Geeking Science: Organ Donations and Statistics

A Facebook friend share with me a picture with the following words: Just learned that 80% of organ donors are women and 70% of receivers are men and now I think I might remove myself from the donor program because WTAF (what the ACTUAL fuck).

This is a truly troubling set of statistics if true, as women are 51% of the population and men are 49% (Census – 2010, 50.9% female) and donors and recipients should match the population…or should they?

Time for a statistical dive into organ donations!

First question, is the meme even true? Some meme are just pieces of information created – like if I said, memes accurately quote scientific articles 35% of the time…I just made it up, but it sounds true.

First hit on the google search: “The 2021 report from the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO) reveals a troubling gender disparity in organ donation: 80% of organ recipients were men, while 75% of organ donors were women.” (Anagha) Now, Organisation (with an “s”) indicates this isn’t an American group – this report is from a national-level group answering to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in New Delhi, India. The numbers also don’t align with the original meme, but seeing how things work in another country can be helpful with a look into America. This statistic is interesting: In India, 27.7% of all living donor transplants are spouses, but 87% of the spouses doing the donation are the wives. (Anagha)

Even in Switzerland, for living kidney donors, 22% are women donating to their partners but only 8% are male. In the US and Germany, the ratio in both countries is wives donate to partners twice as often as husband to their wives for kidney donations. If you look at the Switzerland numbers, they could also be easily described as two-to-one ratio as well.

I’m not finding information with either the original numbers of the meme, nor information from America, but that still doesn’t mean the mean isn’t true, especially when reviewing how common this disparity is in around the world.

Second step, what are the statistics we need to look at? This isn’t just one statistic being presented, it is two: gender differences in donors and gender differences in receivers. More men than women receive, and more women than men give. Do men need the medical treatment more than women? Are women in a better position to donate than men? These two statistics need to be broken apart if they are to be studied properly.

I think figuring out the recipients will be simpler, so let’s start there.

Third, breaking out the first of the statistics, why do men receive more organ donations than women?

Well, what are the organ donations that people need? We get a hint that Kidney is going to be a be a big one based on the first hit which had statistics from four different countries on the rate of living donations for kidneys. Everyone hears about heart and lung donations, but over 85% of the people waiting for a donations are waiting for a kidney donation – and that is one of the few donations which can have a living donor! Still matches need to be made. The list of organs waiting on donation as of July 30, 2026 in order of amount: Kidney (84.8%), Liver (7.8%), Heart (3.6%), Kidney & Pancreas (2%), Lung (0.8%), Pancreas (0.7%), Heart & Lung (0.03%), plus “other” (0.1%). (HRSA)

So the biggest category on the waiting list BY FAR is Kidney. Do men have a higher rate of kidney disease than women? Because if they do, the 70% of receivers could be explained by a simple rate of disease impact. According to the NIH, the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 1 in 7 US adults have chronic kidney disease, with the chronic version being slightly more common in women (14%) then men (12%). (NIH)

Oh, that is a problem, if more women then men have kidney disease. Reading deeper, I found a VERY important statistic: For end-stage kidney disease where 68% are on dialysis, men are 1.6 times more likely than women to be in end-stage. I hate when they don’t give us equivalent statistics to work with; it is like they are deliberately hiding data. But if this is the case, the split between men and women in end-stage is about 60-40, I think, if I am interpreting their number right. (NIH)

That is HUGE! With 70% of the organ donation recipients male, and 85% of all organ donation kidney, and 60% of the kidney needs male – that explains at least some of the discrepancy right there. If a similar carries over the statistic applying to all the organ needs, then the natural split of organ recipients should be 60% male to 40% female, not the natural 50-50 one would expect by population or the 70-30 which is actually happening.

More details – 46% of those in end-stage kidney disease AND put on the waiting list receive a transplant within five years. Children (under 17) are the most likely at 85% – again, kidney can be done by living donors so family members are move likely to get tested for a donation when a child is involved. Most of the children donations are likely (no indication though is given, so this is a guess) from the adults around them. Females on the list are 47% likely to get a transplant while men are 45% likely to get a transplant.  (NIH)

That is interesting; no indication is given about number of males versus number of females on the transplant list but statistically once on the list there is about an equal chance of getting the needed donation.

