To what extent, if any, can this be explained by the majority of medical research historically having used only male subjects? Put another way, is this plausibly a catch up effort to address gaps in the literature regarding women's health that are already answered regarding men's health? Are there current disparities in average outcomes for females versus males that this might be attempting to rectify?
This looks really bad, but I don't want to assume that perception is reality without checking for any possible reasonable explanations first.
Solid questions. There are health outcomes where men fare worse (e.g., life expectancy, suicide, drug and alcohol use, work injury death) and outcomes where women fare worse (e.g., stroke, eating disorders, chronic pain and fatigue conditions). All deserve attention.
The notion that the majority of medical research has historically used male subjects isn't necessarily true. It depends on the type of research and how far back one is looking. It isn't true for the past ~40 years of medical research. Also, to the extent that some areas of research include more male than female participants, this could be entirely appropriate given the life expectancy difference (i.e., more research focus on males to increase their life expectancy).
For overviews of some of these topics, see my previous posts:
That graph is not so obvious when you look at the source.
Thanks for investigating the details.
To what extent, if any, can this be explained by the majority of medical research historically having used only male subjects? Put another way, is this plausibly a catch up effort to address gaps in the literature regarding women's health that are already answered regarding men's health? Are there current disparities in average outcomes for females versus males that this might be attempting to rectify?
This looks really bad, but I don't want to assume that perception is reality without checking for any possible reasonable explanations first.
Solid questions. There are health outcomes where men fare worse (e.g., life expectancy, suicide, drug and alcohol use, work injury death) and outcomes where women fare worse (e.g., stroke, eating disorders, chronic pain and fatigue conditions). All deserve attention.
The notion that the majority of medical research has historically used male subjects isn't necessarily true. It depends on the type of research and how far back one is looking. It isn't true for the past ~40 years of medical research. Also, to the extent that some areas of research include more male than female participants, this could be entirely appropriate given the life expectancy difference (i.e., more research focus on males to increase their life expectancy).
For overviews of some of these topics, see my previous posts:
https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/gynocentrism-in-biomedical-research
https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/there-is-still-no-womens-health-crisis
https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/substantially-fewer-funds-allocated
Bettina Arndt also recently mentioned the funding difference in her recent post:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-151300408?source=queue
"To what extent, if any, can this be explained by the majority of medical research historically having used only male subjects?"
Those "male subjects" were often captive groups such as soldiers or prisoners who were not given a choice.
Yes. It's not a privilege to be guinea pigs for medical research.