Great work James. We came to a similar conclusion in the BPS textbook Perspectives in Male Psychology:
"...blaming men or patriarchy for gaps in our knowledge about women’s health is a false accusation based on faulty assumptions, especially as almost half of clinical trial participants are women, although 78% of participants in the most risky trials are men" (Liddon & Barry 2021, p.189).
It's mind-boggling that despite the mass of solid evidence presented by you, Ed Bartlett and others, the myth that women have been underrepresented in medical research is repeated ad nauseum.
Thank you, James. Feminism seems to be getting worse, not better. I would have hoped that a Republican administration would do something for men's health. I told DOGE that they could save taxpayer dollars by defunding expenditures on women's health that are in excess of funding for men's health.
Not to disagree with your findings, but I wonder if there is an issue which does need to be address: pregnancy.
It seems to me that the category 'women' includes several subcategories, for which men do not have an equivalent:
1) Women who might become pregnant. This drug or treatment might affect them in ways *now* which would affect their ability to get pregnant, or the baby they will have *later*.
2) Women who are pregnant. And thus they are getting drugged or treatemented for two. How does the drug/treatment affect them in their state, and their child in their state?
3) Women who are breastfeeding (who might also fit into (1) or (2) greatly multiplying the complexity. How does the drug/treatment affect them, AND how does it affect their baby?
And then add in the monthly cycle (is a drug more dangerous when a woman is on her period, about to be, just was?) and you have a staggering number of very natural, often occurring subcategories of women.
So in order to be 'adequately represented' women (in these various subcategories) might need to be nine out of ten participants!
While I tend to agree with the sentiment - why isn’t it 50/50 - I don’t agree with the methodology. ICD identifies at least 600 conditions unique to female anatomy, vs 200-250 for men.
There are conditions unique to female anatomy and lifecycle, and unique to male anatomy and lifecycle - menarche, menstrual cycle, pregnancy, menopause to women; testicular descent, spermarche, erections, ejaculation to men - off the top of my head. But disorders of the those sets of conditions are wildly different, and with much different frequencies in women and men. The constellations of problems during menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause are many times more complex than erectile dysfunction, low-viability sperm, prostate hypertrophy…
Consider the ICD-10 - International Classification of Diseases.
I believe there are over 600 entries unique to female anatomy, and 200 entries to men.
So, the disorders affecting women are incommensurate with disorders affecting men.
Women live on average 8% longer than men, I would expect a minimum of 8% more females than males in studies purely because of demographics and “correcting for age. Unsurprisingly you see 8% more women than men on average.
Were research proportional, I would expect to see in total 2x-3x female representation in research.
I suspect the proportional lack of research in 600 unique female-anatomy conditions vs 200-300 for men drive perception.
Great work James. We came to a similar conclusion in the BPS textbook Perspectives in Male Psychology:
"...blaming men or patriarchy for gaps in our knowledge about women’s health is a false accusation based on faulty assumptions, especially as almost half of clinical trial participants are women, although 78% of participants in the most risky trials are men" (Liddon & Barry 2021, p.189).
It's mind-boggling that despite the mass of solid evidence presented by you, Ed Bartlett and others, the myth that women have been underrepresented in medical research is repeated ad nauseum.
Thanks, John. Can you share a link to the book for those who might like to buy a copy?
Thanks James. Here is the link https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/male-psychology-books
Excellent effort/work. Will make links and referrals.
Nice work.
Thank you, James. Feminism seems to be getting worse, not better. I would have hoped that a Republican administration would do something for men's health. I told DOGE that they could save taxpayer dollars by defunding expenditures on women's health that are in excess of funding for men's health.
Not to disagree with your findings, but I wonder if there is an issue which does need to be address: pregnancy.
It seems to me that the category 'women' includes several subcategories, for which men do not have an equivalent:
1) Women who might become pregnant. This drug or treatment might affect them in ways *now* which would affect their ability to get pregnant, or the baby they will have *later*.
2) Women who are pregnant. And thus they are getting drugged or treatemented for two. How does the drug/treatment affect them in their state, and their child in their state?
3) Women who are breastfeeding (who might also fit into (1) or (2) greatly multiplying the complexity. How does the drug/treatment affect them, AND how does it affect their baby?
And then add in the monthly cycle (is a drug more dangerous when a woman is on her period, about to be, just was?) and you have a staggering number of very natural, often occurring subcategories of women.
So in order to be 'adequately represented' women (in these various subcategories) might need to be nine out of ten participants!
My understanding was that women were underrepresented in some studies directly in response to the thalidomide scandal.
While I tend to agree with the sentiment - why isn’t it 50/50 - I don’t agree with the methodology. ICD identifies at least 600 conditions unique to female anatomy, vs 200-250 for men.
There are conditions unique to female anatomy and lifecycle, and unique to male anatomy and lifecycle - menarche, menstrual cycle, pregnancy, menopause to women; testicular descent, spermarche, erections, ejaculation to men - off the top of my head. But disorders of the those sets of conditions are wildly different, and with much different frequencies in women and men. The constellations of problems during menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause are many times more complex than erectile dysfunction, low-viability sperm, prostate hypertrophy…
Consider the ICD-10 - International Classification of Diseases.
I believe there are over 600 entries unique to female anatomy, and 200 entries to men.
So, the disorders affecting women are incommensurate with disorders affecting men.
Women live on average 8% longer than men, I would expect a minimum of 8% more females than males in studies purely because of demographics and “correcting for age. Unsurprisingly you see 8% more women than men on average.
Were research proportional, I would expect to see in total 2x-3x female representation in research.
I suspect the proportional lack of research in 600 unique female-anatomy conditions vs 200-300 for men drive perception.