SEXISM SCIENCE 1

SEXISM IN SCIENCE: AN ANALYSIS

Raymund Christopher Roldan Dela Peña

Saint Louis University

SEXISM IN SCIENCE 2

INTRODUCTION
Science exist as sexism also one of its issue that is not yet totally been address up to this

present. Sexism is another term for gender discrimination or sex discrimination. It is defined as

prejudice or discrimination based on sex, or stereotypical concepts about specific genders in

general. The idea that science could be sexist meets with a certain amount of opposition

(Martha, 2010). Scientists like to think of themselves as objective, as seekers after some kind of

ultimate truth. So how can science itself be sexist? (De Guer, 2010). Specific examples of sexism

are not hard to find, although they can potentially be dismissed as anomalies. There was the case

of Geoff Marcy, a Berkeley astronomer who resigned recently after being found guilty of sexual

harassment of his students. Or, much less seriously, the case of Nobel laureate Tim Hunt, whose

ill-advised joke about being more comfortable in gender-segregated labs led to a lot of women

venting their frustration on social media under the "distractingly sexy” (Cudd, 2012).

Moreover, sexism can influence any gender, but it is particularly documented as affecting

women and girls (Atwell, 2002). It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles, and may

include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another (Benatar, 2012).

Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape, and other forms of sexual violence ( Cudd,

2012). From experiential point of view, the percentage of women is less in areas of science like

astronomy, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, sociology and etc.

Men dominates these areas of science that gender gap is pronounced. However, in the

field of nursing and obstetrics-gynecology where women are rulers, men also suffer from sex

discrimination in these areas. Sex discrimination is when an individual is treated less favorable

than a person of the opposite sex (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012) that often leads

to sexism. The subject of equality between men and women is still uncertain to everyone.

Women still experience inequality and discrimination in many parts of their lives in profession
SEXISM IN SCIENCE 3

and others. Therefore, this paper will undertake research the issue of sexism in science and

different examples of sexism and several issues whether females are treated less compared to

men.

DISCUSSION

HISTORY OF SEXISM IN SCIENCE

Sexism has been endemic in many aspects of scientific research; a full historical review

would be as lengthy as it would be disheartening. But it is important to recognize a consistent

tradition of sex-based inequality in medical research. It has long been assumed that conclusions

can be applied generally to both men and women, without taking into account the need to design

studies that focus specifically on the biological and physical differences between the sexes.

There have been myriad reasons for this lack of female inclusion. Science was heavily focused

on studying the “norm,” and the “norm” as pertaining to scientific research was a roughly 155-

pound man. Moreover, it was believed that the only difference between men and women were

their respective sex organs. Furthermore, concerns regarding testing on pregnant women, or

potentially-pregnant women, and the harm that could happen to fetuses discouraged researchers

from including women of child-bearing age, and sometimes women as a whole due to their

changing hormone cycles (McCook, 2013).

However, those assumptions finally began to change, albeit slowly, in the later decades of

the 20th century. In 1985, a report released by the Public Health Service Task Force on Women’s

Health Issues concluded that “the historical lack of research focus on women’s health concerns

has compromised the quality of health information available to women as well as the health care

they receive.” Founder of the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR ®) Dr. Florence

Haseltine, MD, PhD, was working for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the mid-1980s
SEXISM IN SCIENCE 4

when she began championing the need for medical research that recognized differences between

men and women. She eventually coined the term “sex-based biology,” essentially meaning the

study of the sex differences between men and women and how they apply to different aspects of

medical research and health. Dr. Haseltine worked to confront different ways in which this

inequality was manifested, including by advocating for more women to be included in clinical

trials. Despite the fact that the NIH had recognized that inclusion of women in clinical trials is

essential, they still aren’t always included (Macklem, 2004).

These revelations sparked action by government agencies including the NIH, the Food

and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Congressional Caucus on Women’s Issues. But it

correspondingly also sparked the need for an organization that could champion the cause of sex-

based biology head on. The Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR) was founded in

1990 to bring attention to the lack of inclusion of women and minorities in medical research and

clinical trials. While progress has been made in including women in scientific research, there’s

still substantial work to be done. Women and minorities remain underrepresented in clinical

trials and medical research (Kail, & Cavanaugh, 2010).

IMPORTANCE OF TAKING SEX DIFFERENCES INTO

MEDICAL RESEARCH

Men and women are biologically different. Health differences between men and women

range from a prevalence of a particular disease, to the ways in which it manifests itself, to the

drugs used to treat it. For example, SWHR focuses on Alzheimer’s Disease and Cardiovascular

Disease (CVD) as two of the many illnesses that deserve a look through a sex-based biological

lens (Williams, Wood & McGee, 2013).

