Like the practice of clinical medicine, medical research and the knowledge it generates involve their own risks. This paper examines various societal and career risks of working with certain types of medical knowledge, and discusses empirical research on gender and risk-taking in science. It considers the questions this literature raises regarding decision-making about risky knowledge, as women increasingly enter new roles as researchers, consultants, regulators, and bureaucrats in science and medicine. In particular, it focuses on the relative hesitance of women scientists to take risks in their careers, and asks whether this predicts how they will handle risky knowledge as they enter new positions of decision-making auihority in science and medicine. Limitations in existing data preclude firm predictions, but the paper sets out numerous questions for further study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BronowskiJ.Science and human values. Rev edn.. Harper & Row: NY; 1972.
2.
WeinerC.Drawing the line in genetic engineering: Self-regulation and public participation. Perspect Biol Med, 2001; 44:208–220.
3.
Journal Editors and Authors Group. Statement on scientific publication and security. Science. 2003; 299:1149.
4.
NixdorffK., BenderW.Ethics of university research, biotechnology and potential military spin-off. Minerva, 2002; 40:15–35.
5.
NelkinD.Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. Rev. edn. NY: W.H Freeman & Co; 1995.
6.
FahnestockJ.Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 1986; 3:275–296.
7.
ColeJ.R.Dietary cholesterol and heart disease: The construction of a medical “fact”. In: O’GormanH.J.Surveying Social Life. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University; 1988. p. 437–466.
8.
RierD.A.The versatile “caveat” section of an epidemiology paper: Managing public and private risk. Sci Commun, 1999; 21(1):3–37.
9.
ResnikD.B.Ethical dilemmas in communicating medical information to the public. Health Policy, 2001; 55:129–149.
10.
RierD.A.Work setting, publication, and scientific responsibility. Sci Commun, 2003; 24:420–457.
11.
RierD.A.Audience, consequence, and journal selection in toxic-exposure epidemiology. Soc Sci Med, 2004; 59(7):1541–1546.
12.
RierD.A.Publication visibility of sensitive public health data: When scientists bury their results. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2004; 10:597–613.
13.
DavisD.L., BufflerP.Reduction of deaths after drug labelling for risk of Reye's syndrome. Lancet, 1992; 340:1042.
14.
NeustadtR.E., FinebergH.The Epidemic that Never Was: Policy-Making and the Swine Flu Scare. NY: Vintage; 1983.
15.
AngellM., KassirerJ.P.Clinical research—what should the public believe?. New Engl J Med, 1994; 331:189–190.
16.
RenoR.Spare us the bad news on food—We don’t care. New York Newsday, 1994; 25 August:A49.
RabinoI.The impact of activist pressure on recombinant DNA research. Science Technology & Human Values, 1991; 16:70–87.
19.
RabinoI.How European and U.S. genetic engineering scientists view the impact of public attention on their field: A comparison. Science Technology & Human Values, 1994; 19:23–46.
20.
HarisR.Could animal activists affect your research?. BMJ Career Focus, 2004; 329(7471):162–163.
ResnikD.Some recent challenges to openness and freedom in scientific publication. In: Proceedings from a Frontis Workshop on Ethics in the Life Sciences; 2004. p. 85–99.
23.
WingS.Social responsibility and research ethics in community-driven studies of industrialized hog production. Environ Health Persp, 2002; 110:437–444.
24.
HoltonG.J., MorisonR.S.Limits of Scientific Inquiry. NY: W.W. Norton; 1978.
25.
NeubertM.J., PalmerL.D.Emergence of women in healthcare leadership: Transforming the impact of gender differences. J Men's Health Gen, 2004; 1:383–387.
26.
GrantV.J.Men's unique contribution to healthcare. J Men's Health Gen, 2004; 1:379–382.
27.
CassellJ.The Woman in the Surgeon's Body. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1998.
28.
PringleR.Sex and Medicine: Gender, Power and Authority in the Medical Profession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
29.
RierD.A.Gender, lifecourse, and publication decisions in toxic-exposure epidemiology: “Now!” vs. “wait a minute!”. Soc Stud Sci, 2003; 33:269–300.
30.
WetterstenJ.On conservative and adventurous styles of scientific research. Minerva, 1985; 23:443–463.
31.
RossiterM.W.Women Scientists in America (Vol. II): Before Affirmative Action 1940–1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins; 1995.
32.
KemelgorC., EtzkowitzH.Overcoming isolation: Women's dilemmas in American academic science. Minerva, 2001; 39:239–257.
33.
SimmelG. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. WolffKH (Ed., tr.) NY: Free Press, [1908]. 1964. 404–5.
34.
BeckerM.H.Sociometric location and innovativeness: Reformulation and extension of the diffusion model. Am Sociol Rev, 1970; 35:267–282.
35.
EdgeD.The sociology of innovation in modem astronomy. Q J Royal Astron Soc, 1977; 18(3):326–339: pg. 329.
36.
WassermanE. The Door in the Dream: Conversations with Eminent Women in Science. Joseph Henry: Washington, DC; 2000. p. 45,55,99,101–2,147.
37.
ByrnesJ.P., MillerD.C., SchaferW.D.Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull, 1999; 125(3):367–383.
38.
MaxC.E.Career paths for women in physics. In: HumphreysSM., editor. Women and Minorities in Science: Strategies for Increasing Participation. Boulder, CO: Westview; 1982. p. 99–118.
39.
SonnertG., HoltonG.Gender Differences in Science Careers: The Project Access Study. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1995.
40.
SonnertG., HoltonG.Who Succeeds in Science? The Gender Dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1995.
41.
EtzkowitzH., KemelgorC., UzziB.Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
42.
SeymourE., HewittN.M.Talking about Leaving. Boulder, CO: Westview; 1997, 296.
43.
RossiterM.W.Which science? Which women?. Osiris 2nd series, 1997; 12:169–185.
44.
GornickV.Women in science: Portraits from a world in transition. NY: Touchstone; 1984.
45.
ZimanJ.Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be?. Science, 1998; 282(5395):1813–1814.
46.
BeckwithJ.Villains and heroes in the culture of science. Am Sci, 1995; 83:510–512.
