Recently in Science Category
A new kind of emergency contraception, ellaOne, works to prevent pregnancy up to five days after unprotected sex.
The EC sold in the U.S. is levonorgestrel, sold under the brand name Plan B; ellaOne is the drug ulipristal acetate, and it's only available in Europe. Though it's limited availability hasn't stopped anti-choicers in the U.S. from laying the groundwork for a fight.
Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, says that "this is a thinly-veiled attempt to get an abortion drug over-the-counter." A headline from LifeNews says the drug "causes abortions."
UK anti-choicers are chiming in as well, like Joanne Hill from the organization LIFE, who says that "more casual sex and more unintended pregnancy will inevitably be the result" of ellaOne.
Obviously, these are all the same arguments we heard when the FDA was considering approving Plan B for over-the-counter status, and the "it will make girls slutty" line is one we're familiar with from EC and Gardasil battles.
So while I'm happy to know ellaOne is effective, I'm not holding my breath for it to be introduced - or made available anytime soon - in the U.S.
I haven't been able to find any other material on this, but several readers have sent this in from the Globe and Mail. And it is disturbing.
Medical students routinely practice doing internal pelvic examinations while surgery patients are unconscious, and without getting specific consent, at least in Canada.Guidelines in the United States and Britain say specific consent is required but, by contrast, Canadian guidelines state that pelvic examination by trainees is "implicit."
The practice - one of those dirty little secrets of medicine - has been exposed in a thoughtful, professional manner by a young doctor.
The story goes back to 2007 when Sara Wainberg was a medical student at McMaster University. Her younger brother Daniel, also studying to be a doctor, phoned for advice: As part of his rotation in obstetrics and gynecology, he had been asked to perform a pelvic exam on a woman who was under anesthetic. He refused, saying doing so without consent would be unethical.
"It got me thinking," Sara Wainberg said. "I had done this numerous times in my training and it had never occurred to me that it might be unethical."
She polled her fellow students and found 72 per cent had also done exams on unconscious patients, without consent, confirming that it is routine.
I am appalled and disgusted. This seems like such an obvious violation that I can't conceive of how it is allowed. If you have more info leave it in comments.
Who says girls don't know science? Not Li Boynton. The science genius and high school senior has been asked to sit next to Michelle Obama at tonight's State of the Union address. Conducting some serious science experiments since she was ten, check out her most recent endeavor:
Boynton's premier achievement as a young scientist was creation of a method to test for water pollutants by using light-generating bacteria. The student found that the microscopic organisms generated less light as the water's toxicity grew.By placing a bacterial culture in a light-tight box with a digital camera and processing the results through a free computer program, Boynton was able to reliably and cheaply test for half a dozen common pollutants. The technology, which won top science and engineering fair honors, has potential for testing water purity in developing nations where more costly testing procedures are not an option.
Worldwide, approximately 1 billion people lack access to safe water; 3.5 million die each year as a result.
She also finds out today if she has won the Intel's Science Talent Search for this research, which is the nation's highest honor for high school science studies. I don't doubt this is the beginning of many major contributions Boynton will be making to the field -- and to the world. Good luck, Li!
Pic via Melissa Phillip Chronicle.
A sexist headline today on BBC, "Pretty Women 'Anger More Easily." A study done by the University of California found that women that considered themselves to be attractive, also seemed to have a temper, which led to the conclusion that "pretty women" are more likely to be angry. This study makes me angry and it is not because I am pretty.
There is no standard "pretty," so it is hard to build a study around it, but I do actually see the possibility that if someone thinks that they fit into certain pre-established standards of attractiveness, there sense of entitlement is greater than someone who has internalized the belief that they don't.
But that is too simplistic, since women of all shapes, sizes and colors suffer from sexist treatment and that affects their behavior in some way. In some ways I almost see these findings as potential hopeful since women that are classified as "pretty women" are often urged to stay quiet and not get angry.
But ultimately, I think the headline is misleading. This study doesn't prove that women that consider themselves to fall into society's definition of attractive are more likely to get angry (also remember it is a very very small sample size so hard to draw generalizations). But it shows that they may potentially have a higher sense of self worth and entitlement because our culture rewards women for what they look like, as opposed to what they are about. I bet if they did a study of women that identify as feminists, they would find out that statistically they too get very angry and have a high sense of what they should have access to. Just saying.
