The Invisible Patients: Rewriting the Story of Women in Clinical Science. Part 2: The Evolution Underway
How Science Failed Women and How It's Changing
From the desk of Colleen Quinn I approach this topic not as a medical doctor or licensed practitioner, but as a researcher and strategist deeply invested in the intersection of clinical proof and human health. This piece represents my analysis of the current landscape and is intended to provoke thought, not to provide medical diagnosis or treatment.
Part 1: The Legacy of Neglect
The Evolution Underway - Signs of Meaningful Change
Today's research environment reflects growing awareness that women's health extends far beyond reproductive health. The conversation has expanded to encompass sex-based differences across the full spectrum of medical conditions, from oncology to neurology to infectious disease.
Pharmaceutical companies now routinely conduct sex-specific analyses in drug development, driven both by regulatory requirements and recognition that understanding how therapies work across diverse populations leads to better products and broader markets. The FDA's 2014 decision to lower the recommended dose of zolpidem (Ambien) for women after evidence showed women metabolize the drug more slowly than men, leading to dangerous next-morning impairment, demonstrated that sex-specific dosing guidance has real clinical applications.
Academic institutions are establishing dedicated women's health research centers plus the rise of precision medicine, which aims to tailor treatments to individual patient characteristics including biological sex, has created momentum for more nuanced research approaches. Large-scale biobank initiatives like the UK Biobank and the NIH's All of Us Research Program are collecting data from diverse populations, including detailed information about sex-based differences in health outcomes.
Technology is also playing a role in addressing historical gaps. Digital health tools and apps focused on tracking menstrual cycles, fertility, and menopause symptoms are generating unprecedented amounts of data about women's health experiences. While privacy and data quality concerns remain, this information represents a rich resource for understanding conditions that have been understudied through traditional research channels.
The growing field of maternal health research reflects increased attention to women's unique health needs. Maternal mortality in the United States, particularly among Black women has become a focal point for researchers and policymakers examining systemic failures in women's healthcare. Studies examining pregnancy complications, postpartum recovery, and long-term health outcomes after pregnancy are revealing how much remains unknown about this fundamental biological experience.
Persistent Challenges: The Work That Remains
Despite progress, significant gaps persist. Women remain underrepresented in many areas of clinical research, particularly in early-phase trials. A 2020 systematic review published in Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications found that women comprised only 41% of participants in clinical trials across all therapeutic areas and representation was even lower in certain specialties.
Funding disparities continue to reflect skewed priorities. Conditions affecting primarily women often receive research funding disproportionately low relative to their disease burden. For example, Endometriosis, which affects approximately 10% of women of reproductive age and can cause debilitating pain, takes an average of 7-8 years to diagnose and has historically received minimal research funding. Menopause, a universal experience for women who reach midlife, was barely studied until recent years.
The research we do have often fails to translate into clinical practice. Even when studies include women and report sex-based differences, this information frequently does not reach the physicians prescribing treatments. Medical education has been slow to integrate sex-based medicine into curricula, meaning many practicing physicians are not trained to consider how biological sex might affect diagnosis and treatment decisions.
Intersectionality adds another layer of complexity. Women are not a monolithic group, and research must account for how race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and other factors intersect with biological sex to influence health outcomes. Black women, for example, face significantly worse maternal health outcomes than white women in the United States, reflecting systemic racism in healthcare alongside biological factors. LGBTQ+ individuals face unique health challenges that are only beginning to receive research attention.
The Path Forward: Building a More Inclusive Research Ecosystem
The future of clinical research in women's health isn't just about increasing representation in trials - though that remains essential. It requires fundamentally rethinking how we approach biomedical research, who asks the questions, and what questions we prioritize.
Emerging research areas offer particular promise. Studies examining the menstrual cycle's effects on everything from medication efficacy to athletic performance to mental health are revealing how much we've missed by treating hormonal variation as a confounding variable to be controlled rather than a biological reality to be understood. Research into perimenopause and menopause is finally accelerating, driven partly by demographic shifts as large cohorts of women age and demand better information.
“Endometriosis, which affects approximately 10% of women of reproductive age and can cause debilitating pain, takes an average of 7-8 years to diagnose and has historically received minimal research funding. Menopause, a universal experience for women who reach midlife, was barely studied until recent years.”
The gut microbiome represents another frontier where sex-based research is revealing important differences. Evidence suggests the composition of gut bacteria differs between men and women and may play a role in sex-based differences in autoimmune diseases, mental health conditions, and response to certain treatments.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning tools offer potential to identify patterns in existing data that might reveal sex-based differences previously overlooked. However, these technologies also carry risks of perpetuating bias if trained on datasets that reflect historical inequities in who was studied.
Perhaps most importantly, the research workforce itself is becoming more diverse. As more women enter and advance in scientific research, particularly in leadership positions, research priorities are shifting to include questions that matter to women's lived experiences. Community-engaged research approaches that involve patients in setting research agendas ensure that studies address the questions women themselves find most pressing.
A Vision for the Future
The evolution of clinical research in women's health represents more than correcting past oversights, it's about building a healthcare system that recognizes and responds to the full spectrum of human biological diversity. When research includes women from the start, when sex-based analysis is standard rather than exceptional, and when women's health concerns are taken seriously across the lifespan, we don't just achieve equity, we achieve better science.
Dr. Hadine Joffe, Executive Director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women's Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women's Hospital, frames the imperative clearly: "We're not asking for special treatment. We're asking for good science. When we design studies that account for biological sex and include diverse populations, we get more accurate, more reproducible results that lead to better treatments for everyone."
The transformation underway in women's health research reflects growing recognition that precision medicine cannot be precise if it ignores half the population. As we move forward, the question is not whether to include women in research, that debate is settled. The questions now are how quickly we can close existing gaps, how we ensure research translates into clinical care, and how we build systems that prevent future inequities.
From where we have been - a research landscape that treated women's bodies as aberrations from a male norm - to where we're going - an ecosystem that recognizes biological sex as a fundamental variable in human health - the journey is far from complete . But the direction is clear and the momentum is building. For the women who have waited too long for medicine that works for them, that progress offers genuine hope.
Sources
Saini, A. (2017). Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong and the New Research That's Rewriting the Story. Beacon Press.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2001). "Drug Safety: Most Drugs Withdrawn in Recent Years Had Greater Health Risks for Women." GAO-01-286R.
National Institutes of Health, Office of Research on Women's Health. "Sex as a Biological Variable." https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-gender/nih-policy-sex-biological-variable
Mogil, J. S., & Bailey, A. L. (2010). "Sex and gender differences in pain and analgesia." Progress in Brain Research, 186, 141-157.
Zucker, I., & Prendergast, B. J. (2020). "Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women." Biology of Sex Differences, 11(1), 32.
Scott, P. E., Unger, E. F., Jenkins, M. R., et al. (2018). "Participation of Women in Clinical Trials Supporting FDA Approval of Cardiovascular Drugs." Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 71(18), 1960-1969.
Kim, A. M., Tingen, C. M., & Woodruff, T. K. (2010). "Sex bias in trials and treatment must end." Nature, 465(7299), 688-689.
Beery, A. K., & Zucker, I. (2011). "Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research." Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 565-572.
Petersen, E. E., Davis, N. L., Goodman, D., et al. (2019). "Vital Signs: Pregnancy-Related Deaths, United States, 2011–2015, and Strategies for Prevention, 13 States, 2013–2017." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(18), 423-429.
Labots, G., Jones, A., de Visser, S. J., et al. (2018). "Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?" British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 84(4), 700-707.