In a PNAS opinion piece (.pdf) published last week, two Stanford faculty are among the authors arguing that sex shouldn't be overlooked in basic research studies. Londa Schiebinger, PhD, director of the Gendered Innovations in Science, Health & Medicine, Engineering, and Environment program, and Marcia L. Stefanick, MD, director of the Stanford Center for Health Research on Women and Sex Differences in Medicine, take issue with the fact that much of the research that leads to drugs, devices, and our conclusions about biology comes from studies conducted on non-human animals and cell cultures without considering their sex.
Evolutionarily speaking, sex is one of the most well-conserved biological differences, of fundamental importance to 100 percent of the population. Paying more attention to it, the authors claim, would help biomedical research disaggregate data and explain heterogenous outcomes. While some think it would create unnecessary duplication to account for sex earlier in the research process, before drugs and treatments are tested on humans, the authors argue that such practices would save money and be more efficient in the long run. Early tests are far less expensive than removing something from the market because it has adverse effects on half the population. Moreover, preventing such adverse outcomes would keep people of both sexes safer and healthier.
The article states that the FDA is beginning to reconsider whether unisex dosing is accurate and safe for many drugs, and cites that "about 80% of rodent drug studies are conducted only on males, and 8 of 10 drugs withdrawn from the US market from 1997 to 2000 posed greater health risks for women than for men."
Previously: Stanford professor encourages researchers to take gender into account, A look at NIH's new rules for gender balance in biomedical studies and Why it's critical to study the impact of gender differences on diseases and treatments
Photo by Rick Eh?
