "The metal ions are incorporated directly into the protein chains and then ensure that different protein chains are held together." This leads to the creation of three-dimensional shapes the bristle worm can pack together into a structure that's just malleable enough to withstand a significant amount of force.
"It is precisely this combination," says the study's lead author Luis Zelaya-Lainez, "of high strength and deformability that is normally characteristic of metals.
So the bristle worm jaw is both metal-like and yet not. As Zelaya-Lainez puts it, "Here we are dealing with a completely different material, but interestingly, the metal atoms still provide strength and deformability there, just like in a piece of metal."
Observing the creation of a metal-like material from biological processes is a bit of a surprise and may suggest new approaches to materials development. "Biology could serve as inspiration here," says Hellmich, "for completely new kinds of materials. Perhaps it is even possible to produce high-performance materials in a biological way — much more efficiently and environmentally friendly than we manage today."
Dealing with rudeness can nudge you toward cognitive errors.
- Anchoring is a common bias that makes people fixate on one piece of data.
- A study showed that those who experienced rudeness were more likely to anchor themselves to bad data.
- In some simulations with medical students, this effect led to higher mortality rates.
Cognitive biases are funny little things. Everyone has them, nobody likes to admit it, and they can range from minor to severe depending on the situation. Biases can be influenced by factors as subtle as our mood or various personality traits.
A new study soon to be published in the Journal of Applied Psychology suggests that experiencing rudeness can be added to the list. More disturbingly, the study's findings suggest that it is a strong enough effect to impact how medical professionals diagnose patients.
Life hack: don't be rude to your doctor
The team of researchers behind the project tested to see if participants could be influenced by the common anchoring bias, defined by the researchers as "the tendency to rely too heavily or fixate on one piece of information when making judgments and decisions." Most people have experienced it. One of its more common forms involves being given a particular value, say in negotiations on price, which then becomes the center of reasoning even when reason would suggest that number should be ignored.
It can also pop up in medicine. As co-author Dr. Trevor Foulk explains, "If you go into the doctor and say 'I think I'm having a heart attack,' that can become an anchor and the doctor may get fixated on that diagnosis, even if you're just having indigestion. If doctors don't move off anchors enough, they'll start treating the wrong thing."
Lots of things can make somebody more or less likely to anchor themselves to an idea. The authors of the study, who have several papers on the effects of rudeness, decided to see if that could also cause people to stumble into cognitive errors. Past research suggested that exposure to rudeness can limit people's perspective — perhaps anchoring them.
In the first version of the study, medical students were given a hypothetical patient to treat and access to information on their condition alongside an (incorrect) suggestion on what the condition was. This served as the anchor. In some versions of the tests, the students overheard two doctors arguing rudely before diagnosing the patient. Later variations switched the diagnosis test for business negotiations or workplace tasks while maintaining the exposure to rudeness.
Across all iterations of the test, those exposed to rudeness were more likely to anchor themselves to the initial, incorrect suggestion despite the availability of evidence against it. This was less significant for study participants who scored higher on a test of how wide of a perspective they tended to have. The disposition of these participants, who answered in the affirmative to questions like, "Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in his/her place," was able to effectively negate the narrowing effects of rudeness.
What this means for you and your healthcare
The effects of anchoring when a medical diagnosis is on the line can be substantial. Dr. Foulk explains that, in some simulations, exposure to rudeness can raise the mortality rate as doctors fixate on the wrong problems.
The authors of the study suggest that managers take a keener interest in ensuring civility in workplaces and giving employees the tools they need to avoid judgment errors after dealing with rudeness. These steps could help prevent anchoring.
Also, you might consider being nicer to people.