The UK's Lost Women of Science

Very interesting article in the Guardian today about women scientists' contributions to the Royal Society (the UK's version of the National Academy).

And coincidentally, it's quite connected to the paper I'm writing about Ellen Swallow Richards, the under-appreciated scientist who founded the field of ecology in the early Progressive Era. She also did a billion other things that have led to the modern fields of public health, home economics, and sociology, as well as ardently promoting women's education in science. She helped lead an empirical study of whether, in fact, higher education damages a woman's reproductive capacity (it doesn't... collective sigh of relief). One of her instructors at Vassar College was Maria Mitchell, an astronomer, who is highlighted in the Guardian article.

Just thinking about how difficult it was for women to gain recognition (or even access to higher education) 100 years ago... I feel that we owe a lot to women like Ellen Richards.

hymen shmymen

Since medical school began, I've only managed to read one non-required book in the last two months. It's not a fact I'm proud of but I think I spend my scarce time wisely. I read Hanne Blank's Virgin: The Untouched History, an account of the history and nature of virginity. It's an accessible and entertaining read for my overtaxed brain.

This was one thing I learned:

Despite the lack of any actual studies in the literature regarding whether horseback riding, gymnastics, or riding bicycles might have to do with womens' hymens, virtually every contemporary writing about virginity aimed at teen girls is duly equipped with a disclaimer that says something along the lines of 'many girls tear or otherwise dilate their hymen while participating in sports like bicycling, horseback riding, or gymnastics.'"

Woah. There is no scientific evidence that these activities stretch or tear the hymen! Yet I've heard this countless times in teenage girl magazines or otherwise informative literature on puberty and sexuality. Be sure, this "fact" is not just something from conservative abstinence-only sex education curriculum but widely seem in popular and generally accurate sex ed. It's probably in those puberty books your pediatrician recommended you to read. Understandably this belief was popularized in order to dissociate hymen with virginity. In recent years (decades?), it's become more acceptable for girls to participate in sports and the hymen less a gauge of virginity.

I think it also shows that the empirical evidence or lack thereof don't affect people's beliefs that much, in sexual matters and otherwise. In medical school we grumble all the time about evidence-based medicine. It should dictate medical practice but often it doesn't. Doctors and patients often want and perform procedures that aren't medically better than the other options.

Have you heard this when you were growing up?

The Science of Attraction: Is Beauty Skin Deep?

Many of you will know by now that I am deeply skeptical of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology (see Jessiroo's previous post). These are sciences that claim to "explain" current behavior by evaluating its evolutionary usefulness (for example, men are just "destined" to screw around because they have less parental investment). Aside from being determinist, these studies often implicitly justify or naturalize misogynist behavior or practices.

But today I'm going to talk about the science of attraction! Because clearly, we all want to attract someone of the opposite sex (preferably white), so let's use science to explain it!!! (warning: this is sarcasm.)

These types of articles pop up in the news every once in a while, I suppose because they have pop-science appeal as well as making us feel better or worse about certain biological traits. Last week two articles crossed my radar: in the NYTimes, "For Long Term, Men Favor Face Over Figure" and in National Geographic News, "Women Prefer Men With Yellow, Red Faces."

Which one is better looking?

I am left wondering three things:
1) OMG SO WHAT? Are men going to go off and start powdering their faces with yellow make-up (yes, it exists)???
2) So I can stop working out, I just have to have a pretty face?
3) How are these studies justified or funded? Looking at the previous two questions, perhaps Cover Girl is behind the veil, but a lot of these studies focus on non-physical behaviors.

I don't mean to discredit an entire field of study: in fact there are probably good insights about criminal behavior, ethics of care, etc. that we can discover through these approaches, but these seem utterly frivolous. Take the case of the stripper study, where a bunch of scientists "studied" whether ovulating women act sexier (aka received better tips). For a hilarious critique on this and similar period studies, check out this piece in Slate. And if you want a hard-hitting article about this topic in general (and whether we can blame rape and infidelity on evolutionary biology), be sure to read Sharon Begley's article in Newsweek.

I'd be interested to know how many of these PI's are male vs. female. Do you think that if women had more say in designing research questions and allocating funding, that research priorities might shift to something like the ethics of maternal care, rather than the science of rape and attraction?

