The Science Gap Explained: Men’s Diseases Get More Funding Than Women’s

Despite women comprising more than half of the global population, diseases that predominantly affect women receive significantly less research funding than those impacting men. In the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) allocates only 10.8% of its funding to women’s health research as of 2020, according to Perelel Health. This inequity leads to critical gaps in understanding women’s health conditions, delayed diagnoses, and inadequate treatments.

The disparities extend beyond women’s health conditions. NIH spends twice as much on diseases predominantly affecting men. This happens even when the disease burden is greater for women, according to The Journal of Women’s Health. This imbalance perpetuates a cycle of underrepresentation and worsens health outcomes for women globally.

A Legacy of Exclusion

Historical biases in medical research have contributed to today’s funding gap. In 1977, the FDA banned most women of “childbearing potential” from clinical research. This exclusion, driven by unfounded fears that women’s hormones would “skew” results, persisted until 1993. Even after the ban was lifted, women remained underrepresented. A review of scientific literature from 1993 to 1998 found little improvement in women’s inclusion in research.

This exclusion has long-term consequences. Drug dosages for thousands of medications on the market today are still based on male physiology. A 2020 study identified 86 drugs with significant gender-based differences in metabolism. Women metabolize many drugs more slowly, leading to higher levels of exposure and increased adverse side effects in 96% of cases.

Women Are Underserved Across Health Conditions

Diseases that disproportionately impact women are systematically underfunded. For example, in 2015, there were five times more studies on erectile dysfunction than premenstrual syndrome, despite the latter affecting significantly more people, Perelel Health reports.

Similarly, gynecological conditions like endometriosis, which affects up to 68% of women, have only 33 research assets in the pipeline. This is far fewer than diseases affecting fewer people.

More shocking is the fact that women are diagnosed later than men for over 700 diseases. These include diabetes and cancer, according to the World Economic Forum.

Cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death for women, also highlights the disparity. While women represent nearly half of all cardiovascular disease patients, only 4.5% of funding for coronary artery disease research targets women. The British Cardiovascular Society attributes this to the persistent misconception that heart disease is a “man’s disease,” leading to underdiagnosis and undertreatment for women.

The Economic and Societal Costs of Underfunding

The gender gap in medical research funding is not just a women’s issue—it hurts society as a whole. A report by the McKinsey Institute and the World Economic Forum revealed that closing the women’s health gap could add $1 trillion to the global economy by 2040.

Conditions like autoimmune diseases, which affect 80% of women, often take years to diagnose. Mismanagement of these diseases results in higher healthcare costs and reduced productivity. Similarly, endometriosis, which costs the U.S. healthcare system billions annually, remains underfunded and misunderstood.

Research shows that investing in women’s health yields significant returns. For instance, according to the RAND Corporation, Double research funding for Alzheimer’s disease in women would result in a 224% return on investment.

Similarly, investing in gender-sensitive research for heart disease and rheumatoid arthritis could generate hundreds of billions in economic benefits while improving health outcomes.

Why Gender Bias in Research Persists

Deeply rooted biases in how diseases are prioritized drive this disparity. Historically, medicine has assumed that male bodies represent the “default” human experience. Caroline Criado Perez, author of Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, explains, “For millennia, medicine has functioned on the assumption that male bodies can represent humanity as a whole… Women are dying, and the medical world is complicit.”

Even within the NIH, funding decisions often prioritize diseases associated with a higher mortality rate, which tend to affect men more. Diseases that impact quality of life—such as migraines, fibromyalgia, and anorexia—are seen as less urgent, even though they predominantly affect women.

Steps Toward Equity

Experts agree that bridging the funding gap requires systemic change. Carolee Lee, founder of Women’s Health Access Matters (WHAM), stresses the need for greater accountability in how research dollars are allocated.

“Women’s health is an economic issue that impacts everyone, and we can’t afford to ignore it,” she said. “Women are more than half of the population, nearly 50% of the workforce, control 60% of personal wealth, and are responsible for 85% of consumer spending and 80% of healthcare decisions. Yet even while diseases impact them disproportionately and differently, pulling many from the workforce too soon, investment in women’s health research lags.”

WHAM and other organizations advocate for policies that promote gender-sensitive research and prioritize funding for conditions that disproportionately affect women. They also call for better representation of women in senior roles within healthcare research. Currently, they hold only 25% of leadership positions despite comprising nearly 70% of the global health workforce.

A Call for Change

The women’s health research gap is a stark example of systemic inequity. Diseases that disproportionately affect women are not just underfunded—they are undervalued. Closing this gap is not only a moral imperative but also an economic one.

Addressing these disparities will require collective action from policymakers, researchers, and advocates. As Carolee Lee puts it, “How can we possibly continue to make decisions based on information that excludes the majority of our population? The answer is we can’t—and we shouldn’t.”