35
Study reveals why women are at greater risk of autoimmune disease
(med.stanford.edu)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
35 points (100.0% liked)
Science
13006 readers
80 users here now
Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm am glad they decided to look at other samples. As a woman I find it extremely frustrating that science is still using male cells, testing standards, etc to diagnose and treat women.
If it helps, the HeLa cell line, very popular in scientific research, comes from an African American woman: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
I guess the reason for using only male cells in this case, might've been that if they're running the test either on a self-replicating cell line, or on a heavily inbred strain of lab mice, where both X chromosomes are supposed to be "practically identical" due to the inbreeding, while one of them gets inactivated in females, then running a test on cells with both X and Y chromosomes, would already include "all there was to see", with only half the work.
It's interesting to see some advances in the understanding of the interaction of two X chromosomes, and how the result is not exactly the same as a single X.
The HeLa line had its own male-dominated issues, ie: denying her family a right to any money from the use of her genetics ... which, once rectified, led to a signing away of any rights for people who have an interest in helping advance scientific and medical knowledge and/or treatments.
I know this because I was asked to become part of a study, but after reading the contract that clearly stated I (and my family/descendants) would be shut out of any and all financial compensation, I declined.
While I agree with this if/when a government agency or university developes treatments or cures, I do not agree with it when the info is given freely to for-profit big pharma for them to make trillions from.
Honestly, I don't see how any person is entitled to the ownership of info that's shared with 99.9% of humanity, and which neither them nor any of their ancestors had any hand in creating.
It's not like anyone has any custom handcrafted genes (yet). Other than a handful new mutations, even a possible copyright of "until death + 75 years" would have expired a long time ago.
Big pharma copyrighting and patenting the results of their investigations, makes more sense in this case; they've at least done something.
You should have the right to get compensated for participating in a study, or for allowing them to associate the info with your name. I just think the info itself is part of the public domain.
Like, if you freely leave a fingerprint somewhere public, and someone decides to extract the DNA from that, then proceeds to use it to develop a treatment, cure, bioweapon, clone you, or test the safety of some extra wings genetic augmentation... then good for them.
Male mouse cells no less. Of all the things we have to worry about, we gonna throw mouse sexism on the pile?
Damned male mice and their cheese privilege