Yes that was the claim, but the number 8.8% did not mean that the remaining gap was funding that excluded women. But reading this article made it seem that way.
There are many reasons for the gaps in what is known about prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of conditions in women, the report says, including past exclusion of women from clinical trials and the long-standing focus on male physiology and anatomy in animal and human health research. A lack of baseline understanding of sex-based differences in physiology, as well as gender-based discriminatory practices, have resulted in a failure to prioritize and fund research into conditions that are female specific, more common among women and girls, or that affect them differently. While inclusion of women in clinical trials has improved in recent years, biomedical research that involves both men and women still often misses opportunities to analyze sex differences. The intentional investigation of underlying differences would lead not only to stronger science but also to interventions that will benefit the health of the whole population, the report argues.
An analysis by the committee that wrote the report finds that just 8.8 percent of NIH grant spending from 2013 to 2023 focused on women’s health research, and funding for women’s health research has decreased as a share of overall NIH funding, despite steady increases in the agency’s budget. The NIH’s Office of Research on Women’s Health remains underfunded, and breakthroughs to improve women’s health have lagged across the research enterprise.
Did you click through to read the National Academies analysis that’s linked in the article?
Yes I did but I had trouble understanding what the number meant. The article in question made it seem like the remaining funding ignored women when it didn’t. That number corresponds to funding specific to women. It does not mean ober 90% is male focused. That’s why I was interested in how much was male-only funding as this number would be better at revealing the inequality.
Oh my god, dude. That is what it means if you read further. Most research is based on male bodies and is then applied to women’s bodies as if they are the same.
An analysis by the committee that wrote the report finds that just 8.8 percent of NIH grant spending from 2013 to 2023 focused on women’s health research
A bigger portion of the finding needs to go towards finding out if there really are sex differences. But this is not the same as 92.2% of spending ignores women.
According to the article the NIH has been required to include women in medical research since the 90s and have been required to determine whether there are any expected sex differences since 2016.
Also, if they determine that there are no sex differences, does it matter if the research has been conducted on female animals or not?
Historically, medical research has been male-dominated in terms of subjects as well as researchers, even though women make up half of the world’s population. As a result of this gender bias, insights into various diseases and findings about medications have often been extrapolated from men and applied to women. But women aren’t just smaller men. Women’s bodies are decidedly different from men’s, with unique organs, genes, hormones, and other key differences.
It’s not surprising, then, that men and women experience many of the same diseases but develop different symptoms. With heart attacks, for example, the most common symptom is chest pain for men and women—but women may be more likely to experience other symptoms, such as shortness of breath, nausea or vomiting, or jaw pain. Women and men also metabolize and respond to many drugs differently. And there are gender-based variations in the physiological mechanisms underlying pain.
Some of these differences have been revealed through research that features gender parity. But many basic questions remain about how different health conditions and responses to drugs, vaccines, and other interventions are influenced by biological sex. “Within the last 10 years, there has been major progress on sex-informed research,” says Dr. Hadine Joffe, executive director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of psychiatry in the field of women’s health at Harvard Medical School. But “it’s a mixed story because there’s still such a long way to go.”
Yes that was the claim, but the number 8.8% did not mean that the remaining gap was funding that excluded women. But reading this article made it seem that way.
Did you click through to read the National Academies analysis that’s linked in the article?
Yes I did but I had trouble understanding what the number meant. The article in question made it seem like the remaining funding ignored women when it didn’t. That number corresponds to funding specific to women. It does not mean ober 90% is male focused. That’s why I was interested in how much was male-only funding as this number would be better at revealing the inequality.
Oh my god, dude. That is what it means if you read further. Most research is based on male bodies and is then applied to women’s bodies as if they are the same.
Where does it say that? It says
A bigger portion of the finding needs to go towards finding out if there really are sex differences. But this is not the same as 92.2% of spending ignores women.
According to the article the NIH has been required to include women in medical research since the 90s and have been required to determine whether there are any expected sex differences since 2016.
Also, if they determine that there are no sex differences, does it matter if the research has been conducted on female animals or not?
Go forth and read more.
This is the part that should tell me that 90% of the finding between 2013-2023 excludes women?
It’s the part that tells you how medical research has approached the differences between genders and how everything has been based on male anatomy.
deleted by creator