Dr. Meharvan Singh said that the job of a researcher is to challenge dogma in a systematic and open minded way, and to also use data to revise, modify, and challenge our own thinking (M. Singh, personal communications, February 17th 2025). This is the way in which research can really make an impact on the world and future scientific discovery. While it may seem like change is the nature of research, Dr. Singh points out that there are still many examples as to how dogma, a set of irrefutable rules and principles, curbs progress in many research fields; one of the most hindered fields being research in women's health and wellness.
Dr. Singh’s paper regarding the neuro-protective influences of progestins on cognition is a
point of controversy in terms of challenging dogma. He and his colleagues found that two hormones known as progesterone and estrogen, which was previously associated with the women’s reproductive system, are an important aspect of neuro-protection for many neurological and growth networks (Singh et al., 2024). He found that women going through menopause were at a high risk for stroke and other cognitive degenerative disease, and was able to link this to a lack of estrogen and progesterone in their system. This was ground-breaking data that could possibly help the lives of many women! Yet, these findings caused an upheaval among many other scientists as the data went against much of what was previously thought of to be true: these hormones are only relevant to women’s reproductive health. While this mass rejection would have caused anyone to drop their work, Dr. Singh remained loyal to his findings and continued to collect data to further provide evidence despite the many obstacles. When his clinical trial proved to be a “failure” Dr. Singh changed his perspective and tried to find out why his hormone therapy worked for the women who did benefit from it. When another paper came out published by the Women’s Health Institute, he sat and went through the study word for word to find the disconnect between his study and theirs, and found that the influence of age was what separated his work from the others. Going through all of these obstacles, Dr. Singh was able to challenge the dogma of women’s health through appropriate controls, through analysis, and overall fairness. Of course, when it comes to women's health or overall research attitudes, he is not the only one demanding for a change in dogma.
Dr. Laura Pritschet, a cognitive neuroscientist focusing on the impact of pregnancies and menopause on cognition, has been a vocal proponent of the influence of “sex hormones” on cognitive function (Mehta 2024). Her research has led her to similar conclusions as Dr. Singh as she has found that neuronal changes in women follow the dynamic flow of their hormones. In her time as a neuroscientist, she has found that in order for others to take her work seriously she would have to put exceptional time and care into data analysis and curation of her studies. Dr. Pritchet also highlighted the need for diverse perspectives throughout the whole research process which mimics the sentiment of Dr. Singh when he states that there needs to be fairness in research (M. Singh, personal communications, February 17th 2025). Overall, Dr. Pritchet encourages future researchers, especially when it comes to women's health research, to be conducted in a less rash and dismissive manner in hopes to further challenge scientific dogma (Mehta 2024). The hope is progress will be made when it comes to truly discussing women's health. Although, the on-going issue standing in the way of such strides is the political climate.
President Donald Trump has been in office for little over a month and has already made plans to cut funding to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Cutting this funding could have dire consequences to the future of research. In an article written by The Guardian, Dr. Meghan Lane-Fall speaks about this potential harm that could come from cuts in funding. She raises the issue that these cuts will not only curb funding needed for important research, but also lead to a “hollowing out of the workforce” as there is less money to pay up-coming and promising new scientists (Sherman 2025). The lack of new and promising scientists is a threat to progress as it hinders the need for new perspectives and ideas. Dr. Lane-Fall, who studies mortality rate of pregnant women, is worried for the future of her research as her line of work is already pretty far down in the list of research being funded. It goes to show how not only does these cuts harm overall research, but especially topics that are at the forefront of challenging the current scientific standards. The administration in power has already gone ahead and scrubbed funding links on the Women’s National Institutes of Health website. These funding cuts are a threat to the overall safety of women's health research and pose even more of a threat to progress of changing the rules and principles of scientific research as a whole. Despite all of these setbacks, it is still important that the world of research continues forward allowing for its own changes and reformations as it thrives to impact and change the world for the better.
References
Mehta, K. (13, May 24). Mind Over Matter: Laura Pritschet Unveils Brainy Insight into Women’s Health. Flux Blog. https://fluxsociety.org/mind-over-matter-laura-pritschet-unveils-brainy-insights-into-womens-health/
Sherman, C.(15, February 25). ‘Scary time to be a scientist’: how medical research cuts will hurt maternal mortality crisis. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/15/trump-medical-research-funding-maternal-mortality
Singh, M., Krishnamoorthy, V. R., Kim, S., Khurana, S., & LaPorte, H. M. (2024). Brain-derived neuerotrophic factor and related mechanisms that mediate and influence progesterone-induced neuroprotection. Frontiers in endocrinology, 15, 1286066.
Singh, M.(18, February 25) Lessons learned through the study of neurobiology of estrogen, progestins, and androgens[PowerPoint slides].
No comments:
Post a Comment