Sex matters – in life sciences
research
PRINTGENDERBASIC
When it comes to the life sciences, sex matters, and scientists need to take this into
account when carrying out research, according to the GenderBasic project.
Thanks to a combination of biological (sex) and social (gender) differences,
men and women face different risks of a number of
diseases and conditions; for example, women are twice as likely as
men to develop multiple sclerosis, a chronic illness that affects the
nervous system. Meanwhile, men have a higher risk of heart attacks,
but many women suffer from a different form of heart disease that is
easily missed by standard tests.
Furthermore, men and women often respond very differently to
drugs. Yet all too often, scientists fail to take these differences into
account when designing and performing research and analysing their
results. As a result, many women are subjected to tests and given
drugs which have only been tested on men.
The EU sought to address this problem by requiring projects funded
under the research, technology and development (RTD) Framework
Programmes to submit a gender action plan. However, evaluations
revealed that there was often a gap between what was written in the
gender action plan and what happened in practice.
Now the GenderBasic project has come up with a set of practical tools,
examples and best practice recommendations to help scientists incorporate
sex and gender differences into their research more effectively.
READ MORE
Getting down to basics
The project team, led by Dr Ineke Klinge of the University of Maastricht
in The Netherlands, analysed the factors which facilitated or inhibited
the incorporation of the gender dimension into basic, preclinical and
clinical research in selected EU-funded life sciences projects and at
leading European research institutes. They also commissioned international
experts on sex, gender and health to write review articles on
the relevant methodological, practical, ethical and financial issues as
well as the impacts of sex and gender on a number of diseases and
conditions. The articles appeared in a special edition of the journal
Gender Medicine (Vol. 4, Suppl. B, Dec. 2007).
Based on their analyses, the GenderBasic scientists produced a set of
recommendations to help scientists, funding agencies, the pharmaceutical
industry, governments and other stakeholders ensure that
sex and gender differences are given the attention they deserve.
When factoring in gender can save lives
The review articles commissioned by the project highlight the extent
to which disease susceptibility differs between the sexes. For example,
before puberty, asthma is more common in boys than in girls. In adulthood
however, it is more common in women. The scientists speculate
that a combination of hormonal changes and genetic susceptibility
could contribute to the change in prevalence during adolescence.
Among other things, the paper calls for more studies in animals investigating
the observed differences between males and females and
their susceptibility to hormonal and environmental factors in relation
to lung development. It also underlines the importance of studying
differences in response to treatments.
Another article reveals how the absence of gender balance in research
can also have negative consequences for men. The paper is about
osteoporosis and fracture risk research. Sex hormones play an important
role in bone development, and differences in the levels of these
hormones mean that men have structurally stronger bones and so
experience fewer fractures than women.
Currently, much of our understanding of osteoporosis and fracture
risk is based on research on women, and most of the drugs used to
treat osteoporosis were only tested on women. In contrast, detailed
data on men is lacking.
Osteoporosis and fracture risk are underdiagnosed in women, but the
problem is even greater in men. This problem is compounded by the
fact that because women have more frequent screening opportunities
than men, their problems are usually picked up at an earlier stage.
For both examples, studying the impact of gender role behaviour in
relation to disease development and management was emphasised.
The study of the interaction of sex and gender from a life-course
perspective was firmly put on the research agenda.
Closing the gap – recommendations for gendered
innovations in research
If the research community is to tackle this serious problem, action is
needed on a number of fronts. Among other things, the project partners
recommend that research studies and clinical trials should
include both men and women as subjects, and if this is not the case,
researchers should explain why one sex has been left out. Furthermore,
results should be disaggregated by sex.
This consideration of the impact of sex on health outcomes should
also be considered by those carrying out research on animals or on
tissue samples taken from humans.
Research funding agencies are called on to promote research that
links biomedical and social dimensions, including gender dimensions.
The editorial boards of journals are encouraged to request
that papers present data disaggregated by sex and explain sex and
gender differences adequately.
Meanwhile, the GenderBasic researchers are still driving forward their
aim of integrating sex and gender into research. They are particularly
keen to turn their results into a training module, aimed at the research
community, on the sex and gender aspects of biomedical and public
health research.
‘I really think that for life sciences and health research, it is integral to
view the sexes as different from the molecular to the social level,’
comments Dr Klinge. ‘Gender experts have a lot of expertise to offer
concerning the influence of gender in biomedical and public health
research and this was very well acknowledged in the project. I think
one of our major strategies is to convince people to see that addressing
sex and gender aspects is not necessarily feminist but a question of
quality of research.’