Is there still a gender gap in medical research?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Short Wave

Episode: "Is there still a gender gap in medical research?"

Release Date: April 14, 2026
Hosts: Emily Kwong, Arun Nair (intern), Angela Zhang (Stanford Health Equity Media Fellow and MD)
Guests: Marina DiMarco (Philosopher of Science, Washington University in St. Louis), Donna Maney (Neuroscientist, Emory University), Alison McGregor (Physician, Medical University of South Carolina), Sarah Richardson (Director, Gender Asylab, Harvard)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Short Wave delves into the persistent gender gap in medical research. The hosts and guests discuss how historical and ongoing biases in study design impact medical care for women and other gender minorities. They explore how policies have changed, critique the current "two bucket" (male/female) system, and highlight why more nuanced, inclusive, and precise approaches are needed both in research and clinical practice.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Historical Context: Women’s Exclusion from Medical Trials

• Until 1993, it wasn't mandatory for NIH-funded medical trials to include women ([00:41]).
  • Arun Nair: "It wasn't mandatory to include women in medical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health until 1993."
• Thalidomide scandal (late 1950s) led FDA, in 1977, to exclude "women of childbearing potential" from early drug trials ([01:17]).
• The rationale for exclusion: fears of harming women or pregnancies and erroneous beliefs about women being "too variable" hormonally, making them "bad sources of data" ([01:56]).
  • Marina DiMarco: "Women have been seen as either too kind of variable, hormonally, like, noisy, and therefore bad sources of data."

2. Policy Changes and Ongoing Issues

• Pushback and activism in the 1980s/90s led to the 1993 law requiring women (and people of color) be included in federally funded trials ([02:29]).
• Positive: Women are now included more, and researchers compare outcomes across sexes.
• Persistent problem: Many studies still inadequately address, or oversimplify, sex differences ([02:54]).

3. The “Two-Bucket” System and Its Flaws

• The medical system usually sorts people into "blue" (male) and "pink" (female) buckets—an oversimplification ([05:34]).
  • Angela Zhang: "Metaphorically speaking, our medical system tends to sort people into two buckets... but a lot of researchers say that might cause some problems."
• Issue #1: This ignores significant overlaps between sexes (ex: height), potentially leading to misdiagnosis or delayed care in both men and women ([05:44], [06:01]).
  • Donna Maney: "If I say to you, oh, this person is 5'9", what's their sex? I mean, you might be able to guess, but you're not always going to get that right." ([06:01])
• Issue #2: Averages obscure diversity within sexes. Individuals may be more genetically similar to another "bucket" than to someone within their own ([08:14]).
  • Marina DiMarco: "We're really just moving from a one size fits all approach to a two size fits most approach." ([08:14])
• Issue #3: Intersex and trans people don’t fit the binary. “Two bucket” thinking can erase or misrepresent their needs and outcomes ([09:03]).

4. Confounding Variables and Misattributed Differences

• Differences attributed to sex may actually be driven by other factors: age, weight, hormone levels, medication usage, and systemic issues ([09:29], [10:03]).
  • Sarah Richardson: "Women are not only prescribed drugs at a higher rate, but more drugs at the same time." ([09:54])
• Example: Ambien (zolpidem) is the only drug to have a sex-based dosing recommendation (lower dose for women since 2013 due to slower metabolism), but significant overlap between “buckets” means some women may be undertreated, some men overtreated ([10:24]–[11:42]).

5. Societal Factors and Medical Bias

• Focusing only on biological explanations for sex differences can obscure social inequities, e.g., women’s pain frequently being discounted in clinical settings ([12:25]–[12:54]).
  • Marina DiMarco: "If you focus on biology as an explanation for differences in outcomes across members of social groups... it naturalizes inequality by putting biology first and assuming... it's about their bodies instead of about how society treats us."
• Modern research shows women with chest pain are still seen later than men for the same symptoms ([12:54]).