So it is looking like the bias is not getting the surgery, it is getting on the list in the first place. Which is likely a combination of referral for treatment and then consideration of the extremity of the disease, both of which the medical community has shown as measurable statistical deviation against women. In fact the Sowinski conference report states “Women may be less likely to be perceived as transplant candidates and are referred less often.” Complicating that also is “Women may have family and other obligations that prevent completion of the evaluation process.” So they are less likely to be referred for treatment, less likely to follow the testing requirements, and less likely to be approved for transplants.

But does this statistic cross to other donations?

A little search, I found an article about sex differences in heart transplants by Chung et al. Only 25% of the candidates for heart transplant are women, with a matching overall number in recipients. Again, it looks like if a person can get on the waiting list, they get the help they need regardless of gender. The challenge is getting on the list. The challenges women face in the heart, again is diagnosis, testing, and referral.

Solution to Recipient Problem: The problem isn’t the transplant waitlist, but the system to get on the waitlist. The medical community is working on being more aware of the male bias baked into the system. More testing and studies need to be done for women, doctors need to be aware of the bias they bring to the door, and accommodations need to be made for the different social roles women usually serve, such as primary caregiver to children and elderly adults. The medical community knows of these issues and are working on it. The 70%-30% recipient of transplantation is just one of the many symptoms. Hopefully time will reduce this problem; but this is one of the statistics to use as a rubric of success in reduction and eventual elimination of gender bias within the medical institution.

Fourth, the second statistical question, why do women donate more than men? And how can that be fixed to?

First, indication of why there is a difference is that statistic of 85% of children get a kidney donation. The statistic of donation does not break out living donations versus deceased donations. Here is a matching interesting statistic – women do 33% of their donations between the ages of the 35 and 49 (Ruzicka). One in three of their donations, living and deceased, happen after the major child-bearing years but before their children are fully grown. The mother already gave her body to her child, giving up a kidney to keep them alive (if compatible) is a natural consequence.

In fact, over 60% of the donations for women happen during the child-caretaking years. Men on the other hand donate as children (22%) or 18-34 (22%); around age 30 is when the ratio of men to women changes. More men than women are born, but overall, there are more women than men. This is because before age 30, males die at a higher rate than women by accident (trauma) and disease. Men donating more at the earlier ages likely aren’t living donations but deceased donations.

Yee shares that while the vast majority of living organ donors are women, only 40% of the deceased donors are women.

So when women are alive to be pressured into donating for family and spouses, they do so, whereas men donate after dying from trauma. This can be a problem, especially in the heart and lung situation where size can impact who can receive the donation. In addition, some transplants do seem to have some minor gender benefits for like-to-like matches, so having men being the deceased donors by a 60-40 ratio reduces some of the donation effectivity for women – decreasing their chances of receiving a donation.

Solution to the donation problem: One, get men and women to sign up for deceased organ donation, and make sure the family is aware of the person’s wishes. 10% of all families refuse to consider organ donation, and the majority of the rejections were for females who passed. (Yee) Organ donations discussions need to happen in advance of the emergency.

Two, men need to participate in the living donation for the kidney and the partial liver at the rates women do. That is really where the discrepancy in donation is happening. Not on the slab, but in the home. Don’t pressure the females; everyone in the family should be tested.

It isn’t that the women are doing too much, it is men aren’t doing enough. And it can be done while living.

IN CONCLUSION

Organ donation and organ transplantation are a complicated multifactorial situation impacted by multiple society and culture circumstances. A simple meme giving two stats hardly covers the consideration the conversation deserves. Remember this when facing other 15-second meme lore drops.

Also, if you haven’t signed up for organ donation, do so, and let your family know your wishes.

 

Bibliography

Anagha BP. “Gender disparity in organ donations: She gives, He received.” Change in Content. 2024 October 14. Last viewed 8/16/2026. https://www.changeincontent.com/gender-disparity-in-organ-donation/

Census. “Quick Facts.” www.census.gov. page for April 1, 2010 data. Last viewed 8/16/2026. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/LFE046224

Chung, Alice; Heidi Hartman & Ersillia M. DeFilippis. “Sex Differences in Cardiac Transplantation.” Springer Nature Lin. 2023 December 07. Last viewed 8/16/2026. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11883-023-01169-0

HRSA – Health Resources & Services Administration. “Organ Donation Statistics.” Last viewed 8/16/2026. https://www.organdonor.gov/learn/organ-donation-statistics

NIH – National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “Kidney Disease Statistics for the United States.” Last viewed 8/16/2026. https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/kidney-disease

