生物医学研究的性别逻辑:美国I期临床试验中的女性。

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Social Problems Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI:10.1093/socpro/spaa035
Marci D Cottingham, Jill A Fisher
{"title":"生物医学研究的性别逻辑:美国I期临床试验中的女性。","authors":"Marci D Cottingham,&nbsp;Jill A Fisher","doi":"10.1093/socpro/spaa035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the importance of including diverse populations in biomedical research, women remain underrepresented as healthy volunteers in the testing of investigational drugs in Phase I trials. Contributing significantly to this are restrictions that pharmaceutical companies place on the participation of women of so-called childbearing potential. These restrictions have far-reaching effects on biomedical science and the public health of women. Using 191 interviews collected over 3 years, this article explores the experiences of 47 women who navigate restrictions on their participation in U.S. Phase I trials. Women in this context face a number of contradictory criteria when trying to enroll, which can curtail their participation, justify additional surveillance, and deny pregnant women reproductive agency. The pharmaceutical industry's putative protections for hypothetical fetuses exacerbate inequalities and attenuate a thorough investigation of the safety of their drugs for public consumption. We use the framework of \"anticipatory motherhood\" within a gendered organizations approach to make sense of women's experiences in this context.</p>","PeriodicalId":48307,"journal":{"name":"Social Problems","volume":"69 2","pages":"492-509"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/socpro/spaa035","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gendered Logics of Biomedical Research: Women in U.S. Phase I Clinical Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Marci D Cottingham,&nbsp;Jill A Fisher\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/socpro/spaa035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite the importance of including diverse populations in biomedical research, women remain underrepresented as healthy volunteers in the testing of investigational drugs in Phase I trials. Contributing significantly to this are restrictions that pharmaceutical companies place on the participation of women of so-called childbearing potential. These restrictions have far-reaching effects on biomedical science and the public health of women. Using 191 interviews collected over 3 years, this article explores the experiences of 47 women who navigate restrictions on their participation in U.S. Phase I trials. Women in this context face a number of contradictory criteria when trying to enroll, which can curtail their participation, justify additional surveillance, and deny pregnant women reproductive agency. The pharmaceutical industry's putative protections for hypothetical fetuses exacerbate inequalities and attenuate a thorough investigation of the safety of their drugs for public consumption. We use the framework of \\\"anticipatory motherhood\\\" within a gendered organizations approach to make sense of women's experiences in this context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Problems\",\"volume\":\"69 2\",\"pages\":\"492-509\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/socpro/spaa035\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Problems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa035\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Problems","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

尽管在生物医学研究中纳入不同人群很重要,但在第一阶段试验的研究性药物测试中,妇女作为健康志愿者的比例仍然不足。制药公司对所谓有生育潜力的妇女的参与施加的限制是造成这种情况的重要原因。这些限制对生物医学和妇女的公共健康产生了深远的影响。本文利用3年来收集的191次访谈,探讨了47名女性在美国I期临床试验中应对限制的经历。在这种情况下,妇女在试图登记时面临一些相互矛盾的标准,这可能会限制她们的参与,为额外的监测提供理由,并剥夺孕妇的生殖能力。制药业对假想胎儿的假定保护加剧了不平等,削弱了对公众消费药品安全性的彻底调查。我们在性别组织方法中使用“预期母亲”的框架来理解妇女在这方面的经历。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Gendered Logics of Biomedical Research: Women in U.S. Phase I Clinical Trials.

Despite the importance of including diverse populations in biomedical research, women remain underrepresented as healthy volunteers in the testing of investigational drugs in Phase I trials. Contributing significantly to this are restrictions that pharmaceutical companies place on the participation of women of so-called childbearing potential. These restrictions have far-reaching effects on biomedical science and the public health of women. Using 191 interviews collected over 3 years, this article explores the experiences of 47 women who navigate restrictions on their participation in U.S. Phase I trials. Women in this context face a number of contradictory criteria when trying to enroll, which can curtail their participation, justify additional surveillance, and deny pregnant women reproductive agency. The pharmaceutical industry's putative protections for hypothetical fetuses exacerbate inequalities and attenuate a thorough investigation of the safety of their drugs for public consumption. We use the framework of "anticipatory motherhood" within a gendered organizations approach to make sense of women's experiences in this context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Problems
Social Problems SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Social Problems brings to the fore influential sociological findings and theories that have the ability to help us both better understand--and better deal with--our complex social environment. Some of the areas covered by the journal include: •Conflict, Social Action, and Change •Crime and Juvenile Delinquency •Drinking and Drugs •Health, Health Policy, and Health Services •Mental Health •Poverty, Class, and Inequality •Racial and Ethnic Minorities •Sexual Behavior, Politics, and Communities •Youth, Aging, and the Life Course
期刊最新文献
Why LGBTQ Adults Keep Ambivalent Ties with Parents: Theorizing "Solidarity Rationales". Asian Americans’ Racialized Incorporation into the Political Field Does Workplace Discrimination Contribute to Sex Work for Trans and Nonbinary Workers? Digital Platforms and the Maintenance of the Urban Order Genetic Racialization: Ancestry Tests and the Reification of Race
×
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