6. A Call for Precision and Inclusivity

• Experts advocate moving away from “men vs. women” framing and toward specificity:
  • Define what “sex” means in the context of each study (hormones, anatomy, chromosomes, etc.).
  • Seek precision medicine that accounts for each individual’s unique makeup.
  • Policies requiring inclusion of women should extend beyond research funding agencies to reviewing bodies like the FDA ([13:30]).
• Angela Zhang's vision: “We dream of this world of precision medicine where everyone gets exactly the care that’s right for them... but we’re not there yet... in the meantime, we need to... make sure that you feel listened to and taken care of.” ([14:00])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the legacy of exclusion:
  • Arun Nair ([00:41]): "It wasn't mandatory to include women in medical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health until 1993."
• On the binary system:
  • Marina DiMarco ([08:14]): "We're really just moving from a one size fits all approach to a two size fits most approach."
• On sex as a variable:
  • Sarah Richardson ([09:54]): "Women are not only prescribed drugs at a higher rate, but more drugs at the same time."
• On biological essentialism:
  • Marina DiMarco ([12:37]): "If you focus on biology as an explanation for differences in outcomes... it naturalizes inequality by putting biology first... instead of about how society treats us."
• On clinical reality:
  • Angela Zhang ([14:00]): "We dream of this world of precision medicine where everyone gets exactly the care that's right for them... but we're not there yet."

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:41 – Fact: Women not included in NIH trials until 1993
• 01:17–02:29 – Thalidomide, FDA policy, and activism for change
• 04:50–05:44 – Challenges in defining and operationalizing "sex" in medicine
• 06:01–07:27 – Overlapping traits and implications for heart attack care
• 08:14–08:48 – “Two size fits most” and missed diversity within groups
• 09:03–09:27 – Non-binary, intersex experiences
• 10:24–11:42 – Ambien example; debates around sex-based drug dosing
• 12:25–12:54 – Social inequality vs. biology in medical outcomes
• 14:00–14:24 – Angela Zhang’s call for precision and compassionate care

---

Takeaways

• Progress has been made since the ‘90s, but research and clinical care remain hampered by simplistic sex/gender categorizations.
• The “binary bucket” system doesn't reflect the full complexity of biology or lived experience—precision, nuance, and inclusivity are crucial.
• Societal and clinical biases, not just biology, shape health outcomes; conscientious research design and practice are needed.
• The future lies in precision medicine—customized care, sophisticated measurement of diversity, and a medical system that recognizes every individual.

---

Transcript

[A]

This message comes from Whole Foods Market. Save on tropical flavors during the Savor the Tropics event. With yellow sale signs throughout the store, Stock up on juicy pineapples and mangoes. Grab Huli Huli chicken, and finish with Mango Uzi Chantilly cake at Whole Foods Market.

[B]

You're listening to Shortwave from npr. Hey, shortwavers. Emily Kwong here with shortwave's intern, Arun Nair.

[C]

Hi, Emily.

[B]

Hi. And Angela Zhang, who has joined our team through the Stanford Health Equity Media Fellowship and is an actual doctor.

[D]

Hey, Emily. It's so good to be here.

[B]

Good to have you. Now, Aru, I hear you have a medical fact you wanted to share with us.

[C]

So, Emily, did you know that it wasn't mandatory to include women in medical trials funded by the National Institutes of health until 1993?

[B]

Wait, medical trials? Like drug trials?

[D]

Yeah, partially. And these trials are really important. The NIH is the largest single public funder of biomedical research in the world. Like, I'm a doctor, right? So I'm constantly looking at results of research on different drugs or treatments, and this helps me decide if a test or medicine I'm using is safe or effective for my patients.

[B]

And you're saying it wasn't mandatory for women to be included in those until the 1990s?

[D]

Yeah, we probably need some backstory here. So there was this global scandal starting in the late 1950s where tens of thousands of pregnant women, mainly in Europe, took this sedative called thalidomide for morning sickness.

