Women Needed for Medical Trials

Surveys show that most women aren't informed about the opportunities to participate in medical trials, which are necessary to find new treatments for women, especially the elderly. Cynthia Graber reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

For generations, nearly all medical research was done on men. And the assumption was that what’s true for men is true for women. Now of course we know that’s not the case. And most researchers today make it clear that they’re trying to recruit a relatively equal number of men and women. But according to the Society for Women’s Health Research, women may not be aware of their importance in medical studies.

The society surveyed 2,000 adults over 18. Ninety-four percent of women say their doctor has never talked to them about participating in any sort of trial. More than a quarter didn’t know that healthy individuals were needed for studies. Women were also more likely than men to say they’re too old or not healthy enough.


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.


 

Sherry Marts is the vice president of scientific affairs for the society. She says these numbers reflect the difficulty of getting older women in particular involved in research. But women over 65 are one of the fastest growing segments of the population. Marts says our ability to improve care, develop new treatments and find cures depends on research ­ and educating aging women about their role in medical breakthroughs.

—Cynthia Graber

60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

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