Nuns Continue Calcium Study

I know this was supposed to be a sweet story about a bunch of grandmotherly-type ladies who have been contributing to scientific knowledge for decades, but I couldn't help thinking how it exemplified the sort of gender blindness that plagues biomedical research.

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

What are the top three symptoms of a heart attack--do you know?

[Takes responses from the audience]

Yes, that's right. Chest pains, tingling arms, and shortness of breath.

Actually, that's also wrong. Those are the top three signs in men. In women, it's totally different. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Bet you also didn't know that most pharmaceuticals are not tested on women of childbearing age--men and post-menopausal women (if women are included at all) form the research pool for most drugs. Between a woman's monthly hormonal fluctuations and the possibility that she might be/become pregnant during the study, she is considered a completely undesirable subject for research.

Even if the drug in question is likely to be prescribed to women of childbearing age.

Isn't that interesting?

Anyway, back to the nuns. According to the article, this study has been the source of the government's recommendations for calcium intake for women for decades. The study population is comprised exclusively of nuns--a very convenient study population, the researchers noted with glee, because of their lack of family commitments. (Women with families tend to be too busy for such an involved longitudinal study.)

Hmmm . . . does that make you think anything? Lack of family commitments, lack of family commitments . . . hmmm . . . Gosh! These seem to be women who don't have children!

So, "scientific" recommendations about women's calcium intake are primarily based on a study whose research population is comprised exclusively of women whose bodies have never done what over 80% of women's bodies will do some time in their life.

Anybody see a problem here?

It's the same problem as the pharmaceutical studies, really. The normally-functioning female body is seen as an impediment to proper research, so it is ignored during the period of research. Presumably, if they think of it at all, scientists are assuming that pregnancy is something that is "added on" to a "normal" female body. So, if we know what "normal" women need, then we can just slap on some extra pregnancy recommendations onto that.

There seems to be no understanding whatsoever that pregnancy and childbearing (much less childrearing) might change a woman's body such that her needs are completely different from these darling nuns' needs. That pregnancy and childbearing are not conditions superadded onto a "normal" body--they are constitutive of "normal" for the vast majority of women.

You'll forgive me, then, if I don't ask "How high?" every time the "latest nutritutional study" says "Jump!"

The Next Stage

I have finished Preliminary Exams (called Comprehensive Exams at other schools) and am now officially ABD.

My advisor has already alerted me to several job listings for which I am now eligible to apply. Scary!

I'm published. . . at least in cyber-space.

The above title links to a paper I delivered at Christmas Conference, 2006, for the John Wesley Fellows, those people who are being and have been funded by AFTE, A Fund for Theological Education.

The paper (click on "Sours" for a pdf download) concerns Thomas Aquinas' understanding of the body and its goods, with some comments on how he might contribute to a theological conversation about bioethics.

What am I again?

Reading an oldish (1970s) review article this morning, I came upon a curious designation for practitioners of my academic field: ethician.

Ethician.

Ethician.

Is that what I am?

Hmm. What a strange word! Perhaps it's intended to convey a discipline in which participants are both students and practitioners of their discipline--like physician.

Still, I think I'm glad it didn't stick. I prefer ethicist.

Incidents in the life of a grad student

I begin prelim exams today. I will defend April 17th.

I should have been blogging about all the things I've been reading to prepare for the exams. But, alas, no go.

The good news is that after exams, I'll start preparing to write my diss. That, I'll blog about. Stay tuned.

An Update on Stem Cells

This article over at First Things is tendentious and controversial. And it's dead right. Do take half an hour and read it carefully. Thanks to CrimsonLine for reminding me why I like First Things so much.

My own opinion: Embryonic stem cell research is an egregious waste of scarce resources and an unconscionable privileging of the desires of the haves to the detriment of the have nots. For that reason alone the research should not receive a single penny of taxpayer dollars; it is completely disingenuous to paint this solely as a religious/pro-life battle.

(Although it certainly is that.)

FDA Approves Canine Diet Drug.

Well. Nothing like ignoring root causes.

And letting profitability drive research.

It's the week after Christmas Conference--our annual retreat with the people who are funding us, along with people who are being and have been funded by the same source--and so it's time for me to make my fast-becoming-annual plug for Wesley Ministry Network. (The scholar who is heading it up, Craig Hill, was funded by the same program, and updates us on his progress every year.)

This program is a video series much like the Disciple series, only with a broader focus: Disciple is predominately a Bible study, while WMN ranges all over. It's also much shorter, so that participants don't have to commit to an entire school year. But the basic principles are the same: in-depth, high-quality teaching, done by top-level scholars who care about the church and its ministry, along with serious reading and preparation by the participants.

If you have anything to do with your church's education program, and are tired of "How does that make you feel?" bible studies, please consider the Disciple series, followed by the Wesley Ministry Network series. Disciple should come first, not because it's better, but because biblical literacy is crucial to any theological thinking. But as a follow-up to Disciple I, for those whose appetite has been whetted for serious thinking about their faith, WMN is ideal.

It's shorter, so you don't have the seriously committed laypeople that Disciple I tends to produce going "out of commission" for an entire year. (I recommended that participants drop all but one other small church commitment the year they did the study with me. Two if they were retired or stay-at-homes.) I'm glad to see that Disciple now has short-term studies that can serve the same purpose. I didn't like the way Disciple II, III, and IV would suck graduates in rather than pushing them out to serve in the church.

Do look into them both. Seriously.

Well, aside from the sexism, the frontier-era machismo, the religious liberties violation, and the part where he all but said that police officers have more important things to do with their time than protect and serve, I think this is a grand idea:

Pennsylvania town mulls mandatory arms requirement.

Good thing there are no United Methodist seminaries in Cherry Tree, PA.

Yikes.

Medical Paternalism? Or appropriate incentives-offering?


Employers Push Employees to Choose Healthily.

Discuss.