Jerilynn C. Prior BA, MD, FRCPC
I’ve decided to cross the Canada border into the USA—to attend the Endocrine Society Conference this July. This is not a trivial decision for someone like me. Most Canadians are avoiding the border these days on general principle as an objection to “The 47th’s” and the current USA administration’s willful disregard of our sovereignty.
But I have additional reasons. I was born in the USA and came to Canada in 1976 to work as a physician in a publicly-funded health system. I happily gave up my citizenship in 1983 when dual USA-Canadian citizenship was not allowed. But the US government changed that rule sometime since; border agents may well think I am still American. In addition, in the USA as in Canada, before I ended up taking the issue of conscientious objection to military taxation through the Canadian court system, I was perceived by the USA’s IRS as owing taxes. Instead, I directed the proportion related to military to positive, peace-focused community programmes.
I’m going to the Endocrine Society even though both the University of British Columbia and the union for all academics across Canada (The Canadian Association of University Teachers) recommend that: “academics travel to the U.S. only if essential and necessary. . ..” Others closer to home have concerns, including a relative I will visit in Oregon on the way back. She wrote, “I just hate that I have to write this. I really want to see you but I’m worried about the risk if you cross the border. . .. It is hideous what is happening in my country right now. . ..” Likewise, my partner is very negative about my USA travel.
In addition, in Canadian dollars it will be expensive since the Canadian dollar is worth only about 70 cents US. I have never had academic support for conferences and by the time I go I will no longer be a UBC Professor, but rather Professor Emerita, and unpaid.
I’m going to the ENDO 2025 conference because I am committed.
One commitment is to support research trainees. Three UBC trainees who have worked hard to do important research have earned presentations at this meeting. Our most significant research is by a hard-working and people-skilled woman, Katlin Nelson, who earned her master’s degree by expertly and conscientiously supporting 26 participants in a six-month feasibility study of an innovative polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) treatment. For the very first time we have practical evidence that Cyclic Progesterone and an anti-androgen therapy remarkably improved the health-related quality of life of those with PCOS.
A second researcher, Dr. Mary Wood, a second-year internal medicine resident, who started this study when she was a medical student, analyzed breast data from daily diaries of 53 healthy premenopausal women collected over one-year during which they also documented menstrual cycles and ovulatory characteristics. These data, clearly show that, apart from premenstrual syndrome, breast tenderness and swelling—normally, slightly, and significantly increase in the late luteal phase of ovulatory menstrual cycles. These cycles with normal luteal phase lengths and likely with slightly higher estrogen levels show breast changes that are not present in similar-length cycles with short luteal phases or anovulation.
Finally, the third researcher, Dr. Ally Baaske, is still a medical student, just going into her fourth year. She analyzed cross-sectional breast areolar diameter data in 71 community women who collected one menstrual cycle’s diary and ovulation data during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Most information on the size of the areolae have been in support of cosmetic breast surgery. Our data allowed us to describe the size of the areolae related to body size, ethnicity, age, and cycle characteristics in healthy women. We also learned that the left areola is significantly bigger than the right.
My other commitment is to “knowledge translation” or sharing of research results accessibly. For more than two decades it has been the commitment of the Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research to share the results of all our studies.
If something is worth researching, it is necessary to share the results.
We commit to first share results with the volunteers who give their time and energy to our studies. Secondly, we vow to share with other scientists, through both scientific conferences as well as peer reviewed publications. Once, it took me over 12 years to get the results of a randomized controlled trial showing that conjugated equine estrogen (Premarin©) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (Provera©) a progestin, were equally good at controlling hot flushes and night sweats in women with surgical menopause (both ovaries and uterus removed) when they were still menstruating.
Lastly and most importantly, we want to share the results with the general public, often whose tax dollars have supported our research. Why is it necessary and key to share with the community? Because they are the ones who—armed with this information—will ask their doctors for this new therapy or will make personal decisions based on our results. Given how slow to change medicine is—the informed, active and persistent patient is likely the key to changing our current standards of care. This strategy also bypasses the pharmaceutical and professional vested interests that often shape clinical guidelines and dominate medical reviews. At CeMCOR, we prioritize sharing research findings directly with women+ through our website—in clear, accessible formats so that individuals can make informed health decisions and confidently advocate for evidence-based care.
I’m leaving Canada, briefly and reluctantly, to attend this conference because I am committed to do what supports my research trainees, is beneficial for science, and to amplify accurate, knowledge-based women+’s reproductive care.