Women are underrepresented in cancer studies, according to new report

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Although women get most kinds of cancer just about as much as men do, they're still not participating in clinical studies as often, reports a new study published online today in the journal Cancer.

The study analyzed participants in 661 papers published in eight "high impact journals" (including Cancer, Journal of the American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine) and found that women made up an average of 38 percent of non–sex specific cancer study participants. For example, although women contract just a bit less than 50 percent of gastrointestinal cancers, they made up less than 40 percent of the trials for those cancers.

"It's so important that women are appropriately represented in research," lead study author and assistant professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan Medical School, Reshma Jagsi said in a statement. "We know there are biological differences between the sexes, a well as social and cultural differences. Studies need to be able to assess whether there are differences in responses to treatment."

Government-funded studies, which are under a 1993 directive from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to enroll both more women and minorities, had a slightly higher share of female participants at 41 percent.

So why aren’t there more women in studies? It may be more difficult to recruit them: Jagsi noted that women are already having to balance "domestic responsibilities, their cancer diagnosis, and often a career as well." She recommends offering more money to cover extra childcare or transportation expenses.

A 2007 study published in the same journal outlined the difficulties in recruiting other underrepresented groups—including racial minorities, those with lower income, rural residents and older adults—to participate in cancer trials. Whites, for example, still made up more than 88 percent of those enrolled in publicly funded cancer clinical trials between 2003 and 2005, according to the Intercultural Cancer Council at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. That’s despite the fact that U.S. blacks still die more frequently from cancer than whites.

Image courtesy of iStockphoto/LilliDay

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe