Why medical research needs to be more inclusive — and what we're doing about it
Take, for example, the pulse oximeter — a device usually clipped to a finger and used to monitor oxygen levels in patients. As low oxygen levels were key concern for those with severe covid, pulse oximeters were used a lot. They were also found to be significantly less accurate for people with darker skin, often overestimating oxygen levels and potentially delaying urgent treatment.
The pulse oximeter is a poster child for the dangerous consequences of not including a diverse range of people in health research. Not only do individuals receive poorer care, but care is also unequal, and trust in the healthcare systems erodes.
This is part of a wider issue. For decades, randomised trials — the gold standard for testing new treatments — have disproportionately involved white, male, and relatively healthy participants. That's despite the fact many health conditions affect other groups in more severe or complex ways. Groups that are frequently left out include women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, older adults, pregnant or lactating females and people with disabilities.
The pulse oximeter is a poster child for the dangerous consequences of not including a diverse range of people in health research.
These are called under-served groups — populations under-represented in research despite often carrying a higher burden of disease. Women, for example, have been under-represented in many trials for decades, resulting in women having more side-effects because of biological differences between how male and female bodies absorb some medicines.
Take heart disease as an example. Women are just as likely to have a heart attack as men, but women are more likely to die from one. Women are also more likely to suffer from autoimmune diseases, but research often fails to examine womne separately, excludes them or doesn't include them in sufficient numbers to say anything meaningful about potential differences. Research conducted with and on both sexes can help reduce these disparities.
This is the motivation behind SENSITISE, a new EU-funded project in UCC, with partner institutes the University of Aberdeen, UK, Masaryk University, Czech Republic and ECRIN (European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network) France. SENSITISE — short for inclusive clinical trials: training and education to increase the involvement of under-served groups — is about creating real, practical change in how we educate the next generation of trialists.
Supported by the EU Erasmus+ programme until 2026, SENSITISE includes a 12-week, open-access curriculum available online, a manual for teachers, in-person workshops for those working in clinical trials, and translations into multiple languages to ensure broad accessibility. Our audience includes not just students and researchers, but also public and patient contributors, because inclusion starts with listening to the people affected.
Our goal is simple but urgent: to make inclusive health research the norm, not the exception. This political backdrop makes the work of SENSITISE even more urgent. While parts of the world move backwards on inclusion, we are pushing forward — developing tools to help the next generation of researchers build better, fairer trials from the ground up.
In the United States, a dramatic shift in policy is under way. President Donald Trump recently issued executive orders banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the federal government, including in healthcare and medical research.
Frances Shiely: If trials are designed only for the majority, then under-served communities will continue to receive second-rate care, or no care at all.
The orders eliminate DEI officers, revoke protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, and direct federal agencies to redefine gender strictly in biological terms — an approach that risks excluding entire communities from equitable access to healthcare and research participation.
The withdrawal of women's reproductive rights and subsequently, women's rights, along with banning the word ''women'' from all governmental health websites is unimaginable to us here in Europe.
Even before the Trump administration came to power in January 2025, the United States had work to do to improve women's health. In 2022, maternal mortality, deaths due to complications from pregnancy or childbirth, was 22.3/100,000 live births, more than double and sometimes triple the rate for most high-income countries (Ireland is 8.3/100,000; UK is 13.6/100,000; Australia and Germany, 3.5/100,000; Netherlands 2.8/100,000).
But this hides the health inequities. For black women in the US, the maternal mortality in 2022 was 49.5/100,000 compared to 19.0/100,000 for white women. According to figures from the World Health Organization, maternal mortality for black women living in the US is higher than overall mortality in many countries, including Argentina, Egypt and Mongolia. This is not only a US issue: maternal mortality for black women in the UK is 35.1/100,000. There is work to do in Europe too.
However, the policies of the Trump administration will widen these gaps, not narrow them. The impact of this disruption of science and the subsequent health outcomes will be profound and would have seemed almost unimaginable only a few months ago. Left unchallenged, the threat of these policies spreading increases.
If trials do not include the people who have most to gain from improved treatment, inequity in health outcomes becomes a persistent feature of the healthcare system. This is bad science, and bad for society. Inclusive research isn't just about who gets invited to participate — it's about who benefits from science.
If trials are designed only for the majority, then under-served communities will continue to receive second-rate care, or no care at all. The result? Worse outcomes; widening inequality; a healthcare system that serves some, but not all.
We are at a crossroads. One path leads to a narrower, exclusionary science that leaves people behind. The other leads to research that reflects the real world and delivers better outcomes for all.
At UCC, we're proud to be leading the way through SENSITISE, equipping the next generation to build trials that are inclusive, ethical and effective. Because inclusive research doesn't just change science, it changes lives.
Frances Shiely is professor of clinical trials, HRB Clinical Research Facility and School of Public Health, at University College Cork
Read More
Have we learned any lessons after Grace?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- RTÉ News
Parents call on HSE to make breakthrough peanut allergy treatment available
Parents of children with severe peanut allergies are calling on the HSE to make a breakthrough treatment available in Ireland. Palforzia is a medicine for treating peanut allergy in children from one to 17 years of age. It has been authorised for use in the EU by the European Medicines Agency, but currently there is no planned timeline to roll it out in Ireland. It works by gradually exposing children to higher doses of peanut to help lower the risk of severe reactions, including anaphylaxis. This method is called oral immunotherapy. There are more than 20,000 children in Ireland living with a severe peanut allergy. The current approach is to avoid peanuts in the diet and carry emergency medication in case they are eaten. Some parents are now taking their children, at their own expense, to the UK, US or other European countries to access the Palforzia treatment. Catherine Dolan, from Greystones in Co Wicklow, is among a group of parents who want the HSE to make Palforzia available here. Her six-year-old son has a severe peanut allergy that puts him at risk of anaphylaxis. Ms Dolan said it creates a great deal of anxiety as the family navigates daily interactions. She has considered accessing the treatment abroad but said the logistics are difficult. "We've always had healthcare in our own country, and it does pose a risk when you go outside of the Irish system. I would consider it, we are talking about it, but I'd be really, really cautious about it," she said. Ms Dolan said she feels it is unacceptable that the treatment is available under the NHS in the UK, and other European countries, but not here. "We need to know when, and why. It has to happen. I'm balanced in my view - I know the healthcare system is really stretched, but I know the consultants are there, the care is there, and the expertise is there. We just need a national plan now to roll it out," she said. The HSE said it makes decisions on which medicines are reimbursed by the taxpayer on "objective, scientific and economic grounds". In November 2023, the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics made a recommendation to the HSE that Palforzia "not be considered for reimbursement unless cost-effectiveness can be improved relative to existing treatments". Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health in the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and Children's Health Ireland Dr Jonathan Hourihane said cost-effectiveness of medicines is usually calculated based on whether the amount of money needed to treat a condition can be recouped through demonstrated savings based on hospital bed use or emergency departments attendances. Dr Hourihane said this metric does not apply to peanut allergy. "This condition is a community-based disease characterised by anxiety and isolation, not by having to go to a hospital every two weeks. So, it's been unreasonably rejected. I think it's disappointing for us as a country, as a country that recruited children to get the licence for the product. And I think it's insulting to the families who have this condition," he said. Dr Hourihane said he attends international conferences and is told by allergy doctors that they are treating Irish children in the US, France, Italy and the UK, among others. He believes it is "a sign of desperation" that parents are willing to travel at their own expense for "care that they should be able to get locally". He added that Irish doctors are not supporting people to access treatment abroad because they are not involved in those programmes and cannot stand over them. Dr Hourihane said: "We are aware of children who've had to attend the emergency hospitals in Dublin having had allergic reactions during their treatment courses, and we don't know what they've reacted to because we're not involved. "So, I think it's putting doctors in allergy clinics in Ireland in a difficult position. They're having to treat children who are having complications of treatment being supervised remotely." Dr Hourihane believes the true impact of peanut allergies has been disregarded. He said: "It's not a trivial illness if you think your child might die tomorrow while you're at work. I think a fundamental problem with the way it's been evaluated is the impact hasn't been fully accepted in the way that families want it to be accepted. "As a clinician I find it frustrating and disappointing that the state-of-the-art treatments that we helped develop internationally [are not available here], and Ireland is a major international player in this area. We're now the laughing stock of the international allergy community." The HSE said the company that has applied to make Palforzia available through the HSE in Ireland has now paused the application until the end of this year. The HSE added that it "is committed to providing access to as many medicines as possible, in as timely a fashion as possible, from the resources available (provided) to it". "The HSE robustly assesses applications for pricing and reimbursement to make sure that it can stretch available resources as far as possible and to deliver the best value in relation to each medicine and ultimately more medicines to Irish citizens and patients," it said.
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- RTÉ News
Why our Stone Age brains aren't designed for sustained attention
Analysis: Our modern world demands sustained vigilance, but we're using brains that weren't designed for this kind of focus We've all been there. You're trying to focus on an important task, but your mind starts wandering. Maybe you're a student struggling to pay attention during a long class or lecture, or you're at work trying to concentrate on a detailed report. You might think the solution is simple: just try harder, practice more, or maybe find the right productivity hack. But what if we told you that perfect, unwavering attention isn't just difficult but actually impossible to achieve? Recent research from cognitive scientists reveals something that might surprise you: the human brain simply isn't designed for perfect sustained attention. This isn't a personal failing or something you can overcome with enough willpower. It's a fundamental feature of how our minds work. From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, why is our attention more vulnerable than ever and what can we do about it? Think of your attention like a flashlight with a flickering battery. No matter how much you want that beam to stay perfectly steady, it's going to flicker. Scientists have discovered that our brains operate through rhythmic pulses, with attention naturally cycling several times per second. It's not something you can control or train away. The brain networks responsible for attention, particularly areas in the front and sides of your head, show constant fluctuations in activity. Even when you think you're paying perfect attention, brain scans reveal that your neural activity is constantly shifting. It's like trying to hold water in your cupped hands. During World War II, researchers noticed something troubling: radar operators whose job was to spot enemy aircraft on screens would inevitably miss targets after just a short time on duty. This wasn't because they weren't trying hard enough or lacked training. Even the most skilled, motivated operators showed the same pattern. From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, Dr. Philipp Hövel from UCC on what's competing for our shrinking attention spans Scientists called this the "vigilance decrement", which is the inevitable decline in attention over time. This finding has been replicated thousands of times across different jobs and situations. Air traffic controllers, security guards watching CCTV screens, and even lifeguards at busy beaches all show the same pattern. It doesn't matter how important the job is or how much training someone has received: performance starts to drop within minutes of starting a vigilance task. You might wonder why evolution would give us such a seemingly flawed attention system. The answer seems to lie in survival. Having attention that automatically shifts and scans the environment was actually a survival advantage for spotting danger in the wild. Our "distractible" attention system kept our ancestors alive. Even experienced meditators, who spend years training their attention, don't achieve perfect sustained focus. Brain scan studies of Buddhist monks with decades of meditation experience show they still have, and can't eliminate, natural fluctuations in attention. What meditation does teach is awareness of these fluctuations and the ability to gently redirect attention when it wanders. From RTÉ 2fm's Morning with Laura Fox, tech journalist Elaine Burke on how the entertainment industry is adapting to shorter attention spans Our attention limitations create real problems in today's world. Medical errors in hospitals, aviation accidents and industrial disasters often involve attention failures. We've built a modern world that demands sustained vigilance, but we're using Stone Age brains that weren't designed for this kind of focus. The traditional response has been to try harder: more training, more motivation, more discipline. But this approach is like trying to make water flow uphill. It fights against the fundamental nature of human attention rather than working with it. Instead of fighting our attention limitations, we need to design systems that work with them. This means creating technology that can handle the boring, repetitive vigilance tasks while humans focus on what we do best: creative problem-solving, understanding context (including emotions aroused), and making complex decisions. Some industries are already moving in this direction. Modern aircraft use automation to handle routine monitoring while pilots focus on higher-level decision-making. Medical devices can continuously monitor patients while nurses provide care and interpret complex situations. The key is finding the right balance. Complete automation isn't the answer either. Humans need to stay engaged and maintain skills. But neither is expecting perfect human attention in situations where technology could provide better, more reliable monitoring. Accepting that perfect attention is impossible might actually be liberating. Instead of feeling guilty when your mind wanders during a long meeting or beating yourself up for losing focus while studying, you can recognise this as normal human behaviour. The goal isn't to eliminate attention fluctuations but to work with them. Take regular breaks, change tasks periodically, and design your environment to support rather than fight your natural attention rhythms. Perfect attention isn't just difficult to achieve but theoretically impossible - and that's OK.
