Gendered Innovations in Biomedicine and Public Health Research

  • Londa Schiebinger


Innovations surrounding sex and gender have transformed many aspects of biomedical and public health research in the past three decades. Cardiology offers one of the best developed examples of gendered innovations: Sex and gender analyses have shown, for example, that cardiovascular disease (CVD), long defined as primarily a male disease, is the number one killer of adult women. Analyzing sex differences in CVD has led researchers to understand that heart attack symptoms differ by sex,1 that diagnostic tests, such as the exercise treadmill, differ in efficacy between men and women,2 and that aspirin is not a good primary preventive measure against heart attack in women.3


Gender Bias Public Health Research Woman Faculty Gender Analysis Male Disease 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    McSweeney J, Cody M, O’Sullivan P, Elberson K, Moser D, Garvin B. Women’s early warning symptoms of acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2003;108:2619–2623. Portions of this chapter have appeared in Schiebinger L, Schraudner M, Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine, and engineering, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, special issue on Gender in science, ed. Elizabeth Pollitzer, 2011;36, no. 2: (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Regitz-Zagrosek V. Therapeutic implications of the gender-specific aspects of cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5:154-167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ridker P, Cook N, Lee IM, et al. A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(13):1293-1304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schousboe J, Taylor B, Fink H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of bone densitometry followed by treatment of osteoporosis in older men. J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298(6):629-637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Looker A, Orwoll E, Johnston C, et al. Prevalence of low femoral bone density in older U.S. adults from NHANES III. J Bone Miner Res. 1997;11(12):1761-1768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Science Foundation. Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1982. For a review of NSF programs, see Rosser S. Building two-way streets to implement policies that work for gender in science. In: Schiebinger L, ed. Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2008:182-197.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ETAN Expert Working Group. Science Policies in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission; 2000; European Commission. She Figures. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2003.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowles H, Babcock L, Lai L. Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;103:84-103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schiebinger L. The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    For NSF ADVANCE, see See also LaVaque-Manty D, Stewart A. “A very scholarly intervention”: recruiting women faculty in science and engineering. In: Schiebinger L, ed. Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2008:165-181.
  11. 11.
    Meta-Analysis of Gender and Science Research at See also U.S. National Academies. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.
  12. 12.
    Schiebinger L. Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beery A, Zucker I. Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011;35 (3):565-572; Wald C, Wu C. Of mice and women: the bias in animal models. Science. 2010;327:1571-1572; Zucker I, Beery A. Males still dominate animal studies. Nature. 2010;465 (7299):690; U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Drug Safety: Most Drugs Withdrawn in Recent Years Had Greater Health Risks for Women. Washington, DC: Government Publishing Office; 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schiebinger L, ed. Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2008; Klinge I. GenderBasic: Promoting Integration of the Gender Dimension in Biomedical and Health-Related Research. Maastricht: Centre for Gender and Diversity, School for Public Health and Primary Care; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Commission. Vademecum: Gender Mainstreaming in the 6th Framework Programme – Reference Guide for Scientific Officers/Project Officers. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research; 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization (WHO). Integrating Gender Perspectives in the Work of WHO. Geneva: WHO Publishing; 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Institute of Gender and Health. What’s Sex and Gender Got to Do with It? Integrating Sex and Gender into Health Research. Ottawa: CIHR Publishing Office; 2003.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haafkens J, Klinge I. Promoting Attention to the Gender Dimension in Health Research: Experiences from Three Centers of Excellence in the EU. Maastricht: Universiteit Maastricht, Centre for Gender and Diversity & Care and Public Health Research Institute; 2007.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    GenSET. Recommendations for Action on the Gender Dimension in Science. London: Portia; 2010:13-15. For the UN Expert Group Meeting on Gender, Science, and Technology, see
  20. 20.
    Centre for Strategies and Evaluation Services (CSES). Monitoring Progress Towards Gender Equality in the 6th Framework Programme. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2009.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Journal of the National Cancer Institute requires: “where appropriate, clinical and epidemiological studies should be analyzed to see if there is an effect of sex or any of the major ethnic groups. If there is no effect, it should be so stated in Results.” Arnold K. Journal to encourage analysis by sex/ethnicity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92 (19):1561. Circulation (Journal of the American College of Cardiology), Instructions for Authors state: “Please provide sex-specific and/or racial/ethnic-specific data, when appropriate, in describing outcomes of epidemiologic analyses or clinical trials; or specifically state that no sex-based or racial/ethnic-based differences were present”;; Nature Editorial. Putting gender on the agenda. Nature. 2010;465 (7299):665.
  22. 22.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.History DepartmentStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations