Gender bias in science and medicine
Gender bias affects whose work is funded, published, recognised and heard in science and medicine. Medical communicators can address it through their choices of experts, interviewees, authors and citations.
Forms and consequences of bias
Gender bias is an inclination towards or prejudice against one gender; it can appear in pay, parental leave, funding, promotion and awards. In a 2010 survey of 1,301 US scientists with doctoral degrees, more than half of women reported experiencing gender bias, compared with 2% of men. Research cited in 2018 found that more than 60% of women in science, technology, engineering and medicine felt they had to provide more evidence of competence than men.
Women may bring perspectives shaped by experiences, such as childbirth, that differ significantly from men’s and affect design and decisions. Early airbags and voice-recognition systems performed poorly for women when female engineers were absent from car-design teams. Teams with diverse experiences and ideas often produce better outputs than teams with similar backgrounds; for example, an all-male team of doctors may design a delivery room around interventions rather than the normal physiology of birth.
EMWA’s 2024 call for gender equality in clinical research criticised the predominance of young healthy males in phase 1 studies, often male-majority participation in later studies, uncommon analyses by gender and treatment regimens that may not be adapted even to weight. Writers should promote diverse and inclusive clinical research as far as their roles allow. A medical translator’s critique compares prescribing women drugs studied mainly in men to treating children as small adults and calculating doses pro rata.
Representation in science and publishing
US figures reported in 2018 put women at 51.5% of adults over 18, approximately 47% of all job holders and 24% of STEM job holders. Doctorate holders and tenure-track faculty are often manuscript authors and sought as thought leaders. By 2018, women’s share of US science and engineering doctorates had risen substantially over several decades but had remained around 40% since 2009; women held an estimated 25% to 35% of US tenure-track faculty positions. Studies cited in 2018 put women’s share of medical-journal editorial positions at 10% to 15%. In 2018, Nature appointed the first female editor-in-chief in its 149-year history.
Pay, funding and awards
A 2016 report put the median salary of female US science and engineering doctorate holders 24% below men’s. Gender pay gaps were also reported among US medical academics and providers, including unequal pay and lower reimbursement.
Studies reported gender bias in grant peer review that disadvantaged female scientists in funding and publication. Among physicians reporting financial relationships with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, women received $15,000 less in research funding than men after adjustment for confounders (P = .05). Studies also found women less likely to receive NIH R01 awards and receiving smaller awards when successful.
In the 2017 NIH Early Independence Award round, men represented approximately 45% of applicants and received more than 70% of awards; gender was undisclosed in 29% of applications. Research comparing Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant programmes found a smaller gender gap when reviewers assessed the research proposal than when they assessed the applicant’s experience and qualifications. Women’s lower international mobility and lower likelihood of international research collaboration can also disadvantage their careers. Funding, leadership and salary gaps can delay or prevent tenure-track progression or contribute to leaving academia.
Studies found women received a smaller share of scholarly awards than their share of full professorships in many disciplines. Possible explanations include fewer descriptions of exceptional ability and more words such as “cooperative” and “dependable” in supporting letters, nomination language with male associations such as “decisive” and “confident”, and the awarding committee’s gender composition. Recognition, grants, publications and promotion build credibility and further opportunities, so women receiving less recognition and publishing less may also lose associated financial benefits.
Authorship and peer review
Studies cited in 2018 reported underrepresentation of women as authors and editors despite a narrowing gap, including underrepresentation among authors of perspective articles. Such articles can influence a field differently from research papers. Mentorship gaps in which junior women seldom coauthor with senior men contribute to disparities in leadership and promotion. Male editors often invite male reviewers, leaving too few women involved in peer review. These accumulated disadvantages impede women’s editorial-board membership, grant funding, conference invitations, hiring, promotion and collaboration.
A study found that clinical-trial papers with a male first author and female last author most often reported adequate statistical power, compared with papers with female first and last authors, male first and last authors, or a female first and male last author. A website accompanying research on PubMed-listed papers plots historical and projected gender ratios among authors.
Invited talks
Awards, funding, mentorship, first- or senior-author publications, h-index, productivity and citations contribute to scientific eminence and invitations to speak. Women’s representation on invited panels has generally been low, and omitting prominent, qualified women widens the gap. Studies found that female organisers invited female speakers and improved panels’ gender balance.
Patent rights
In an adjusted analysis of US patent data, teams of women inventors in the life sciences were 11% less likely than teams of men to have an application accepted. Women also had less favourable outcomes across other measures of obtaining and maintaining patent rights, including in life sciences and technology.
Actions in medical communication
Medical communicators can influence women’s visibility and how they are perceived in science. Recognising inherent gender biases is a first step towards changing them.
Female thought leaders can be found through searches such as “female [therapeutic area] specialist” or “women’s [therapeutic area]”, women’s subcommittees of professional organisations, and referrals from experts to female colleagues. Anne’s List, AcademiaNet and 500 Women Scientists’ request-a-scientist service are resources for finding women scientists. Communicators should draw colleagues’ and clients’ attention to imbalances among authors or experts and consciously balance citations of female and male authors, using these searches where needed.
Conference reports and news articles should include interviews with female experts, ask comparable questions of all interviewees and give their answers equal weight. Peers and clients can learn about gender bias and ways to counter it through social media, blog posts, publications, meetings and seminars. Blinded review can be used for papers or reviews where applicable. Awareness and conscious effort can counteract some bias and give greater visibility to a wider range of ideas and previously overlooked people.