What do women want? Well, according to scientific research… more data is needed. As it turns out, women are a mystery to science. 

This mystery stems from the lack of representation of women in scientific research, both as the researcher and the subject. In its stead, sexist assumptions have leaked in and clouded results. This has very real, very scary consequences – and not just for us humans! From women to female birds and mammals, science has a habit of ignoring half the population. 

This gap exists in many fields, but for now let’s focus on medicine, where women are (quite literally) getting sick of being excluded. Historically, medicine hasn’t been kind to women, going all the way back to the Ancient Greeks where philosophers ingrained sexism into stone. Aristotle, considered the founder of many disciplines in Western culture including biology, thought women incomplete, “mutilated male(s)” (1). Plato, just as revered, stated that women were corrupted by a “wandering womb” – an angry uterus that would drift around the body causing all types of disease (2). The influence of these hot takes on women have shaped the fields of biology and medicine for centuries. Now we’ve ended up with a healthcare system designed by and designed for men.

Looking at slightly more recent history, women weren’t included in clinical trials until the 1990s, even when looking into conditions that were specific to women (3). In the early 1960s researchers wanted to examine how the likelihood of heart disease could be decreased amongst menopausal women through hormone supplements (4). They had a respectable sample size of participants for the trials: 8,341 people. Were any of them women? No, of course not. 

This bias persists today. On average, only 41.2% of participants in clinical trials are female, well below their actual representation amongst patients (5). A 2022 study examined more than 20,000 clinical trials from the past 20 years and found that trials in oncology, neurology, immunology and nephrology had the lowest female representation relative to the likelihood that women would develop the disease (6). In psychiatry, as not even one of the worst fields, women still only made up 42% of trial participants, yet comprised 60% of the patients (5). Women of colour, queer women and trans women are even more marginalised in medical research (7, 8). A regular justification researchers use for excluding cis women is that their menstrual cycles would interfere with the reliability of results (which, by the way, has been proven to be unfounded) (9). This hasn’t stopped them from claiming that their results can be universally applied. 

Given their systematic exclusion from scientific study, it is no wonder that women are more likely to be misdiagnosed for common conditions such as a heart attack and stroke, and experience adverse side effects from medications, at twice the rate of men (3). During the period from 1997 to 2000, ten prescription drugs were taken off the market by the US Food and Drug Administration. Of these, eight posed greater health risks to women compared to men – risks which could have been caught in the trial stage if they had just included more women (10). Women are also more likely to have their physical symptoms be blamed on mental health issues — because that’s apparently better than doctors having to admit we simply don’t know how women work (11). 

This knowledge gap extends beyond medical research, and indeed beyond the human world. Females of all species have become victims of sexist attitudes. This is partially owed to the work of famous naturalist Charles Darwin. In his book, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), he labelled the female as "passive" and “coy” (12). It is the males who drive evolution, he declared. Males are the competitive ones, fighting each other and showing off their glamour in order to win the female. According to Darwin, the role of females in the animal kingdom was only to submit. 

Scientists that followed seemed to have a persistent case of confirmation bias. They actively looked for evidence and manipulated results to support their belief that females were monogamous, pacifistic doting mothers. This was exactly the case when in the 1990s two researchers, John Marzluff and Russell Balda, went to study the social hierarchies of the pinyon jay, Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus (13). Native to Western America, the males of this small bird go against Darwin’s claim by being absolute chillers; they don’t like to fight. Desperate to prove Darwin right, the researchers set up feeders with sweet treats to entice competition between the males. The males still refused to go up in arms. This left the researchers searching for some evidence, any evidence, that Darwin’s theory was still correct. So they claimed that there was aggressive competition between the males played out through… passive aggressive side glances. These ‘fights’ of dirty looks must have been absolutely riveting as the researchers documented over two thousand of them, stealing the show from the actual violent battles perpetrated by the females. The girlies were recorded locked in mid-air fights and stabbing each other with their beaks (yawn). This behaviour was explained away as an “avian equivalent of PMS” and that there was “little doubt that adult males are in aggressive control” (13). 

The myth that females are passive has been shown time and time again to be false. There are certainly some females that play this role, but just like humans, the animal kingdom is diverse. There are plenty of examples that show that females are just as impressive, competitive and violent, and all are worthy of investigation. Female topi antelopes compete for males, the female Jacana bird leaves eggs with their stay-at-home dads and matriarchal grandmother orcas pass on brutal hunting techniques to the next generation (13). 

Even though the myth has been busted, the consequences of it still echo in research. In 2019, it was found that there was a male bias in international natural history museum collections of mammals and birds, especially for famous name-bearing species (13). For these species, only 27% of bird and 39% of mammal types collected were female. Any studies conducted on these collections are not representative of the whole species. Given the rapid global biodiversity decline we find ourselves facing, having an accurate understanding of more than the human world has never been more important. 

