Wanted Single, White Male for Medical Research

On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science

“…Gender bias also arises in the performance of research, where women have been grossly underrepresented as subjects in clinical trials (Dresser, 1992;Merton, 1993). 3 This exclusion has been justified on the grounds of the need for homogenous subject populations, the fear of harms to pregnant women and offspring, the alleged difficulties accounting for women's hormonal fluctuations in data analysis, and the purported difficulties recruiting women (Dresser, 1992).…”

“…3 This exclusion has been justified on the grounds of the need for homogenous subject populations, the fear of harms to pregnant women and offspring, the alleged difficulties accounting for women's hormonal fluctuations in data analysis, and the purported difficulties recruiting women (Dresser, 1992). Critics insist, however, that biological differences between men and women are significant enough that research evidence is often not relevant to women and therefore the use of medical technologies on and by female patients is dangerous.…”

Assuring Adequate Protections in International Health Research: A Principled Justification and Practical Recommendations for the Role of Community Oversight

“…For example, the research community once thought that women should be excluded from health research due to a perceived greater vulnerability. Later, they recognized that it was unfair to conduct research only on men, since the benefits of the research for women would remain uncertain and justice demands that the benefits be distributed fairly (Dresser, 1992;Kahn et al, 1998;Weijer and Crouch, 1999). Thus, the inclusion of various population groups is now seen to be obligatory.…”

Public Advocacy and Allocation of Federal Funds for Biomedical Research

“…By 1997, congressional concern over increasing competition among disease interest groups led to House and Senate hearings on biomedical research priority setting (Dresser 1998). At the hearings, Harold Varmus, director of the NIH, described, and sought to justify, NIH funding allocation criteria and mechanisms.…”

“…In their view, interest-group advocacy already affects NIH allocation; the problem is that every group does not have the same access to NIH decision makers. Indeed, HIV/AIDS and women's health advocates would contend that their vigorous lobbying efforts were necessary to correct a prior lack of access that had resulted in inadequate research funding for conditions affecting their constituents (Murphy 1991;Dresser 1992). From this perspective, creating a more open, inclusive framework for public participation in NIH decision making could yield allocation decisions more consistent with the needs and values of U.S. taxpayers (Sarewitz 1997).…”