SEXISM IN SCIENCE 5

Alzheimer’s disease

Alzheimer’s disease is one example of a condition that disproportionately affects women.

In fact, women are almost twice as likely to be affected by Alzheimer’s as men. Overall, it is

the fifth most common cause of death for American women. This increased prevalence for

women isn’t just coincidental. There are specific sex differences that need to be taken into

account when it comes to the study of how and why Alzheimer’s Disease strikes some and not

others. According to experts at SWHR’s Alzheimer’s Roundtable, there are many different

factors to consider: women suffering from depression have a 90 percent increased risk compared

to men and an even greater risk after menopause, due to decreased estrogen levels. Another risk

factor is having a hysterectomy and ovaries removed. Women who remove their ovaries before

the age of 48 have a 70 percent increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s. However, if that

woman used estrogen hormone therapy until menopause, she reduces her risk. In order to prevent

the devastating onset of Alzheimer’s–which is estimated to affect 15 million people over the next

15 years–it is essential to understand what role sex differences play and how women’s

physiology can make them, in some cases, more susceptible (Welle & Smith, 2014).

Cardiovascular Disease (CVD)

Despite popular perception about its frequency in the male population, cardiovascular

disease (CVD) remains an acute problem for women. In fact, CVD accounts for one in three

deaths among American women–more than all cancers combined. It is also another example of

an illness that can manifest differently between men and women, and has different risk factors.

For example, CVD appears on average seven to 10 years later for women than men. There are

also risk factors that are more visible for women than men, such as the fact that young women

who smoke are at a higher relative risk for developing CVD than men who smoke. Moreover, the
SEXISM IN SCIENCE 6

way that CVD presents in women can be different than in men–sometimes leading to a failure by

healthcare professionals to detect symptoms in a timely fashion. Women’s symptoms can include

fatigue and indigestion, and can appear up to a month before a heart attack. These

differences can also lead to misdiagnosis when a woman is actually experiencing a cardiac

event–a study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that women under 55

were seven times more likely to be misdiagnosed than men. It’s important that researchers and

doctors consider how not only different sex-based risk factors contribute to CVD, but also how

different symptoms present themselves (Hurst, 2007).

Another issue with a male-centric view of CVD is that symptoms that are more prevalent

for men have been more widely publicized and focused upon in public service campaigns. As a

result, women may not recognize the symptoms or risk factors themselves–the following video

created by SWHR highlights some of the gaps in public knowledge:

SEXISM REPRESENTATION IN CLINICAL TRIALS AND RESEARCH

It is evident that progress has been made in including women in clinical trials–

particularly when it comes to specific topics like heart disease and breast cancer. However,

there’s still much work to be done. As recently as 2014, the FDA moved toward greater

transparency in disclosing the sex breakdown of those who participate in clinical trials. However,

that news was bittersweet–it confirmed long-standing concerns about the inclusion of women in

clinical trials. SWHR released a statement about the FDA’s disclosure, stating that they,

commend the FDA for the effort in collecting and releasing these data to the public and believe

it is an initial first step towards reducing the disparities and lack of information on sex and ethnic

differences. But as is evident, the percentage of minority participation is dismal and while there
SEXISM IN SCIENCE 7

are women in all of the trials, the numbers are not statistically significant to reach any clinical

relevance. This statement keep the researchers still struggling when it comes to including women

in clinical trials and research.

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE

CLINICAL TRIALS

While the risk of CVD has been well-recognized by proponents of sex-based biology, and

women have been increasingly included in studies about cardiovascular disease, there’s still a

struggle to make sure that studies report on gender differences. According to a 2009 paper by the

American Heart Association (AHA) on the “Status of Women in Cardiovascular Clinical Trials,”

both government and non-government studies continued to fail to report on sex differences in

CVD studies between 2000-2006. The AHA stated: “An analysis of trials included in Cochrane

meta-analyses (Cochrane Systematic Reviews) for the inclusion of women in cardiovascular

clinical trials and for the reporting of gender-based analyses showed similar results. Of 258

clinical trials studied, women constituted only 27 percent of the pooled population and of 196

trials which included both genders, only 33 percent reported gender-based outcomes. When

analyzed by year of publication before or after 1993, there was no difference in the frequency of

gender-based analyses”. In order to ensure that the differences in the ways that women and men

present and experience CVD are taken into account, reporting on sex differences in clinical trials

needs to be a priority (AHA, 2007).