This requires us to recognise the sexism in our studies. I know first hand that this is not simple, such as when I realised even I had internalised sexist attitudes towards animals. It  took me until I was 25 to realise that the shark from the movie Jaws (1975) was meant to be a girl (15). I had just assumed (much like the director Steven Spielberg) bigger shark equals boy shark. 

Science doesn’t operate in a vacuum. It is not immune to society and politics, and unfortunately this has meant results can be shaped by prejudice. How do we fix this? Is there a cure for medical misogyny and can we finally discover the female species in the wild? There is no single solution, but we have many options on the table. Getting more women into STEM and leadership roles, transparency in data collection – especially being upfront about disclosing whether or not both sexes were included – and more funding for women’s health research are all essential steps (9). Already there are badass scientists out there dismantling sexist beliefs, who are armed with data and persistence (13). I also think a crucial step is to remember that knowledge is not pure. It can contain bias. As the next generation of researchers, we have a responsibility to question the assumptions baked into our methods, our questions and even our definitions of what counts as valid research. This kind of introspective, self-critical work isn’t just about academic integrity. It could save lives.

So, what do women want? Aside from going back in time to set a couple ancient philosophers and a certain naturalist straight, we want you to ask us – and to never assume you know the answer before doing so.  

References 

1. Horowitz, MC. Aristotle and Woman. J History of Biology [Internet]. 1976 [cited 2025 May 25]; 9(2):183-213. Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4330651.

2. Adair, MJ. Plato’s View of the ‘Wandering Uterus’. The Classical Journal [Internet]. 1996 Jan [cited 2025 May 25]; 91(2): 153-163. Available from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3298478.

3. Why we know so little about women’s health [Internet]. Blach, B: AAMC; 2024 [cited 2025 May 25]. Available from https://www.aamc.org/news/why-we-know-so-little-about-women-s-health

4. Dusenbery, M. New York (US): HarperCollins; 2018. 

5. Sosinsky, AZ., Rich-Edwards, JW., Wiley, A., Wright, K., Spagnolo, PA. & Joffe, H. Enrollment of female participants in United States drug and device phase 1-3 clinical trials between 2016 and 2019. Contemp Clin Trials [Internet]. 2022 Apr [cited 2025 May 25]; 115: 106718. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2022.106718

6. Steinberg, JR., Turner, BE., Weeks, BT., Magnani, CJ., Wong, BO., Rodriguez, F., Yee, LM & Cullen, MR. Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020. AMA Netw Open [Internet]. 2021 Jun [cited 2025 May 25]: 4(6):e2113749. Available from: https:doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.13749

7. Bierer, BE., Meloney, LG., Ahmed, HR. & White, SA. Advancing the inclusion of underrepresented women in clinical research. Cell Rep Med [Internet]. 2022 Mar [cited 2025 May 25]; 3(4): 100553. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100553 

8. Kelly, T & Rodriguez, SB. Expanding Underrepresented in Medicine to Include Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trasgender, and Queer Individuals. Acad Med [Internet]. 2022 Nov [cited 2025 May 25]; 97(11) 1605-1609. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004720

9. Beery, AK. & Zucker, I. Sex Bias in Neuroscience and Biomedical Research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev [Internet]. 2010 Jul [cited 2025 May 25]; 35(3): 565-572. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.07.002.

10. Carey, JL., Nader, N., Chai, PR., Carreiro, S., Griswold, MK. & Boyle KL. Drugs and Medical Devices: Adverse Events and the Impact on Women’s Health [Internet]. 2018 Jan [cited 2025 May 25]; 39(1): 10-22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.12.009

11. Jackson, G. Pain and Prejudice. Crows Nest (AUS): Allen & Unwin; 2019. 

12. Cohen, C. Darwin on woman. Comptes Rendus Biologies [Internet]. 2010 Feb [cited 2025 May 25]; 333(2): 157-165. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2009.12.003

13. Cooke, L. Bitch: What does it mean to be female? London (UK): Penguin Books; 2022. 

14. Cooper, N. Bond, AJ., Davis, JL., Miguez, RP., Tomsett, L & Helgen, KM. Sex bias in bird and mammal natural history collections. Proc. R. Soc. B. [Internet]. 2019 Oct [cited 2025 May 25]; 286: 20192025. Available from https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2025

15. What did Hollywood get wrong about great white sharks in Jaws? [Internet]. Ladgrove, P. & Smith, B: ABC News; 2024 [cited 2025 May 25]. Available from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-11-16/jaws-what-did-hollywood-get-wrong-shark-attack-humans/104538116