Ruzicka, Emilla. “Who is most likely to donate organs in the US?” Northwell Health. 2023 April 24. Last viewed 8/16/2026. https://www.northwell.edu/news/the-latest/how-the-demographics-of-organ-donors-differ-by-state

Sowinski, Deirdre, et al. (It’s over ten names, look it up) “Addressing sex-based disparities in solid organ transplantation in the United States – a conference report.” American Journal of TRANSPLANATION. Volume 23, Issue 3. 2023 March. Last viewed 8/16/2026. https://www.amjtransplant.org/article/S1600-6135(22)24785-6/fulltext

Yee, Erika, et.al. (Erika Yee, BS; Seyedeh Maryam Hosseini, MD; Bianca Duarte, BS; Shannon M. Knapp, PhD; Molly Carnes, MD, MS; Bessie Young, MD, MPH; Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD; and Khadijah Breathett, MD, MS) “Sex Disparities in Organ Donation: Finding an Equitable Donor Pool.” Journal of the American Heart Association. 2021 September 24. Last viewed 8/16/2026. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.121.020820

Geeking Science: EELS

Version 1.0 of the EELS robot during field testing in Alberta, Canada, in September 2023. | Source: NASA/JPL-Caltech

No, that isn’t an AI image. They really have made a snake-like robot. And it is SUPER COOL!!! (and not just because it is made to explore icy planets)

Here is another picture just to prove this thing has been built and is presently in testing. See, real people (if you are willing to call scientists that) are standing around watching it. You may be asking WHY? Why are they creating the stuff of nightmares? Well, to make our space exploration dreams come true.

Not everything can be explored with rovers and flying drones. EELS  offers a third option. The drill design allows the thirteen foot long robot to cross loose soil and even go into crevasses. Things the hard-working Mars and Moon rovers get bogged down in. With the AI-decision protocols (yes, this nightmare fueled design has state-of-the-art AI built in, and not just for making art on social media), the robot can figure out how to get from here-to-there using its corkscrew apparatus.  The AI will allow the explorer to operate on Saturn’s moon Enceladus and other distant surfaces without constant checking back in with ground control. Mars is bad enough with distances between four and twenty light minutes in one direction; Saturn (and her moons) start at seventy-one minutes one direction and could be as much as eighty-eight minutes depending on the Earth-Saturn relative positions in orbit around Sol.

On Earth, EELS (Exobiology Extant Life Surveyor) is being tested on glaciers and may be used in the future for glacier mapping and rescue. The tether sends information back to the main platform rover, in this way EELS is like the flying drones – dependent on additional equipment. For search and rescue, the tether and AI mechanisms will allow quick deployment and transfer of information. Nothing is just for space.

While still a ways off for deployment, you can see it in action in the following YouTube video:


Bibliography

Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “Shape-Shifting Serpent of Space: NASA’s EELS Robot Revolutionizes Extraterrestrial Exploration.” SciTechDaily. 2023 May 9. https://scitechdaily.com/shape-shifting-serpent-of-space-nasas-eels-robot-revolutionizes-extraterrestrial-exploration/ – last viewed 4/26/25.

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “Testing Out JPL’s New Snake Robot.” YouTube. 2024.  (See embedded video)

Vaquero, Daddi, Thakker, Patton, Jasour, etal. “EELS” Autonomous Snake-like robot with task and motion planning capabilities for ice world exploration.” ScienceRobotics. (Volume 9 Issue 88) 2024 March 13. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.adh8332 – last viewed 4/26/25.

Wessling, Brianna. “CMU, NASA JPL collaborate to make EELS snake robot to explore distant oceans.” The RobotReport. 2024 April 13. https://www.therobotreport.com/cmu-nasa-jpl-collaborate-make-eels-snake-robot-explore-distant-oceans/ – last viewed 4/26/25.

Geeking Science: Artemis Accords

Government provided logo for the Artemis Accords

The Artemis Project (returning mankind to the Moon by 2026 to develop a testing station for technology to use when visiting other planets, a research station for learning about our Moon, and port for jumping off to explore Mars) has created the opportunity for the Artemis Accords. Over forty countries have signed the Accords, that is a fifth of Earth’s nations. (Note that the biggest “competitors” to the USA in space, China and Russia, have not joined.) 

This is something to Geek About!!!

