Medical research didn't exclude women by accident. It did it by design, and the consequences are still playing out in everymisdiagnosis, underfunded condition, and treatment that was never tested on a female body.
For most of modern medical history, the default research subject was male. Drug trials, disease models, diagnosticcriteria, all built around male physiology, with the assumption that results would simply transfer. They often don't.
Women metabolise drugs differently. They have different cardiac symptoms. Different pain presentations. Differentresponses to the same treatments. When the research baseline ignores that, the medicine built on top of it ignores ittoo.
The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 finally mandated that women be included in clinical trials. That was 30 years ago.And we're still catching up.
As a biochemist, Chloe knows this gap isn't just a research problem, it's a communication failure. Science exists. Thedata exists. What's missing is enough people understanding the scope of it, patients, policymakers, donors, andresearchers who can actually do something about it. That's what this page is for.
These aren't obscure conditions. They're among the most common health issues women face. And they all share one thing: researchthat has never kept pace with the millions of people living with them.
The scientists in the room decide what gets studied, how it gets measured, and who gets included. More women inscience means better outcomes for the women science is supposed to serve.
Candid dialogues analyzing the hidden barrierswithin scientific institutions and their real worldimpact on research equity.
A multi-faceted approach to digital science communication, deconstructing historical research neglect, navigating the realities of modern lab culture, and honoring female scientific excellence past and present.