Thanks for your sacrifice ...

Following up on the thread started by Jenny below comes a piece on the Associated Press newswire about health care for female veterans.

Women make up a significant and increasing percentage of soldiers - about 200,000 women currently serve, representing nearly 15% of the military personnel. Yet the Veteran's Administration is still behind the curve on recognizing that these fighting women have different medical needs and expectations than their male counterparts.

As the AP article notes, not only is there a dearth of physicians specializing in women's health but many VA facilities even lack the basic equipment and infrastructure to meet the needs of female soliders. For example, the report mentions a lack of female bathrooms or female-only changing facilities, leading me to suspect that most VA hospitals are actually converted athletic stadiums.

Don't even ask about women-only group counseling options, even for those who are suffering post-traumatic stress as a result of sexual abuse (a military tradition). Of course, the Bush Administration has been arguing that our veterans are not necessarily entitled to mental health care, so this may be one of the few examples of gender equality in the VA medical system.

Nature: eliminating gender bias in the peer review system simply isn't our priority

A scathing article in Scientific American and very dismaying news about how Nature editors rejected a peer review process that would reduce gender bias:

"Following a surprisingly unscientific line of reasoning, the editors at the most renowned and prestigious of science journals have rationalized away the need to fix an ailing peer-review system.

Increasing skepticism about the effectiveness and integrity of single-blind peer review—the process by which most academic papers submitted for publication are accepted or rejected—has prompted empirical evaluation of the system.

Standard practice is: reviewers—selected for their expertise and fluency in the chosen discipline—are aware of all authors’ names and affiliations, while authors are kept in the dark about the identity of their reviewers (although some journals allow them to request specific referees).

The growing argument against this lopsided method is that knowledge of authors’ identity—gender, nationality, research institution, level of experience in the field—can (and does) bias reviewers’ opinions on the merit of the research.

The most vocal critics of the current system are those who believe their submissions do not get fair consideration—women, early-career scientists, people with foreign-sounding names—when matched up against authors who sail through the submission process on the status of their lab or the history of their career. And in an environment in which research funding, hiring, tenure, salary, and academic reputation are massively dependent on publishing record, one can easily imagine the ripple effects such a disadvantage would bring."

Full commentary in SciAm can be accessed here. Nature has posted the editorial on their blog page, opening it up to the public for commentary, so let them know what you think.

Personally, I think the first commenter on the Sciam Blog got it right on the money: "Effectively, they're saying: "eliminating gender (or other) bias in the peer review system simply isn't our priority."

Why Sex Matters for Neuroethics...

There is a provocative article in the American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience today which asks: "Why should we pay special attention to the neuroscience of sex differences? " Authors lay out a plethora of directions in which such research could go, posing such as questions as "How ought we disseminate this information into a sensitive social environment that has a history of bias and discrimination against women? What are the implications of this work for our understandings of what makes us women and men? How should this research be applied in educational, medical, and legal contexts, if at all?... In considering the neuroscience of sex differences, we confront a fundamental issue: how do science and society understand female-male differences, or rather, women and men?"

A little different approach than the previous post we had on Gender: Love it or Kill it?.

The full article can be accessed here, subscription required.

Gender: Love It or Kill It?

Colleague George Dvorsky sent me a recent blog post of his, thinking that I might be interested -- the title is "Overcoming Gender", and it's a quick summary of a formal paper he and James Hughes are co-authoring on postgenderism. Perhaps it is my feminine nature, but I had to laugh when I read the summary because one of my first thoughts was, "how typically male it is to see gender as something that has to be overcome, rather than something to be embraced or even transcended." (a more tame version of what Ken Wilber said about men and testosterone in A Brief History of Everything) -- so dualistic, rather than integrated.

But then again, I suppose one could argue that that just proves his point?