“The accords establish a practical set of principles to guide space exploration cooperation among nations. … The Artemis Accords reinforce and implement key obligations in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. They also strengthen the commitment by the United States and signatory nations to the Registration Convention, the Rescue and Return Agreement, as well as best practices NASA and its partners support, including the public release of scientific data. More countries are expected to sign the accords in the months and years ahead, which are advancing safe, peaceful, and prosperous activities in space.” (Bardan)

That said, the Artemis Accords are very USA centered in the interpretation of how space law should work, including the commercial activities such as mining. Both Russia and China object to that base. (Wikipedia)

The key principals in the Accords is as follows (from Lea):

  1. Peaceful Exploration of space
  2. Transparency / public release of scientific information
  3. Emergency Assistance
  4. Registration of Space Objects
  5. Preserving Heritage – Preserving robot or human landing sites of historical significance
  6. Space Resources – Extracting and using resources from celestial bodies is needed to explore space and permitted.
  7. Orbital Debris.

The full Artemis Accords wording can be found here: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Artemis-Accords-signed-13Oct2020.pdf

The Orbital Debris (Section 12) is an interesting addition and includes both reduction of the present debris and requiring all new space structures come with a de-orbit plan for safe disposal. I also adore the Transparency section.

Fingers-crossed, the spirit of international cooperation will continue.

Biography

Bardan, Roxana. “NASA Welcomes Greece as Newest Artemis Accords Signatory.” NASA. 2024 Feb 9. (https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-welcomes-greece-as-newest-artemis-accords-signatory/ – last viewed 5/22/2024)

Lea, Robert. “Artemis Accords: What are they & which countries are involved?” space.com. 2024 May 16. (https://www.space.com/artemis-accords-explained – last viewed 5/22/2024)

NASA. “The Artemis Accords.” (undated) (https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords/ – last viewed 5/22/2024)

US Mission Unvie. “An Interview with NASA’s Kevin Conole.” US Mission to International Organizations in Vienna. 2022 February 25. (https://vienna.usmission.gov/nasas-kevin-conole-on-the-artemis-accords/ – last viewed 5/22/2024)

Wikipedia. “Artemis Accords.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_Accords – last viewed 5/22/2024

Geeking Science: Cementing Solar Power’s Future

Photo by Daniele La Rosa Messina on Unsplash

I’m looking forward to a future with Solar Power and unchaining mankind’s future from fossil fuels. But I have always watched it with a careful eye – solar panels needed fossil fuels to create them initially. Then batteries good enough for cars suck up the scare lithium of our planet, using either pit mining techniques or extensive chemicals sprayed underground, with the possibility of entering the water table, to extract the necessary ore. All the while Climate Change and our huge carbon footprint has been ticking a countdown clock.

Will we, as a species, beat the clock we set in motion? Will we run out of coal, (a resource created before microbes started breaking down plantlife (as found in the planet’s present cycle of growth, death and renewal) and so now will never be created again)? We will run out of oil (a resource made on the bones of dinosaurs long extinct)? Will we stop burning our plantlife, releasing carbon into the atmosphere before the greenhouse moves from oven-warming to full-on bake?

Two new things carry a lot of promise of making solar energy cheaper and even more feasible, and they don’t come with a huge chemical price tag further damaging our environment either gathering the material or making it.

The first is a carbon material that is strong, light, and conductive. Resulting from a $20 million investment by the US Air Force, Department of Energy, and NASA, Galvorn is made by splitting hydrocarbons and basically can be made into a variety of fiber-like products: yarn, thread, or mesh cloth. As strong as steel and as light as aluminum, the material can be used instead of rebar to support cement. All the crazy things Frank Lloyd Wright did with the new reinforced concrete may be taken on another level by those who dare to experiment. Imagine walls with areas built in for recharging (because Galvorn is also as conductive as copper)! Beyond sneakers flashing while walking, entire outfits could be designed to carry electric needs. Already used to help de-ice plane wings, this light material applications are only beginning to be defined. (Kazmer)

An added bonus is Galvorn types up carbon. MIT also used carbon to develop a new supercapacitor. While cutting back on carbon footprint has been a struggle when going green, combining green materials with containing carbon is a win-win. Simple readily available cheap renewal materials to make green products. Winning the Geeking Science game all the way around.

And as cool as what Galvorn is, MIT really outdid themselves. They made cement into a supercapacitor. Not just a conductor, moving energy from one place to another, like Galvorn, but a capacitor – a storage device! We can solar power all the houses we want, but without the ability to store the energy to be used at night or on rainy days, power grids (and power grid failures) won’t be going away.

