A sexist kind of cancer...

So I lol'd at myself today. I got an email announcing a call for applications to a certain cancer research foundation that said the following:

"This round of awards will focus on funding Treatment Science: studies of new ideas in man or laboratory support of a high impact clinical investigation." (emphasis mine)

and had my usual twinge of disappointment/irritation about using the term "man" for human-based research... every time I read or hear that it is like almost walking into a glass wall with a big cringe. But then I realized it's a PROSTATE cancer foundation, so yes, indeed, this is one place where it's wholly appropriate to use that term. I dunno if they realize that or not, but hey.

3 thoughts on “A sexist kind of cancer...

  1. Haha - I must have had a long day because the first thing I thought of when I read your post was that some outraged feminist-types might have had a tendency to the the opposite of this.

  2. Heh! I work with PIs who do breast cancer research. When we submit to the US government (NIH or DoD), we have to fill in the sections describing our plans for the inclusion of female participants in our studies. It's great that there's more awareness of the need to include both sexes in clinical trials and correlative research - but very tedious to constantly explain that actually this study is ONLY open to women, so please don't worry...(Yes, men can get breast cancer too, but its pathology is very different to most female breast cancers, and its inclusion can therefore mess up the study results. Plus it's very rare - I don't know exactly how many cases we see at our centre per year, but it's nowhere near enough to run any male-specific studies).

  3. CathI've also been informed that you also get the opposite problem. Idiot reviewers who want to know why there are no women in your erectile dysfunction trial.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *