One thing I do in my not-so-copious free time is scan medical journal tables of contents each week. This way I get at least a glimpse at what is going on in medical research at the moment, sometimes provoking a deeper dive into a study or sub-discipline of medicine.
Last week in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), the top article caught my eye for its very particular area of inquiry: Respiratory Gas Shifts to Delay Asphyxiation in Critical Avalanche Burial– A Randomized Clinical Trial.
The researchers were testing a gadget that facilitates increased air flow to a person trapped under snow in an avalanche. TLDR: it worked very well. So that’s good.
The study subjects (24 in total) were about equally divided between men and women.
In that week’s editorial, titled “A Breath of Fresh Air”, the editors of JAMA offered historical context for this new research result. They also said that the researchers should be applauded for narrowing the gender gap in this type of research.
Applauded.
Applauded?
Yes, they said “applauded”.
As in:
I’m afraid I don’t agree here.
Increasing representation by gender, race, ethnicity, age, etc. in medical research has been and continues to be a big project, with lots of players contributing to small shifts in research participant selection. And I’m glad to see that this study included women as research participants; after all, women as well as men engage in back-country skiing, so it’s important to test out potentially lifesaving devices on all relevant populations.
Do the researchers deserve our thanks? Yes, for working hard as scientists. But for including women in their study? No. They’re just doing their job. They may be doing it well, but it’s their job to do so.
The movement to make human scientific and medical research truly representative isn’t finished yet. I’m glad to see widely-read medical journals paying attention. But I think they can hold their applause.
Speaking of representation, are there any disabled philosophers of disability employed in your philosophy department, Catherine? Or in the philosophy departments of any of the other feminist philosophers who post on this blog?
So agree with this! On the other side of this equation, I have a friend who dates men and she was recently praising/applauding a new guy, because he was so committed to his kids. No one dating a woman/mother would say that. It’s assumed. Of course, she ought to be prioritizing her kids. Otherwise society will come down hard on her. Why is he praised for doing what he ought to be doing as a father?? Or maybe I’m being too harsh?
Oh, you are not being too harsh at all! Totally agree here…