Sep 14, 2022 05:36 PM
(This post was last modified: Sep 14, 2022 06:56 PM by C C.)
Cynic's Corner: Even if the biomedical and social sciences eventually do achieve a balance of the two sexes in their research...
Their uncritical, religious-like acceptance of Wokeist beliefs and ideology will bloat from a currently mild irritation to a larger menace that politically hounds them (as far as human study subjects go). Particularly those non-binary beliefs: agender, demigender, polygender, genderfluid, xenogender classifications of people seeking to expand beyond the current shift to two sex inclusiveness.
As those incrementally evolve from being psychological orientations to desiring official substantiation or legit acceptance as possessing physiological status. "I am a real, parthenogenic dinosapien with scales and a cloaca, not a just someone who feels that way or was surgically altered."
- - - - - - -
Funders and publishers are increasingly asking researchers to account for the role of sex in experiments — a requirement that’s contentious and hard to get right.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02919-x
EXCERPTS: . . . Many of science’s gatekeepers — granting agencies and academic journals — feel the same way. Over the past decade or so, a growing list of funders and publishers, including the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the European Union, have been asking researchers to include two sexes in their work with cells and animal models.
Two major catalysts motivated these policies. One was a growing recognition that sex-based differences, often related to hormone profiles or genes on sex chromosomes, can influence responses to drugs and other treatments. The other was the realization that including two sexes can increase the rigour of scientific inquiry, enhance reproducibility and open up questions for scientific pursuit.
[...] The big advantage of looking at more than one sex, says Sabine Oertelt-Prigione, a physician who specializes in gender medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, is that “you might find potential pathways or solutions or new questions that you wouldn’t find otherwise”.
But hoped-for improvements in reproducibility and rigour have been slow to materialize. The policies have generated considerable confusion and controversy over when and how to work the different sexes into study designs, and some researchers argue that ‘sex’ as currently defined is too binary and blunt.
[...] Defining sex as a crude binary, predicated on the chromosomes present, or on specific anatomy, could be too limiting. Some species, such as the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, have one sex that makes only sperm cells and one that makes both sperm and egg cells. And in a vast assortment of species, sex is determined environmentally rather than chromosomally. And still other species can change sex during their lifetime. Placing cells, tissues or even whole organisms into a pair of categories takes on layers of difficulty in these contexts.
[...] These policies were meant to compel change, but many scientists struggle to comply with them routinely or to incorporate sexes properly into studies. In the e-mail sent to Nature, Clayton notes that, by 2015, 22 years after the NIH established its clinical-trials requirement, fewer than one-third of evaluated NIH-funded randomized controlled trials were including two sexes in their studies or providing an explanation for not doing so. A 2018 review found that the needle had largely remained in place for the previous 14 years8.
When women are included in trials, it is often in proportions that do not tally with the real-life prevalence of certain diseases in that group. A 2020 review published by Clayton and her colleagues found that of the 11 disease categories the authors analysed from 2014 to 2018, women were under-represented in 7, including liver and kidney diseases.
Compliance with the newer policy in animal and cell studies is even patchier... (MORE - missing details)
Their uncritical, religious-like acceptance of Wokeist beliefs and ideology will bloat from a currently mild irritation to a larger menace that politically hounds them (as far as human study subjects go). Particularly those non-binary beliefs: agender, demigender, polygender, genderfluid, xenogender classifications of people seeking to expand beyond the current shift to two sex inclusiveness.
As those incrementally evolve from being psychological orientations to desiring official substantiation or legit acceptance as possessing physiological status. "I am a real, parthenogenic dinosapien with scales and a cloaca, not a just someone who feels that way or was surgically altered."
- - - - - - -
Funders and publishers are increasingly asking researchers to account for the role of sex in experiments — a requirement that’s contentious and hard to get right.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02919-x
EXCERPTS: . . . Many of science’s gatekeepers — granting agencies and academic journals — feel the same way. Over the past decade or so, a growing list of funders and publishers, including the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the European Union, have been asking researchers to include two sexes in their work with cells and animal models.
Two major catalysts motivated these policies. One was a growing recognition that sex-based differences, often related to hormone profiles or genes on sex chromosomes, can influence responses to drugs and other treatments. The other was the realization that including two sexes can increase the rigour of scientific inquiry, enhance reproducibility and open up questions for scientific pursuit.
[...] The big advantage of looking at more than one sex, says Sabine Oertelt-Prigione, a physician who specializes in gender medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, is that “you might find potential pathways or solutions or new questions that you wouldn’t find otherwise”.
But hoped-for improvements in reproducibility and rigour have been slow to materialize. The policies have generated considerable confusion and controversy over when and how to work the different sexes into study designs, and some researchers argue that ‘sex’ as currently defined is too binary and blunt.
[...] Defining sex as a crude binary, predicated on the chromosomes present, or on specific anatomy, could be too limiting. Some species, such as the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, have one sex that makes only sperm cells and one that makes both sperm and egg cells. And in a vast assortment of species, sex is determined environmentally rather than chromosomally. And still other species can change sex during their lifetime. Placing cells, tissues or even whole organisms into a pair of categories takes on layers of difficulty in these contexts.
[...] These policies were meant to compel change, but many scientists struggle to comply with them routinely or to incorporate sexes properly into studies. In the e-mail sent to Nature, Clayton notes that, by 2015, 22 years after the NIH established its clinical-trials requirement, fewer than one-third of evaluated NIH-funded randomized controlled trials were including two sexes in their studies or providing an explanation for not doing so. A 2018 review found that the needle had largely remained in place for the previous 14 years8.
When women are included in trials, it is often in proportions that do not tally with the real-life prevalence of certain diseases in that group. A 2020 review published by Clayton and her colleagues found that of the 11 disease categories the authors analysed from 2014 to 2018, women were under-represented in 7, including liver and kidney diseases.
Compliance with the newer policy in animal and cell studies is even patchier... (MORE - missing details)