[B]

Okay.

[C]

People who took the drug while pregnant ended up having babies whose limbs were poorly developed or even absent. This happened to over 12,000 kids, and it led to the Food and Drug Administration creating a policy excluding, quote, women of childbearing potential in early drug trials. That was in 1977.

[B]

Oh, so they just excluded most women?

[C]

Yeah, exactly. But that's not the only reason that women have been historically excluded from biomedical research.

[E]

Women have been seen as either too kind of variable, hormonally, like, noisy, and therefore bad sources of data, and. Or we have just taken a male body as a standard and used that to produce knowledge for everyone.

[D]

So that's Marina DiMarco. She's a philosopher of science at Washington University in St. Louis. And she told us that over time, scientists and activists realized that there was this huge gap in data for research on women.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

They started pushing for more inclusive policies, and there were even protests about this in the 1980s and 90s.

[C]

And Congress listened. They passed a law in 1993 requiring researchers to include women and people of color in federally funded medical trials.

[E]

Wow.

[D]

Nice. Now women are in a lot more studies and we study differences between the sexes by enrolling men and women, and then we compare data from each group. But many people say the way we include women in medical research can still get pretty messy.

[B]

Today on the show, how we sort the sexes in medicine and why there's a lot of problems with that. You're listening to Short Wave, the Science podcast from npr.

[F]

Support for this podcast and the following message come from E. Trade from Morgan Stanley Discover a wide range of investing choices and banking solutions all in one place. Plus get up to $1,500 when you open a brokerage account with a qualifying deposit today. Learn [e-mail] offer banking products and services are provided by Morgan Stanley Private Bank national association member fdic. Terms and other fees apply. Investing involves risks. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, LLC membersipic this message comes from LinkedIn ads Ever invest in something that seemed incredible at first but didn't live up to the hype? For marketers, that's impressions. When ads don't create revenue, that's a tough conversation with the CFO. Instead, invest in results your CFO will love. LinkedIn Ads generates the highest ROAS of all major ad networks. So advertise on LinkedIn, spend $250 and get a $250 credit. Just go to LinkedIn.com NPRpod Terms and Conditions apply.

[A]

This message comes from Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

[B]

Okay, Aru and Angelo, Today we're talking about sex differences as it relates to the world of medicine, medical care, medical research. And I remember from a previous episode that our colleague Hannah Chin reported learning that sex is hard to define. It can be defined, in fact, by a lot of things, like anatomy or hormones or chromosomes.

[D]

So many things. And Morena says that confusion can carry over into how sex is defined when you're a patient in a doctor's office.

[E]

I've never been to a doctor's appointment where someone checked how many X chromosomes I had or what kinds of gametes I make. As far as I know, like, no one's ever even measured my estrogen or testosterone levels. And yet my clinical treatment is supposed to be based on sex categories.

[C]

And before we go further, we just want to say that we're using women and men in super binary ways because many studies and experts still use these terms even though we know that gender and even sex are not binary.

[D]

That makes sense. Yeah.

[B]

So how do researchers or doctors account for this complexity in sex?

[D]

Well, we kind of don't.

[C]

Nope.

[D]

Metaphorically speaking, our medical system tends to sort people into two buckets, a blue bucket or a pink bucket. And it's really easy to do that. But a lot of researchers say that that might cause some problems.

[C]

The first one is that we might be missing similarities between the pink and the blue buckets. In many cases, there's a lot of overlap, like with height, for example.

[G]

You can look around and you can see, yes, on average, men are taller than women.

[C]

This is Donna Maney. She's a neuroscientist at Emory University.

[G]

But also, as everyone knows, if I say to you, oh, this person is 5, 9, what's their sex? I mean, you might be able to guess, but you're not always going to get that right.

[D]

Right.

[B]

I mean, I'm five, eight, and there are plenty of men who are my exact height.