But now imagine if the cement foundation of the house stored about a day’s worth of energy! Fill it up during the day, use it during a long winter’s night. Still not perfect for rainy Seattle, but a huge step in the storage solution. Carbon is carried by water throughout the cement mix and creates a percolated carbon network. So much win all the way around – still strong enough to be a foundation to a house (still need testing on longevity), no new equipment needed to be build in or maintained, no real change in how a house functions for the people living inside it. The perfect answer to a solar house needs; as new buildings are built, solar roofs and cement capacitor foundations will become a way of life. It won’t be as good for urban environments, but wait … there is more. (Chandler)

Road are made from concrete, of which one of the primary ingredients is cement. Imagine road being recharging stations for electric cars. You drive, but you don’t run out of power! Just like the wireless technology to charge your phone, the capacitor-cement will recharge your car. Parking lots could have solar pavilion coverings (a god-send of shade in the south), which immediately dump the energy into the storage that is the parking lot cement itself, and recharging the cars in the lot without anyone plugging in.

Folks this is hard near-future science fiction. We have the technology; we just have to implement it.

Cheap, easy, sustainable. No extra work for the average joe or joan. It isn’t even a lot of new skills for construction workers – a few new tests to make sure the capacitor distributed appropriately during the drying process. The next step is develop the machines and distribute them; some incentives will be needed for companies, because new equipment always is costly.

If you have been putting off getting an electric car because of lack of distance and/or ability to recharge, imagine if every Interstate was basically one long trip without a single plug-in needed. No gas cost at all from New York to LA.

I want this for Christmas.

Bibliography

Chandler, David L. “MIT engineers create an energy-storing supercapacitor from ancient materials.” MIT News. 31 July 2023. (https://news.mit.edu/2023/mit-engineers-create-supercapacitor-ancient-materials-0731 – last viewed 11/16/2023)

Kazmer, Rich. “Scientists discover ‘magical’ material that’s stronger than steel and lighter than aluminum – and its potential is dizzying.” The Cool Down. 29 October 2023. (https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/galvorn-material-conductivity-steel-electronics-copper/ – last viewed 11/16/2023)

Geeking Science: Reading and the Brain

Photo by Hal Gatewood on Unsplash

When I surface from a book and sounds return to my ears, I’m always amazed at how deep a book can take you. Peripheral vision goes as I focus on the words. Sounds processing diminishes as my eyes turn over the words to process through the hearing and speech centers. And when I emerge, the aches and pains of my body return. And, strangely, the last scent and taste described in the scene linger against my nose and tongue.

Reading is intense.

It activates our brain feel the words before us – a crackling fire teases our ears and warms our fingers, a favorite sweater pulls our hair as the hero yanks it over his head, and a punch whistling before the heroine’s face causes our heart to jump in a fight or flight mix.

This gives writers a very particular power. “According to neuroscience, we have two different types of memory: semantic and episodic.” (DeFreitas)

Semantic is library storage – things learned and then shelved. They go moldy over time if they are not taken down and brushed off. For some people, Algebra is no longer a thing and for others, the history dates memorized to carefully pass tests in high school. If you can web them into other things, sharing shelf space, they stay clean longer and are easier to restore – checks are similar to deposits and paying bills online. It might take a moment to remember all the details needed to write a check at this point, but so long as you keep the rest of the banking-system shelf active, it can be done.

Episodic memory is capturing a whole scene. The time you cried your heart out because you lost a card game, going off to overnight camp the first time, a first kiss. You remember names, and smells, and lights, and emotions.

It’s like reading a scene in a book.

Now here is the Geeking Science part to tap into for NaNoWriMo – please use this power for good. You want people to remember something – not just the facts, but the emotions, write the information to activate the episodic memory, not the semantic. We all remember The Diary of a Young Girl (Anne Frank’s Diary) because of the emotions, not the facts. People argue about whether the holocaust occurred, but that book, that gave teens something to hang history onto.

Create stories to expose people new thoughts, new people, new concepts, new science. They might never really “get” it when they read it in a newspaper, but the fiction reaches them. They see it, they hear it, they smell it. They feel it.

Now, go write.

Go read.

Bibliography

DeFreitas, Susan. “The Fascinating Neuroscience of the Scene.” Jane Friedman. 8 June 2023. (https://janefriedman.com/the-fascinating-neuroscience-of-scene/ – last viewed 11/16/2023)