In reply to Pearse:
>Can you give a specific example of this. I have yet to come across
>guidelines that suggest that inclusion of women in a study group was
It's my understanding that until very recently, U.S. Federal guidelines
PROHIBITED women from being included in clinical studies (they might get
pregnant, they have hormonal fluctuations, etc, etc) and that therefore
studies including women were not fundable. Please correct me if I'm
wrong-I didn't think this was even questionable. I think this has
already been addressed, but I wanted to be sure we are all talking about
the same thing-we're not talking about clinical trials on mice-we're
talking about the Framingham Heart Study, and other famous long term
trials involving people (male only) on which most of modern
reccomendations on diet, heart disease, etc are based and which until a
very few years ago, completely excluded women, even though all
reccommendations were extrapolated to women.
>>If we really are good
>> scientists, we examine our presuppositions all the time.
>Which is one of the reasons, those of us who are not women in biology
>read this group regularly.
Yes, and respond regulalry. I've read Pearse's views on the evils of
affirmative action, the problems with hiring women in science, and the
right of professors to sleep with their students, and while I disagree
with him almost all the time, I always read his posts-and sometimes out
loud to others in my lab (some men I read them to believe he's not real,
that he just takes position for kicks because he enjoys conflict, but
only Pearse can answer that.) It's good to have someone who takes an
alternative point of view, as it allows the strand to evolve. So even
though I don't agree with you on much of anything, your presence on the
newsgroup is welcome, at least by me.
presently visiting grad student at
Texas A&M University
Department of Biological Sciences
College Station, TX 77843