OTHER ISSUES AND VIEWPOINT ON SEXISM

Shen (2013) points out that many experts suggests that a big factor driving this trend is

the lack of role models in the upper divisions of academia. Royal Society of Chemistry has found

that female chemistry students are more likely than males to experience low self-confidence and
SEXISM IN SCIENCE 8

to report dissatisfaction with mentorship because they thought these careers are not for them

since they don’t see people like them. Relatively, Williams, Wood, & McGee (2013) confirm

that most female scientists-in-training struggle to find female role models to smooth their

transition into an academic career.

Furthermore, Williams, Wood, & McGee (2013) call for rigorous qualitative research

into the interaction of all factors of sexism so that the occupational field can be cleared of

cultural disadvantages for aspiring women and minority scientists.

In contrast with the above discussion on sexism and gender inequality, women are not

under-represented across all learned academies in Australia. Leading the way in identifying and

promoting female talent across the science and technology sector in Australia, Australian

Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) has taken steps to ensure that

women are appropriately recognized and included in all its activities. One key element of

ATSE’s gender-equality policy is by identifying women candidates for fellowship nomination

through active search and mentoring processes (Finkel, 2013).

With the lack of gender equality among its elected fellows, the Australian Academy of

Science (AAS) took ways to remedy the situation. The academy recently released a blueprint to

tackle the gender-equality problem in science –Gender Equity: Current Issues, Best Practice and

New Ideas. Eventually, election of women in Australian Academy of Science has steadily

increased, from just one in the 1970s to 27 since 2000. The academy has urged Australian

science agencies to prioritize career flexibility and has endorsed guidelines for gender equity

(Cory, 2013).

Measures to improve the gender balance, issues on sexism in science and to increase the

proportion of female fellows in the science arena, AAS recommends that a university or institute
SEXISM IN SCIENCE 9

should receive government funding only if it provides evidence that it has a functional gender-

equity committee (Hilton, 2013). The Academy ensures that high-achieving women are not

overlooked for nomination and that its criteria do not disadvantage them (Cory, 2013).

CONCLUSION

There’s no doubt that we have come far in this field and an improved concentration

on exploring sex-based biology has resulted in a better understanding of sex differences but we

need to continue to such efforts in order to promote good health for all men and women. Clinical

trials need to be designed to ensure not only the inclusion of, but also the recognition of their

differences. Working toward inclusivity of medical research will benefit us all by increasing our

understanding of what causes various illnesses and how to treat them.

REFERENCES

Al-Gazali, L. et.al (2013). Laboratory life: Scientists of the world speak up for equality.
Nature, 495 (7439), 35-38. doi: 10.1038/495035a

Atwell, Mary Welek. 2002. Equal Protection of the Law?: Gender and Justice in the United
States. New York: P. Lang.

Benatar, David. The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men And Boys. 2012. John Wiley
& Sons Inc., West Sussex, UK; ISBN 978-0-470-67446-8

Bojarska, Katarzyna (2012). ""Responding to lexical stimuli with gender associations: A

Cognitive–Cultural Model"". Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32:
46.doi:10.1177

Cory, S. (2013). Australian academy is fair to women. Nature, 497 (7450), 439.
doi: 10.1038/497439c

Finkel, A. (2013). Women in science: Gender equality in Australian academies. Nature, 498
(7453), 171.doi: 10.1038/498171d
SEXISM IN SCIENCE 10

Hilton, D. (2013). Australian science needs more female fellows. Nature, 497 (7447), 7.
doi:10.1038/497007a

Hurst, C. (2007). Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences. Sixth Edition.. 131, 139–
142

Koen, V. (2013).Women in science: Women’s work. Nature, 495 (7439).doi: 10.1038/495021a

McCook, A. (2013). Women in biotechnology: Barred from the boardroom. Nature, 495, 25–27.
doi:10.1038/495025a

Shen, H. (2013). Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature, 495, 22–24.
doi:10.1038/495022a

Welle, B., & Smith, M. (2014).The state of the world’s science 2014.Scientific American, 311
(4). Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=7&sid=786b2c0b-
d1c7-4eff-a584-
a493b5c08159%40sessionmgr112&hid=107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d
%3d#db=cmedm&AN=25314876

Williams, S., Wood, C., & McGee, R. (2013). Sexism: Dearth of female role models. Nature,
496 (7443), 31.doi: 10.1038/496031a