[C]

Totally. So Donna says ignoring the overlaps between sexes could have real consequences, like in women who experience heart attacks. How so?

[D]

Okay, so the most common symptom of a heart attack, regardless of your sex or gender, is chest pain. But the American Heart Associ says that women may experience a wider, less recognized range of symptoms, like fatigue or indigestion.

[G]

Is that because we have different ways of having a heart attack pathophysiologically, or is it because women present their symptoms in a different gendered way?

[D]

Alison McGregor is a doctor at the Medical University of South Carolina. She spent years looking into women's health and medicine and how it might be different than men's, including whether those differences are why women with heart attacks are treated later than men and die at a higher rate. And at the same time, there's definitely

[G]

crossover between men and women of who has those symptoms. If we could just make it so that way, these are all symptoms that people could present in and then have those be flagged. That's ideal.

[C]

Donna pointed out the same thing. Like this has real life stakes.

[G]

You can imagine that a man might be having a heart attack and he might be having nausea and jaw pain, but he's been told that those are women's symptoms of heart attack. And so that's very dangerous for him because that will delay his treatment.

[B]

This is dangerous for everyone because of the oversimplification of the two bucket system, blue and pink it misses overlaps.

[D]

Yeah, it totally can. And this leads to our second problem. And because when you sort people into two big buckets, you're just going to get averages. And so Marina says that when we do this, we can miss the diversity within those categories. So I'll give you an example. The three of us identify as women, but we might actually be really genetically different. So I can be more similar to a male coworker than I am to the two of you.

[E]

We make a recommendation for all of the pink, and it only actually works for, like a subset of them. As my collaborator Madeline Pape has put it. Like, we're really just moving from a one size fits all approach to a two size fits most approach.

[B]

I think about this all the time. Like when I go to the gym, there are so many different types of bodies. Even if people are the same sex, they can look vastly, vastly different. So averages can only take us so far because at the end of the day, doctors are treating individuals.

[C]

Exactly. Marina also brought this up to us.

[E]

If you have variation in that population or if the population you studied is different from the person that you're prescribing a medication to, there has to be some kind of like, leap or inferential move there.

[B]

Right.

[E]

You're taking a risk.

[C]

And on top of that, there's the issue that some people don't fit into either of those buckets. Like intersex people and trans people who have started gender affirming hormone treatment.

[E]

We reinforce the idea that people come in those two types when in fact we have significant evidence that they don't.

[D]

And Emily, you're not going to believe this. There is another problem with the two bucket system.

[B]

Of course there is. Tell me.

[D]

Yeah, it only lets you ask questions about two buckets. And if you find a difference, then you might think it's about the buckets. But there are lots of other reasons we might see differences between the buckets or between the sexes. And we talked about this with another expert, Sarah Richardson. She says those reasons don't exclusively have to do with your sex, like your weight, your age, your hormones, even if you're taking other medication.

[E]

Women are not only prescribed drugs at a higher rate, but more drugs at the same time.

[D]

Sarah is the director of the Gender Asylab at Harvard, where she works with Marina.

[B]

So we would expect that drug usage is also higher.

[D]

Partially this is because women tend to go to the doctor more often than men do. Like, they just interact with hospitals and health care way more often. Right.

[B]

Like in drug research, we may See differences in outcomes that we think have to do with sex, but actually it could come from a multitude of different factors.

[C]

Yeah. And one of the most controversial ways that this can play out is through sex based drug dosing. Like the idea that women should be taking a different amount of a medication than men. And that's exactly what happened with the drug Zolpidem, which is also known as Ambien.

[A]

You fall asleep fast, stay asleep longer,

[D]

and generally wake without feeling groggy the next morning.

[B]

Ambien works like a dream. Oh, yes, Ambien, the pill that is designed to help people fall asleep.

[D]

Right.

[C]

So there's research showing that on average, Ambien stays longer in women's systems than in men's, which means that a woman might be more sleepy the morning after taking it and could be at risk for driving accidents.

