These days, it is not too difficult to find an academic paper or news article that states that women are “underrepresented” as participants in medical research trials.
Brilliant observations, and the data you put together is illuminating. I want research to cover everyone fairly, but the figures you presented show that, in contrast to the language in the official White House announcement, women are not under-represented in studies. I wonder if the mainstream media will pick this up?
The data are publicly available in the ORWH's annual reports, though spread across reports from different years. One of my goals here was to compile all of these data into one graph that everyone (journalists included) can refer to.
One thing to note is that the data in the figure are from NIH-funded research. Some biomedical research is not funded by the NIH. So, when some researchers go to tally the number of male and female participants in research studies, they may choose to also include studies that were not funded by the NIH, and they may also choose to focus on certain health topics (e.g., number of male and female participants in cardiology studies). These two factors can then impact the proportions of male and female participants represented in the research. Once the media and others are shown the data from the NIH, they will quickly transition to claiming they were referring to some other study/article that also tallied the number of male and female participants in research not funded by the NIH or on some specific health topic.
The truth does not matter to the people responsible for making these decisions. Their paycheck depends on it not mattering. It's not that they don't know; they wouldn't care even if they did.
Women make up a majority of the voter base and they have an intense in-group bias.
Brilliant observations, and the data you put together is illuminating. I want research to cover everyone fairly, but the figures you presented show that, in contrast to the language in the official White House announcement, women are not under-represented in studies. I wonder if the mainstream media will pick this up?
The data are publicly available in the ORWH's annual reports, though spread across reports from different years. One of my goals here was to compile all of these data into one graph that everyone (journalists included) can refer to.
One thing to note is that the data in the figure are from NIH-funded research. Some biomedical research is not funded by the NIH. So, when some researchers go to tally the number of male and female participants in research studies, they may choose to also include studies that were not funded by the NIH, and they may also choose to focus on certain health topics (e.g., number of male and female participants in cardiology studies). These two factors can then impact the proportions of male and female participants represented in the research. Once the media and others are shown the data from the NIH, they will quickly transition to claiming they were referring to some other study/article that also tallied the number of male and female participants in research not funded by the NIH or on some specific health topic.
Whoa! I thought I was informed on this issue and this post sent me back to school! Great information! Thanks so much.
The truth does not matter to the people responsible for making these decisions. Their paycheck depends on it not mattering. It's not that they don't know; they wouldn't care even if they did.
Women make up a majority of the voter base and they have an intense in-group bias.
James--what's a woman?