Despite the social and regulatory expectation that contemporary clinical trials for new pharmaceutical drugs will include a diverse set of research participants, achieving appropriate representation in clinical research remains tenuous. Of ongoing concern is how experts and regulators navigate decisions about drug approvals when presented with clinical studies that have limited demographic data. Drawing on regulatory discussions about Descovy, an HIV-prevention drug that was studied only in cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men, we analyze a contentious debate over the meaning and impact of including and excluding certain populations from clinical trial design. Extending prior work in science and technology studies on how epistemological frameworks in clinical trials matter for concerns about the production of knowledge and social justice, we show how different conceptualizations of inclusion and equity (specifically, equity in data versus equity in access) come into tension in deliberations over pharmaceutical drug approvals. We argue that the discursive conflict over gender and inclusionary/exclusionary research practices that emerged in the case of Descovy points to an underappreciated feature of equity—temporality—that should be attended to when examining knowledge production in 21st-century clinical and regulatory landscapes.
AbbasiK. (2023). Under-representation of women in research: A status quo that is a scandal. BMJ, 382, Article 2091.
2.
AdimoraA. A.ColeS. R.EronJ. J. (2017). US Black Women and human immunodeficiency virus prevention: Time for new approaches to clinical trials. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 65(2), 324–327.
3.
AlmelingR. (2020). GUYnecology: The missing science of men’s reproductive health. University of California Press.
4.
Bibbins-DomingoK.HelmanA.DzauV. J. (2022). The imperative for diversity and inclusion in clinical trials and health research participation. JAMA, 327(23), 2283–2284.
5.
BlissC. (2012). Race decoded: The genomic fight for social justice. Stanford University Press.
6.
BothwellL. E.GreeneJ. A.PodolskyS. H.JonesD. S. (2016). Assessing the gold standard – Lessons from the history of RCTs. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(22), 2175–2181.
7.
BuchbinderM.JuengstE.RennieS.BlueC.RosenD. L. (2022). Advancing a data justice framework for public health surveillance. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 13(3), 205–213.
8.
CampbellN. D.StarkL. (2015). Making up ‘vulnerable’ people: Human subjects and the subjective experience of medical experiment. Social History of Medicine, 28(4), 825–848.
9.
CarpenterD. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton University Press.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). (2024). Diagnoses, deaths, and prevalence of HIV in the United States and 6 territories and freely associated states, 2022. Retrieved August 20, 2024, from https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/156509
12.
CooperM.WaldbyC. (2014). Clinical labor: Tissue donors and research subjects in the global economy. Duke University Press.
13.
CottinghamM. D.FisherJ. A. (2020). Gendered logics of biomedical research: Women in U.S. phase I clinical trials. Social Problems, 69(2), 492–509.
14.
D’AmoursJ. V. (2023). Cultural discourses and HIV/AIDS activists’ meanings about PrEP. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 25(10), 1340–1354.
15.
DavisC. (2020). Homo adhaerens: Risk and adherence in biomedical HIV prevention research. Social Studies of Science, 50(6), 860–880.
16.
DecoteauC. L.UndermanK. (2015). Adjudicating non-knowledge in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings. Social Studies of Science, 45(4), 471–500.
17.
EpsteinS. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. University of California Press.
18.
EpsteinS. (2007). Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research. University of Chicago Press.
19.
FadenR.KassN.McGrawD. (1996). Women as vessels and vectors: Lessons from the HIV epidemic. In WolfS. M. (Ed.), Feminism and bioethics: Beyond reproduction (pp. 252–281). Oxford University Press.
20.
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). (1977). General considerations for the clinical evaluation of drugs. HEW Publication No. (FDA) 77-3040. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration.
FisherJ. A. (2009). Medical research for hire: The political economy of pharmaceutical clinical trials. Rutgers University Press.
24.
FisherJ. A. (2020). Adverse events: Race, inequality, and the testing of new pharmaceuticals. New York University Press.
25.
FisherJ. A.KalbaughC. A. (2011). Challenging assumptions about minority participation in US clinical research. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 2217–2222.
26.
FletcherF. E.Amutah-OnukaghaN.AttysJ.RiceW. S. (2021). How can the experiences of black women living with HIV inform equitable and respectful reproductive health care delivery?AMA Journal of Ethics, 23(2), E156–E165.
27.
GreeneJ. A.PodolskyS. H. (2012). Reform, regulation, and pharmaceuticals – The Kefauver-Harris Amendments at 50. New England Journal of Medicine, 367(16), 1481–1483.
JohnsonT.FeeE. (1994). Women’s participation in clinical research: From protectionism to access. In MastroianniA. C.FadenR.FedermanD. (Eds.), Women and health research: Ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies, Volume 2 (pp. 1–10). National Academy Press.
30.
LevineC. (1993). Women as research subjects: New priorities, new questions. In BlankR. H.BonnicksenA. L. (Eds.), Emerging issues in biomedical policy: An annual review, Volume 2 (pp. 169–188). Columbia University Press.
31.
LyerlyA. D.LittleM. O.FadenR. (2008). The second wave: Toward responsible inclusion of pregnant women in research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 1(2), 5–22.
32.
MacKendrickN. (2018). Better safe than sorry: How consumers navigate exposure to everyday toxics. University of California Press.
33.
MandavilliA. (2019, October4). F.D.A. approves new H.I.V.-prevention drug, but not for everyone. New York Times.
34.
MannE. S.GrzankaP. R. (2018). Agency-without-choice: The visual rhetorics of long-acting reversible contraception promotion. Symbolic Interaction, 41(3), 334–356.
35.
MarkensS. (2013). ‘It just becomes much more complicated’: Genetic counselors’ views on genetics and prenatal testing. New Genetics and Society, 32(3), 302–321.
36.
MastroianniA. C.FadenR.FedermanD. (Eds.). (1994). Women and health research: Ethical and legal issues of including women in clinical studies, Volume 1. National Academy Press.
37.
MastroianniA. C.KahnJ. (2001). Swinging on the pendulum: Shifting views of justice in human subjects research. Hastings Center Report, 31(3), 21–28.
38.
MatthiesenS. (2016). Equality versus reproductive risk: Women-and-AIDS activism and false choice in the clinical trials debate. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 41(3), 579–601.
39.
McGoeyL. (2012). The logic of strategic ignorance. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(3), 553–576.
40.
MolA. (2008). The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. Routledge.
41.
MolldremS.SmithA. K. J. (2020). Reassessing the ethics of molecular HIV surveillance in the era of cluster detection and response: Toward HIV data justice. The American Journal of Bioethics, 20(10), 10–23.
42.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). (2022). Improving representation in clinical trials and research: Building research equity for women and underrepresented groups. The National Academies Press.
43.
NieJ.-B.GilbertsonA.de RoubaixM.StauntonC.van NiekerkA.TuckerJ. D.RennieS. (2016). Healing without waging war: Beyond military metaphors in medicine and HIV cure research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 16(10), 3–11.
44.
NLM (National Library of Medicine). (2021). Pre-exposure prophylaxis study of lenacapavir and emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide in adolescent girls and young women at risk of HIV infection (PURPOSE 1). Identifier NCT04994509. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04994509
45.
PapeM. (2021). Co-production, multiplied: Enactments of sex as a biological variable in US biomedicine. Social Studies of Science, 51(3), 339–363.
46.
PetersonK.FolayanM. O.ChigwedereE.NtheteE. (2015). Saying ‘no’ to PrEP research in Malawi: What constitutes ‘failure’ in offshored HIV prevention research?Anthropology & Medicine, 22(3), 278–294.
47.
PetrynaA. (2009). When experiments travel: Clinical trials and the global search for human subjects. Princeton University Press.
48.
PHASES (The PHASES Working Group). (2020). Ending the evidence gap for pregnant women around HIV & co-infections: A call to action. http://www.hivpregnancyethics.org
49.
RobertsD. R. (2011). Fatal invention: How science, politics, and big business re-create race in the twenty-first century. New Press.
50.
ShawJ.SekalalaS.FiskeA. (2024). The urgent need for health data justice in precision medicine. The American Journal of Bioethics, 24(3), 101–103.
51.
ShimJ. K. (2000). Bio-power and racial, class, and gender formation in biomedical knowledge production. In KronenfeldJ. (Ed.), Health care providers, institutions, and patients: Changing patterns of care provision and care delivery, Research in the Sociology of Health Care (Vol. 17, pp. 173–195). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
52.
ShimJ. K.BentzM.VasquezE.JeskeM.SapersteinA.FullertonS. M.FotiN.McMahonC.LeeS. S. (2022). Strategies of inclusion: The tradeoffs of pursuing “baked in” diversity through place-based recruitment. Social Science & Medicine, 306, Article 115132.
53.
SismondoS. (2008). How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses. Social Science & Medicine, 66(9), 1909–1914.
54.
SismondoS. (2015). The production and distribution of pharmaceutical clinical trial knowledge: Case studies in the political economy of scientific knowledge. In KanjirakkatJ. M.McOuatG.SarukkaiS. (Eds.), Science and narratives of nature: East and west (pp. 305–324). Routledge.
55.
SullivanK. A.LyerlyA. D. (2017). Ethical considerations in developing an evidence base for pre-exposure prophylaxis in pregnant women. Reproductive Health, 14(Suppl. 3), 171.
56.
Sunder RajanK. (2017). Pharmocracy: Value, politics, and knowledge in global biomedicine. Duke University Press.
WaggonerM. R. (2017). The zero trimester: Pre-pregnancy care and the politics of reproductive risk. University of California Press.
59.
WaggonerM. R.LyerlyA. D. (2022). Clinical trials in pregnancy and the ‘shadows of thalidomide’: Revisiting the legacy of Frances Kelsey. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 119, Article 106806.
60.
Watkins-HayesC. (2019). Remaking a life: How women living with HIV/AIDS confront inequality. University of California Press.
61.
WhooleyO. (2019). On the heels of ignorance: Psychiatry and the politics of not knowing. University of Chicago Press.
62.
WhooleyO.BarkerK. K. (2021). Uncertain and under quarantine: Toward a sociology of medical ignorance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 62(3), 271–285.
63.
ZhaoH.DiMarcoM.IchikawaK.BoulicaultM.PerretM.JillsonK.FairA.DeJesusK.RichardsonS. S. (2023). Making a ‘sex-difference fact’: Ambien dosing at the interface of policy, regulation, women’s health, and biology. Social Studies of Science, 53(4), 475–494.