Senior scientist and badass Progressive Women's Voices alumna Kim Knowlton writes about women's role in the climate change conundrum. From the Women's Media Center:
Women, who know how their villages work and how to make sustainable, long-term local change happen, can drive meaningful progress from the bottom up. Among those joining Watt-Cloutier at the women's leadership panel earlier this week to speak out on women's needs were Constance Okollet, an organizer and farmer in eastern Uganda; Ulamila Kurai Wragg, a journalist who reports on the impact of climate change in the Cook Islands and Fiji; and Rehana Bibi Khilji, founder of a human rights group in rural Pakistan. These activist leaders have their counterparts in the United States, such as Majora Carter, who founded Sustainable South Bronx; Peggy M. Shepard, of West Harlem Environmental Action (WEACT); and Sharon Hanshaw, who works to rebuild her community in post-Katrina Biloxi, Mississippi, through Coastal Women for Change.According to Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a strong financial commitment by the United States to help developing nations adapt to the effects of global warming is key to holding together the current negotiations. "Our financing pledge could be the game-changer in the most important--and dangerously fragile--negotiations of our generation," she wrote from Copenhagen.
Leadership from the top is essential, but there are also thousands of local opportunities to take swift action, so that we can thrive and remain secure in a globally warming future. So let's move together. Our lives really do depend on united action.
Remember that whole epic fail of an ad campaign in which Reebok aired ridiculously sexist ads (see below) claiming their EasyTone shoes could "make your boobs jealous" of your legs and ass?
Well the NY Times has exposed the science behind the shoes, and pretty much dismisses these claims as bunk.
"To support the claims, the shoemakers each offer company-financed exercise studies suggesting that the shoes produce a higher level of muscle engagement, at least in a controlled research setting.But the studies don't show whether more engagement leads to meaningful changes in muscle tone or appearance over time. Nor is it clear whether the high level of engagement continues once the walker becomes accustomed to the shoe."
Further, the claim that the shoes offer muscle toning is backed by a single, unpublished study involving just five people.
In fact, it looks like the most effective thing these shoes do is act as a placebo:
"The real effect may come from simple awareness that they are wearing a muscle-activating shoe, causing them to walk more briskly and with purpose."
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I can do that without throwing down a hundred bucks for a pair of sneakers. Looks like Reebok needs to Re-Back their claims.
Sorry- I tried to resist the urge to pun, but the silliness of this entire ad campaign sort of begs for my ridicule. I've got more. How about this one: EasyTone? More like SleazyTone. Also, my boobs may not be jealous of my ass, but my ass sure is jealous of Reebok...it's used to being the only one full of shit.
Ok, I'm done now. I apologize for the crudeness, and perhaps more importantly, the corniness. But hey- it's Friday folks! So if you share my silly mood, add your sneaker puns to comments :-)
Apparently because scientists think men won't take it. According to an article in Science Progress, outdated ideas of who's responsibility birth control and contraception is, has put the burden on women's shoulders.
Let's pretend you are a straight couple, in a monogamous long-term relationship, and you don't want a kid. Consider your options: A woman can choose from 11 forms of contraception -- including barrier methods like the diaphragm, permanent sterilization, and that holy grail of the sexual revolution, the pill, and its more recent and even more foolproof sisters in hormonal birth control, the ring and injectibles. A man can choose two: condoms or a vasectomy.
Right, so according to science, if you are woman it is your problem if you get pregnant or end up with an STD, so it just makes sense if you take care of the birth control. Doesn't sound very scientific does it. Furthermore, the financial burden, time constraints and side effects of hormonal birth control on women has another implication on not only time, but unfair burden.
Via Lisa Campo-Engelstein at Science Progress
Not being responsible for some or all of these economic, health-related, and other burdens is a significant boon for men. Men typically do not have to dedicate time and energy to contraceptive care, pay out of pocket for the usually expensive and sometimes frequent (often monthly, or at least four times a year) supply of contraceptives, acquire the knowledge about contraception and reproduction needed to effectively contracept, deal with the medicalization of one's reproductive health, endure the bodily invasion of contraception, suffer the health-related side effects and the mental stress of being responsible for contraception, and face the social repercussions of their contraceptive decisions (such as whether to use a particular contraceptive or to switch contraceptives), and the moral reproach for contraceptive failures.
