Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Power in Contraception

Dates of Group Meetings
November 20, 2020 - brainstormed and chose a topic, brainstormed disciplines

November 26, 2020 - finalized disciplines (History and Pharmaceutical Sciences), divided who would do which disciplines

December 4, 2020 - met with our "discipline partners" to divide up the work within our disciplines, discuss content in multidisciplinary perspective

December 12, 2020 - met as a group to combine our individual sections together, discussed interdisciplinary ideas and tensions to use in our conclusion

December 13, 2020 - met as a group to review and edit, wrote introduction and conclusion as a group

Purpledinosaur17 (discuss • contribs) 09:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Group Contribution
Introduction: written by all members

Pharmaceutical Science: written together by Atta and Bonnie

History: written together by Amanda and Heloise

Conclusion: written by all members

Grammar Edit: all members contributed

Purpledinosaur17's first draft
(numbers in brackets indicate references that were added in the chapter)

Power in pharmaceutical science can be seen in the research related to the contraceptive pill. Women are somehow responsible for the burden of contraception (as evident in the vast variety of female contraception drugs available), yet women have to deal with the various side effects associated with contraception. (1) These include, but are not limited to headaches, nausea, mood swings, and more serious effects such as blood clots and breast cancer. (2) One study on the use of hormonal contraception by women found that it positively led to use of antidepressants. (3) This begs the question of why further research has not been done in the half century since the birth of contraception to reduce these side effects and make contraception safer for women. (1)

The issue lies in the sex bias present in the discipline of pharmaceutical science. Especially when it comes to drug research, most are conducted and carried out on men, without any regard for how the two sexes might react differently. (4) Because of this, the recognition of health problems, as a result of a drug specific to women, has been slow. Nancy Krieger posed this question, ‘Why, for four decades, since the mid-1960s, were millions of women prescribed powerful pharmacological agents already shown, three decades earlier, to be carcinogenic?’ (5) This lack of knowledge can also be seen specifically in contraception. The Pearl Index was created in 1933 by Raymond Pearl, a male biologist, to calculate the effectiveness of contraceptive drugs in preventing pregnancy. Still used today, the Pearl Index uses equations that do not factor in the side effects women experience taking the drugs. (6)

Purpledinosaur17 (discuss • contribs) 09:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Beans2002's first draft
The contraceptive pill, the revolutionary invention playing a significant role in female sexual liberation, and gender equality, may not be as feminist as we thought. Thus far, the two viable methods of male contraception include condoms and vasectomies.1 With the prevalence of unwanted pregnancies, the lack of effective and reversible male contraceptives is questionable.

The male contraceptive pill has been researched, in which results indicate that hormone regimens that induce azoospermia, the lack of viable sperm in the semen, prove to be very effective in pregnancy protection, comparable with the female contraceptive pill. (1) However, the great extent of research in female oral contraceptives is unparalleled to that of males. (1) Given the fatal and erratic nature of the pill’s side effects for women, it is questionable why research in male oral contraceptives has not further progressed. In a WHO study testing one male hormonal contraceptive, it was found that androgenic common adverse effects included acne, mood changes, and abnormal liver function tests — all of which are homogeneous to side effects in the female pill; This product was then deemed unacceptable to users. (3) There are claims implying further testing has not been done due to the risk that may accompany long-term use, although the first large scale human trial on the female pill was carried out by Gregory Pincus in 1950s Puerto Rico before it was approved in the U.S., in which three deaths occurred. REF

It is therefore not presumptuous to view the power imbalance in gender in the field of pharmaceutical sciences as partly responsible for this issue. The underrepresentation of women in STEM indubitably leads to the implicit bias towards androcentric scientific studies — a form of indirect as well as direct coercion rooted in the social identity theory. The male agentic nature of scientific research has led to an invisible advantage for male scientists and reticence in female, and therefore the evident bias towards progressive studies in female contraceptives, rather than male, despite the extensive opposing justifications.

women underrepresentation + proof that female scientists are less favoured. subconscious rooting for their own gender leads to implicit bias (social categorisation/identity bias) — indirect coercion. shows reticence in women. male agentic traits + androcentrism

144.82.8.123 (discuss) 15:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Caprithai's first draft
Through in-depth examination of source materials and being a key resource for how we construct opinions on historical landmarks, History as a discipline allows us to look at how we view the chronologies of contraception in a way that shapes our contemporary views on the subject. Yet as we use History as a powerful tool, unequal balances of power within the discipline distort how the history of contraception can be understood.

Within History there is an enduring gender bias in academia that sees the lack of female presence in reading lists, source syllabi and conference panels that discuss the specifics of what is taught within the curriculum; history in academia remains largely male. Only 20.8% of history professors in the UK are women even though 40% of overall staff are women. (in studying the history of contraception, because of a male majority there is less of a women’s voice and women’s perspective, curriculum looks more towards facts and events rather than personal narratives and subject these narratives to a generalisation of all women/women’s movement - with a female perspective on the subject allows more diversity of thought as their positionality brings along with them a experiential connection and understanding rather than just academic.) There have been efforts to dismantle these gender biases with the discipline, where more women are encouraged to pursue research and be present during discussion through holding sessions and offered fellowships. (we can say in a sense that the gender disparity is improving as contemporaries are aware of this institutionalised bias) However, this indirect coercion will continue if the industry remains dominated by men who hold the most senior positions, thus those in higher positions of power have greater control over the academic narrative.

The sources we draw upon are dominantly male → the rhetoric used to describe contraception construed its reality as the history presented needed to be beneficial to men. For the benefit of men, the history and presence of the pill needed to be digestible for their palette showing that their traditional family structure’s stability would be protected and the freedom of choice given to women did not threaten their male dominance. As such the language used to describe the pill in historical accounts are ones that are still perpetuated by historians and wider society today. Describing the pill as ‘purveyors of vice and sin’, ‘a threat to corrupt society’ and the need to protect ‘religious liberty’ was used as a strategy that still constructs our subjectivities. These kinds of implementations produce power where narratives that support the pill/contraceptives get dismissed or removed, replaced with distrust and conspiracy. --Caprithai (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

--144.82.9.13 (discuss) 13:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

lolo9960's first draft
History as a discipline is written and re-written by historians who base themselves on primary sources and try to provide the most accurate account possible of the events. Historical positivism is the idea that primary sources are seen as the absolute truth by the academic field. For obvious socio-financial reasons, the access to higher education is still very white and very male. Two years ago, an applied history conference took place in Stanford featuring 30 executives, exclusively white males. What if the primary sources that historians use were the result of a western-centered, male-centered vision that has always gained the upper hand on what has been chosen to be told and the way it has been told ? History relies on people’s perceptions and the society’s way of experiencing and recalling events (objectivity in history dr Saul kundra 2017 page 1), but in a society where the prevailing perception is the male’s one, it is obviously difficult to be completely objective. There most definitely is an indirect, institutionalised form of power (Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. (1970) Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice (New York, Oxford University Press)., p.33) within History, held by a certain group of people, which unconsciously stifles the voices of the minorities and sometimes generates a lack of collective truth and accuracy.Fortunately, we observe a paradigm shift thanks to which more and more women have the opportunity to express their voices on history. For example in ‘reproductive rights and wrongs, the global politics of population control and contraceptive choice’, Besty Hartmann tackles the until then undiscussed issue of the pressure that can be put on some women in several countries and socio-economic groups, by powerful figures that provide them contraception ‘often in an unsafe manner, for their own objectives, which are fundamentally disempowering of women and of poor people generally’ (Barbara Klugman, 1991, page 71/72).

lolo9960 (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction draft
The contraceptive pill, the revolutionary invention playing a significant role in female sexual liberation and gender equality, may not be as feminist as we thought. As a divided issue, it’s research in pharmaceutical sciences and portrayal in the history discipline offer a varied and interdisciplinary perspective on this controversial issue. Their contrasting scientific and subjective approach highlight tensions between the disciplines and how we approach the issue of power. When combined they offer a more comprehensive view on the causes and impacts of power in the issue of contraception.

Conclusion drafts/ideas
- with a more objective balanced equal less biased opinion in pharm sci — research can be done to equalise the responsibilities of contraception

- increase in female representation in history shift the biased view + supply readers with objective truth sothey acc know whats going on

- ultimately leading to gender equality in this domain cus once ppl realise whats happening (when they read what historians right) theyll push more for male contra research (in pharm sci)

Interdisciplinarity is vital in the future of contraception. With a more objective approach from historians, the impartial truth of the implicit power imbalance in contraception is elucidated to the public. In a world where the supply and demand model is profoundly influential, this collective shift in view may lead to an increase in unbiased research in contraception as the public advocate for more female representation in the scientific community. Progressive pharmaceutical science research can therefore be done to equalise the responsibilities of the two sexes in regards to contraception, and thus ultimately advancing gender equality within this domain.

Introduction
The contraceptive pill, the revolutionary invention playing a significant role in female sexual liberation and gender equality, may not be as feminist as we thought. Currently, the two viable methods of male contraception include condoms and vasectomies. With the prevalence of unwanted pregnancies, the lack of effective and reversible male contraceptives is questionable.

The issue of Power within the topic of contraception is better understood from an interdisciplinary perspective. The methods of contraception were first created by male scientists in the mid 20th century. Contraception back then was a taboo method of birth control and even illegal for a time. Indirect coercion can be seen in the disciplines of history and pharmaceutical sciences, and together, they give a picture of Power in contraception.