[D]

So in 2013, the FDA actually lowered Ambien's recommended starting dose for women, which was a huge deal.

[A]

Wow.

[D]

Yeah. It's the first and only drug where there is a dose based on your sex. And many people saw this as a huge win for women's health.

[C]

But some researchers pointed out a few concerns with the FDA making this change. One was that, like we talked about earlier, there was still a lot of overlap with how quickly men and women process the drug.

[G]

That does not mean that all women are going to respond the same way to a drug and all men are going to respond another way to the drug. And yet that that's kind of how a statistically significant difference is interpreted.

[D]

It was also not entirely clear what was causing the sex difference. Some people say that more research is needed and even said the lower starting dose could lead to women being undertreated.

[E]

That's wild.

[B]

Given these examples, Ambien heart attack symptoms, it makes me think about how sex is such a problematic variable when it comes to research. Right. Because sex difference is so nuanced, so hot. Take. Should we just not look at sex in medical research at all and maybe just put every everyone together in one big group?

[C]

Well, not exactly. From talking to all these experts, it's really just about being super specific about what you mean when you study sex. Like, if you're studying cervical cancer, your definition of sex will probably focus on anatomy.

[D]

And being more clear will also help us get at what the real problem is. Marina says sometimes the focus on biology actually obscures the fact or distracts from the fact that women aren't always treated the same as men at the doctor's office.

[E]

If you focus on biology as an explanation for differences in outcomes across members of social groups. It naturalizes inequality by putting biology first and assuming that whatever is different about men and women, it's about their bodies instead of about how society treats us.

[D]

And it could be both. So lots of studies show that women's pain is taken less seriously. This really matters for the heart attack issue. Studies as recently as this year show that women who come to the hospital with chest pain get seen by a doctor later than men do for the same symptoms.

[B]

So I want to make sure I have this. All right, you're saying it is still important to include both men and women in medical studies?

[C]

Yeah. To make sure that you're studying a diverse set of people that represents society.

[B]

Yes, but we need to be more specific about it and more inclusive. And if we find a difference, we should think about whether that is because society treats different sexes differently.

[C]

Yeah, pretty much. And some experts have said there's still work to be done. We've been focusing on NIH funded studies, but there's still a lot of research that's funded privately. That's why some people suggest that the policy requiring that women be involved in medical research should be extended to agencies like the FDA that review these studies, and not just limited to the organizations that fund them.

[B]

Okay. And Angela, Dr. Zhang, what kind of medical world do you want to live in that would get around this problem?

[D]

Yeah. So I think we dream of this world of precision medicine where everyone gets exactly the care that's right for them. Right. And know exactly makes up your body and your genes and your hormones. But we're not there yet. And in the meantime, we need to focus on what we know and can do right now. So I can't change your genes yet. I don't have these tests yet, but I can help you get to your appointments, and I can try to make sure that you feel listened to and taken care of.

[B]

Angela Aru, thank you so much for bringing us this story.

[C]

Thanks, Emily.

[D]

Thanks, Emily. It's great to be here.

[B]

If you liked this episode of Short Wave, please share it with a friend. Because we know, based on multiple studies that word of mouth is one of the top ways to grow a podcast. Please and thank you. This episode was produced by Hannah Chin. It was edited by our showrunner, Rebecca Ramirez. Tyler Jones checked the facts. Kwesi Lee was the audio engineer. I'm Emily Kwong. Thank you for listening to Short Wave, the science podcast from N.

[A]

This message comes from Capella University. That spark you feel, that's your drive for more Capella University's flexpath learning format lets you earn your degree at your pace without putting life on pause. Learn [e-mail]. this message comes from Mint Mobile. If you're tired of spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop [e-mail] Switch taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[F]

Support for NPR and the following message come from the William and Flora Hewlett foundation, investing in creative thinkers and problem solvers who help people, communities, and the planet flourish. More information is [e-mail].