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
We are banking on costly, speculative ‘negative emissions technologies' to make climate strategies add up
In May, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) published a report projecting that global temperatures are expected to continue at or near-record levels over the next five years . As global heating accelerates, there is even a small chance (1 per cent, the WMO said) that the temperature rise could exceed 2 degrees in this period. For decades, scientists have been warning about the devastating consequences that even a 1.5-degree increase in global temperatures would bring. You would think that no effort would be spared in implementing workable, scalable solutions and in eliminating fossil energy as quickly as possible. However, international agencies and EU governments are still heavily relying on costly and speculative negative emissions technologies (NETs) to make their climate strategies add up. These technologies are controversial because they often prolong our dependence on fossil energy, cannot be deployed at scale quickly or are hugely expensive compared to energy efficiency and renewables. They include carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS), direct air capture (DAC) and bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS). READ MORE CCUS was hyped up after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, but has consistently underperformed since then. The International Energy Agency's 2024 analysis said CCUS roll-out remained nowhere near what was needed to deliver under the Agency's Net Zero Scenario. CCUS would need to capture and store around one gigatonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year by 2030, but current projections estimate the removal of only 430 megatonnes of CO2 by then. To meet the 2050 target, CCUS would have to scale up a hundred-fold. The EU's 2040 target of 90 per cent emission reductions relies heavily on NETs for 'hard-to-abate' sectors such as aviation and industry, projecting that 400 megatonnes of CO2 will be removed permanently. The small number of working DAC projects globally – including an innovative Irish project in Co Waterford called Neg8 Carbon – remove carbon at a steep cost of anywhere between €200 and €1,000 a tonne of CO2 removed. Their potential is largely determined by the price of carbon credits on voluntary carbon markets. The current pipeline of projects will at best remove around three megatonnes of CO2 globally by 2030, which is a drop in the ocean when you consider that global carbon-dioxide emissions last year were about 38 billion tonnes. Enhanced weathering is another carbon removal technology that works, but can at best deliver 30 megatonnes of CO2 a year by 2030. Most of these industrial-sector NETs come with high energy demands, high capital and operational costs and the need for significant CO2 storage infrastructure. As things stand, these technologies are not delivering carbon reductions that are needed. Global emissions of greenhouse gases are still dominated by fossil fuel combustion; until coal, oil and gas are replaced by renewable energy sources we do not stand a chance of averting climate disaster. That is simply physics, not an opinion. Given the timescales available for meaningful action – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that global CO2 emissions need to be halved by 2030 – the reliance on unproven technological solutions to meet near-term targets is ethically and politically disastrous. We should not stop researching them, but policymakers should be acutely conscious of their limitations for staying within the increasingly constrained global and national carbon budgets. We need a technological strategy that is humble and agile. The road to climate neutrality is paved with great ideas that failed to reach the market in time to make a difference or had unintended negative consequences such as job displacement or 'sacrifice zones' to extract critical raw materials. Moving from the laboratory to market requires massive capital investment and a stable, science-based policy framework underpinning research and investment. It also requires public acceptance or what is termed a 'social licence'. Part of the policy challenge is that we take the convenience and availability of fossil energy and chemical fertilisers for granted. To decarbonise the energy system, we will need to redesign it and adapt our use of energy to its availability. For householders, that might mean only using the washing machine when the sun is shining on PV panels or a smart grid and smart tariffs that determine the optimal time to do so. For a manufacturing plant, it means generating and even selling its own power or deploying entirely new production systems, for example, electric arc furnaces. This will require behavioural shifts, organisational modifications and energy market redesigns that are much more complex than the actual technologies involved. Even 'cost-effective' solutions require an implementation pathway, and many proven measures face barriers to market entry, often due to the dominance of fossil incumbents or the lack of grid infrastructure and storage. As long as national policies are pulling in different directions, we won't have the net zero-aligned financial and regulatory framework that new technologies require to make a real impact. But the truth is that many emerging technologies simply can't compete with the growing affordability of solar PV, wind and battery technologies. So what are we waiting for, except the displeasure of the fossil fuel industry? Sadhbh O'Neill is a climate and environmental researcher