Power in History
History as a discipline is written and re-written by historians' selectivity of primary sources aiming to provide the most accurate account possible of events. However within History, there is an enduring gender bias within the discipline that sees a lacking female presence in reading lists, source syllabi and conference panels that discuss the specifics of what is taught within the curriculum; history in academia remains largely male. In the UK alone there are only about 20.8% female history professors. In another example, a Stanford applied history conference featured 30 executives, exclusively white males. What if primary sources were the result of a western-male centred authority on what has been chosen to be told and the way it has been told? History relies on people's perceptions and society's way of experiencing and recalling events, but in a society where the prevailing perception is a male one, it is difficult to be completely objective.

History as a discipline allows us to look at how we view the chronologies of contraception in a way that shapes our contemporary view on the subject. Yet as we use History for understanding, unequal balances of power within the discipline distort how the history of contraception can be understood. There is an indirect, institutionalised form of power within History, held by certain groups of people, which unconsciously stifles the voices of minorities and potentially generates a lack of collective truth and accuracy. In studying the history of contraception, the male majority gives less space to women's voices and perspectives. The curriculum then bases more on facts and events rather than personal narratives, and subject these narratives to a generalisation of all women and the women's movement. A female perspective on the subject allows more diversity of thought as their positionally brings along with them an experiential connection and understanding rather than just an academic one.

Fortunately, there have been efforts to dismantle these gender biases within the discipline, where more women are encouraged to pursue research and be present during discussions. In this sense, we can say that the gender disparity is improving as contemporaries are more aware of this institutionalised bias. For example, in Reproductive Rights and Wrongs, the Global Politics of Population Control and Contraceptive Choice, Betsy Hartmann tackles the, until then, undiscussed issue of the pressure that can be put on some women in several countries and socio-economic groups by powerful figures that provide them contraception 'often in an unsafe manner, for their own objectives, which are fundamentally disempowering of women and of poor people generally.' However, this indirect coercion will continue if the industry remains dominated by men who hold the most senior positions, thus those in higher positions of power have greater control over the academic narrative.

Power in Pharmaceutical Sciences
Side Effects in Female Contraception

Power in pharmaceutical science is present in research related to the contraceptive pill. Women are often responsible for the burden of contraception (evident in the vast variety of female contraception drugs available), yet are subjected to various side effects associated with contraception. These include, but not limited to, headaches, nausea, mood swings, and more serious effects such as blood clots and breast cancer. One study on the use of hormonal contraception by women found that it positively led to use of antidepressants. Why has further research not been done in the half century since the birth of contraception to reduce these side effects and make contraception safer for women?

The issue lies in the sex bias present in the discipline of pharmaceutical science. Especially in drug research, most are conducted and carried out on men, without regard for how the two sexes might react differently. Because of this, the recognition of health problems, from a drug specific to women, has been slow. Nancy Krieger posed this question: ‘Why, for four decades, since the mid-1960s, were millions of women prescribed powerful pharmacological agents already shown, three decades earlier, to be carcinogenic?’ This lack of knowledge can also be seen specifically in contraception. The Pearl Index was created in 1933 by Raymond Pearl, a male biologist, to calculate the effectiveness of contraceptive drugs in preventing pregnancy. Still used today, the Pearl Index uses equations not accounting for the side effects women experience taking the drugs.

Research in Male Hormonal Contraception

Meanwhile, research in the male contraceptive pill indicate that hormone regimens that induce azoospermia, the lack of viable sperm in the semen, prove to be effective in pregnancy protection, compared with the female contraceptive pill. Given the erratic nature of the pill’s side effects for women, it is questionable why research in male oral contraceptives has not progressed further. A WHO study testing one male hormonal contraceptive, found that androgenic common adverse effects included acne, mood changes, and abnormal liver function tests — homogeneous to side effects in the female pill. Yet, this product was deemed unacceptable to users. There claims implied further testing had not been done due to risks associated with long-term use, despite the first large scale human trial on the female pill, carried out by Gregory Pincus in 1950s Puerto Rico before it was approved in the U.S., resulted three deaths.

It is therefore not presumptuous to view the gendered power imbalance in the field of pharmaceutical sciences as partly responsible for this issue. The underrepresentation of women in STEM indubitably leads to the implicit bias towards androcentric scientific studies — a form of indirect, as well as direct coercion rooted in the social identity theory. The male agentic nature of scientific research has led to an invisible advantage for male scientists and reticence in female, stemming the bias towards progressive studies in female contraceptives, rather than male, despite extensive opposing justifications.

--Caprithai (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

References Formatting
Lets all use this resource to build our references.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/administration-and-support-services/library/public/vancouver.pdf

Scroll down to page 18 for citing online journal articles.

Final references edit: Purpledinosaur17

Purpledinosaur17 (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

First Draft References from Grammar Edit
Purpledinosaur17 (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)