Most Medical Research is Done on Men. That’s a Deadly Problem.

Men and women react differently to medicine, disease, and pain.

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-354687365/stock-photo-sick-woman-in-bed-calling-in-sick-day-off-from-work-thermometer-to-check-temperature-for-fever.html?src=zhcaBBWYRFcTsYpfXbzApA-1-3">eldar nurkovic</a>/Shutterstock


Scientific research isn’t a one-size-fits-all endeavor. And when it comes to how doctors treat the sick, the differences between patients can be a matter of life and death. 

On the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast, Indre Viskontas speaks with Marek Glezerman, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynecology at the Sackler School of Medicine in Tel Aviv, about the differences between men and women when it comes to health and medicine. Those differences aren’t always well understood by doctors, but they are extremely important. They exist in the disease symptoms we experience, the way our bodies regulate temperature, and even how we process pain.

These differences can have profound consequences. As Glezerman explains, some serious medical conditions, such as heart attacks, have symptoms that present differently in men and women. A woman, for example, may not show symptoms of a heart attack as quickly as a man. Her pain may radiate to the neck or the face, while in men pain often spreads to the left side of the body. According to Glezerman, one in five women who arrive at the emergency room with these symptoms is likely to be misdiagnosed. And a misdiagnosis can be fatal.

“This misunderstanding…kills women,” he says. In fact, he points out, “cardiovascular disease kills more women than all cancers put together”— particularly women who have already been through menopause.  

Quality medical research is key to understanding these differences. But according to Glezerman, about 75 percent of research is performed on men. There are several reasons for this. First, it is often easier to do research on males, since they do not have menstrual cycles or pregnancies that could confound the study result.

There are also significant ethical issues that complicate research on women. In the middle of the last century, Glezerman explains, “two catastrophes” occurred in medicine. In both cases, doctors gave pregnant women drugs that ended up causing severe birth defects in their children. Thalidomide, given for nausea, caused deformations in arms and legs. The other drug, synthetic estrogen known as DES, led to malignancies in reproductive organs. As a result, in 1977 the FDA recommended that women of childbearing age essentially be excluded from clinical trials. And perhaps not surprisingly, says Glezerman, many women are not particularly eager to participate in medical research.

The outcome? The medical community makes determinations based mostly upon results in male subjects. That’s a huge problem. Take pharmaceuticals, for example: To treat diseases safely and effectively, doctors must prescribe the right drugs in the right dosages over the right period of time. But men and women absorb and react to medicine differently. Because of this, it is “fundamentally wrong” to treat women based on research that was performed on men, Glezerman says.  

Glezerman envisions a future in which pharmacies will stock different medicines for men and women, just as they now have alternatives for adults and children. This future, he hopes, is not too far off.

For more, you can read Glezerman’s upcoming book Gender Medicine: The Groundbreaking New Science of Gender-and Sex-Based Diagnosis and Treatment.

Inquiring Minds is a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and Kishore Hari, the director of the Bay Area Science Festival. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow and like us on Facebook.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate