Making a 'sex-difference fact': Ambien dosing at the interface of policy, regulation, women's health, and biology.

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1177/03063127231168371
Helen Zhao, Marina DiMarco, Kelsey Ichikawa, Marion Boulicault, Meg Perret, Kai Jillson, Alexandra Fair, Kai DeJesus, Sarah S Richardson
{"title":"Making a 'sex-difference fact': Ambien dosing at the interface of policy, regulation, women's health, and biology.","authors":"Helen Zhao,&nbsp;Marina DiMarco,&nbsp;Kelsey Ichikawa,&nbsp;Marion Boulicault,&nbsp;Meg Perret,&nbsp;Kai Jillson,&nbsp;Alexandra Fair,&nbsp;Kai DeJesus,&nbsp;Sarah S Richardson","doi":"10.1177/03063127231168371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 2013 decision to lower recommended Ambien dosing for women has been widely cited as a hallmark example of the importance of sex differences in biomedicine. Using regulatory documents, scientific publications, and media coverage, this article analyzes the making of this highly influential and mobile 'sex-difference fact'. As we show, the FDA's decision was a contingent outcome of the drug approval process. Attending to how a contested sex-difference fact came to anchor elite women's health advocacy, this article excavates the role of regulatory processes, advocacy groups, and the media in producing perceptions of scientific agreement while foreclosing ongoing debate, ultimately enabling the stabilization of a binary, biological sex-difference fact and the distancing of this fact from its conditions of construction.</p>","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":"53 4","pages":"475-494"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231168371","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 2013 decision to lower recommended Ambien dosing for women has been widely cited as a hallmark example of the importance of sex differences in biomedicine. Using regulatory documents, scientific publications, and media coverage, this article analyzes the making of this highly influential and mobile 'sex-difference fact'. As we show, the FDA's decision was a contingent outcome of the drug approval process. Attending to how a contested sex-difference fact came to anchor elite women's health advocacy, this article excavates the role of regulatory processes, advocacy groups, and the media in producing perceptions of scientific agreement while foreclosing ongoing debate, ultimately enabling the stabilization of a binary, biological sex-difference fact and the distancing of this fact from its conditions of construction.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
制造一个“性别差异事实”:安必恩剂量在政策、法规、妇女健康和生物学的界面。
美国食品和药物管理局(FDA) 2013年决定降低女性安必恩的推荐剂量,这被广泛引用为生物医学中性别差异重要性的标志性例子。本文利用监管文件、科学出版物和媒体报道,分析了这一极具影响力和流动性的“性别差异事实”的形成。正如我们所示,FDA的决定是药物批准过程的偶然结果。关注有争议的性别差异事实是如何锚定精英女性健康倡导的,本文挖掘了监管过程、倡导团体和媒体在产生科学共识的感知方面的作用,同时阻止了正在进行的辩论,最终使二元生物性别差异事实稳定下来,并使这一事实与其构建条件保持距离。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Wake effects and temperature plumes: Coping with non-knowledge in the expansion of wind and geothermal energy. Population curation: The construction of mutual obligation between individual and state in Danish precision medicine. Hearts and minds: The technopolitical role of affect in sociotechnical imaginaries. Cells and the city: The rise and fall of urban biopolitics in San Francisco, 1970-2020. What work does ‘contamination’ do? An agential realist account of oil wastewater and radium in groundwater
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1