What both Lisa Campo-Engelstein from Science Progress and Amy Benfer at Broadsheet acknowledge is that this outdated ideology not only leads to the false belief that men wouldn't take contraception, but also leads to a disempowerment of men taking responsibility for contraception. As in, they benefit from the structural belief that it is a woman's responsibility and it is a lose-lose all around. To counter that narrative would take a leap of faith on behalf of women and an insistence by the science community around the effectiveness of male birth control and the corresponding research, development and distribution of such measures. So, it is possible, but sex education, the science community and health care providers would have to overcome the sexism endemic in the way we teach and distribute contraception.
ABC News reports on a new study by researchers at the University of Chicago and Northwestern University which supposedly determined that women with higher testosterone levels "take more risks and are more likely to choose a finance career." Testosterone levels made no difference in men's career choices in the study. The sample size was 500 graduate students.
I know that hormones play a real role in our behavior--no matter our sex--but these kinds of studies worry me. It feels as if isolating only one factor like this, especially one so biologically-determined, underplays all of the other huge influences on how we choose careers, get educated, seek mentors, develop an identity, determine our own gifts etc. The socialization, for example, that we experience as a result of our socioeconomic class, seems like a far greater influence on whether we see ourselves as "fit" for a career in finance, than whether we have a slightly higher testosterone level.
Which is all to say--okay, do the hormonal studies, but don't forget to couch them in the context of what I see as far more powerful social, economic, and psychological factors. Your thoughts?
According to the New York Times, Gold medalist Caster Semenya, a track and field phenom from South Africa, is undergoing sex-determination testing to confirm her eligibility to race as a woman. The testing is being conducted by the International Association of Athletics Federations, the sport's governing body.
There is plenty of useless speculation and a few fucked up quotations in the article from other athletes:
"These kind of people should not run with us," Elisa Cusma of Italy, who finished sixth, said in a postrace interview with Italian journalists. "For me, she's not a woman. She's a man."Mariya Savinova, a Russian who finished fifth, told Russian journalists that she did not believe Semenya would be able to pass a test. "Just look at her," Savinova said.
Of course sex can not be determined by looks alone, and gender is not something that we get to decide for others, as Cusma suggests. "These kinds of people" is language taken straight from the bigot's handbook. I think both of these athletes should be asked to do an empathy-determination test, not to mention be schooled in sex, gender, and biology.
Their first reading could be a new book by Gerald N. Callahan, Ph.D.: Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of the Two Sexes. He reports that every year more than 65,000 children are born who aren't obviously either boys or girls. He writes, "In truth, humans come in an amazing number of forms, because human development, including human sexual development, is not an either/or proposition. Instead, between 'either' and 'or' there is an entire spectrum of possibilities.'" The book is really beautifully written, highly accessible, and visionary in its own right. For more on this topic, I also suggest Anne Fausto-Sterling.
The ambiguity of sex may not even be at play with Caster Semenya, but the public's reaction to her performance and body are flash points for our continued discomfort with admitting that the world does not come in such simple dichotomies as we safely like to think it does. My heart goes out to Semenya, who meanwhile has to deal with this shit instead of celebrating her victory and reveling in the moment.
Alice Dreger, a professor of medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University, appropriately, has the last word in the NYT article, and I'll give it to her here as well: "At the end of the day, they are going to have to make a social decision on what counts as male and female, and they will wrap it up as if it is simply a scientific decision. And the science actually tells us sex is messy. Or as I like to say, 'Humans like categories neat, but nature is a slob.' "
Thanks to so many readers for the heads up.
A group of Amazonian ants have evolved an extremely unusual social system: They are all female and reproduce via cloning. Though their sexual organs have virtually disappeared, they have also gained some extraordinary abilities.University of Arizona biologist Anna Himler orginally began studying the ants, called Mycocepurus smithii, because they had incredible success as farmers. Many breeds of ant keep domesticated "farms" where they breed various kinds of fungus for nourishment. But Mycocepurus smithii was able to breed fungus far more successfully, and in greater varieties, than other ants Himler had encountered.
As she and her team studied the insects, they realized there were no male ants anywhere to be found. Himler told the BBC that it's possible the ants evolved so as "not to operate under the usual constraints of sexual reproduction."
That is kind of amazing. How much you want to bet this is what anti-feminists imagine we feminists want to be able to do?
