|
|
|
|
|
|
by yaddayadda
4460 days ago
|
|
|
I don't disagree. While it may have been the lowest hanging fruit for this particular study, the doctors who conducted heart disease research with overwhelming male subjects didn't even consider that there might be gender-related differences [2]. I'm a guy who had the opportunity to attend a Women's College [1]. As a result I'm more aware then most men of things like only including men in a medical study. Since HN is predominantly male, I feel a personal responsibility to highlight such things, because things like gender and ethnic heritage do matter in medical conditions, even conditions that may look very generic in nature (e.g. heart disease or paralysis). To be clear, my original comment didn't say this particular study should have been conducted with a different sample, I said simply that "it'd be really nice to hear about generalizable research being inclusive of minorities (e.g., 4 Chicana women instead of 4 Caucasian men) earlier in the research process." [1] Only women were admitted as residential students. There were a myriad of reasons that guys could attend classes. But we were still very outnumbered! [2] For more than a decade my grandmother complained of what turned out to be primarily female symptoms of heart disease, but her GPs were only aware of the primarily male symptoms. It was only when she visited a emergency room and was treated by a doctor that was cognizant of the differences that she got a proper diagnosis. In the end she died of heart disease, who knows how much longer she would have been with us if heart disease research had been more inclusive earlier on or her doctors were made aware of more recent research. |
|
|
You mention unexplored gender-related differences: an interesting example that came up recently was gender differences in depth perception and how it relates to VR.
http://qz.com/192874/