Survived another October

I made it through another breast cancer awareness month. I'm so glad October is over because I don't have to see another "pink ribbon" bagel at Sparty's. Yes, it's a cranberry bagel twisted into a ribbon shape.

What began as a an educational and empowering strategy to address a taboo subject has mutated into vulgar, sexualized and demeaning attitudes about women's bodies. T-shirts with vulgar phrases and cheeky innuendo are okay if we claim it's for "breast cancer awareness", right? Wrong. It just show again that women's bodies only matter when they're sexualized, sadly. How insulting to frame a serious illness only in terms sexuality.

It's also morphed into consuming activism. Buying stuff that makes you feel like you did something good. No, it doesn't do anything good because next to nil of the profits will actually be donated to breast cancer research or advocacy or whatever.

Great combination of the two: Kroger was selling breast cancer awareness pink ribbon sliced turkey breast. You know you're not eating the mammary gland of the turkey, right?!

Considering performing breast self-exams, though I don't believe the literature shows it reduces breast cancer mortality. But it's certainly better than declaring where you like to put your purse or have sex, whatever that facebook meme was supposed to mean.

Suggested reading:
Pink Ribbon Blues: How Breast Cancer Culture Undermines Women's Health
Gayle Sulik

Her Story of Science: Frances Oldham Kelsey

I found this interesting article in the NYTimes on a women who was a pioneer in FDA regulation of medicine. Read her story here.

An excerpt:

Dr. Kelsey might never have reached the F.D.A. in the first place if her first name hadn’t sounded like a man’s.

Born in 1914 in British Columbia, Frances Kathleen Oldham was sent to a private boys’ school because her parents expected her to become as educated as her older brother. She was hired sight unseen by Dr. Eugene Geiling, a renowned pharmacology professor at the University of Chicago, because he read her name as Francis. When she got the acceptance letter, in 1936, she realized his mistake and asked a professor at McGill University whether she could accept the job.

“When a woman took a job in those days, she was made to feel as if she was depriving a man of the ability to support his wife and child,” Dr. Kelsey said in an interview at her home. “But my professor said: ‘Don’t be stupid. Accept the job, sign your name and put “Miss” in brackets afterward.’ ”

Does this exist?

Is there a self-help group for feminist scientists who usually have a very sweet disposition but get uncontrollably angry when people:

1) essentialize gender roles as biological differences aka "men are the hunters and women are the caregivers"...
2) claim things like "women just aren't interested in science"...
3) historically and systematically seek to exclude women from science.

If so, I would like to join it.


(I'm reading Margaret Rossiter's "Women Scientists in America;" you would not believe some of the misogynist BS that went down in science only little more than 100 years ago.)

Chest compressions

I became certified in Basic Life Support by the American Heart Association because it was a required part of medical school orientation. This will technically allow me to perform rescue breathing, chest compressions, operate an AED to save men, women, children, and infants.

We, all entering first-year medical students, learned this by reading materials and practicing on dummy adults and infants that looked like this.

http://www.enasco.com/product/SB14905U

 

These dummies have several differences from actual humans that I believe are significant.

The most obvious is that they don't feel like real humans. Humans chest don't make a clicking noise when you have compressed the chest sufficiently, like these dummies do to teach you how much force to use. But that's an inherent limitation to using any simulated human for medical training.

But what most bothered me was that there were no adult female dummies. Our education is being compromised because we don't know what to do with breast! We are taught to put our hands on the sternum between the nipples. This means that our fingers are resting over the chest. On the model this is easy but on a female patient, the rescuer would be touching the patient's breast. Frankly, we need to practice the situations that are similar to what we encounter in real emergency because even physicians-in-training need some time and experience to be comfortable with touching other people's bodies.

In adition to limiting our education, these models are another example of the male gender as neutral. The adult male torso as supposed to represent all adult patients. We traditionally regard the female breasts as sexually provocative. Perhaps the logic goes like this: CPR is serious, life-saving business, the CPR instructions and dummies don't want to inject sex into the discussion. But this is failing to completely educate and perpetuating the belief that men represent everyone.


Here are some more examples of the male gender as neutral, from my favorite blog Sociological Images