Women’s Health Research: How to Keep it Alive

Author: Romina Garcia de leon, PhD Student, University of Toronto/Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; Brenna Whalley, BSc Global Resource Systems UBC; Emily Anne Opala, MSc PMP | Editor(s): Samantha Blankers, MSc, Bonnie Lee, PhD Candidate UBC; Kanak Gupta, MSc student | Reviewer: Liisa Galea

 

Publication date: March 7th, 2025 

 

The current crisis in women’s health research

Funding for women’s health is under attack. Researchers studying women’s health, sex and gender differences are facing increasing political and financial pressures. Moreover, there are new threats to the health and safety of racialized and transgender people. Although many of these challenges are driven by recent political changes in the United States, the consequences are felt worldwide.

Shortly after the change in administration in the US on January 20, 2025, there have been numerous executive actions and policy changes that impact global access to health resources and care. For instance, many health-related resources located on government websites, including those of the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation, were taken down, and recently restored (because of a federal judge ruling). Among these resources were pages listing treatment guidelines and patient resources relating to infectious diseases (e.g. HIV, measles, whooping cough), women’s health, vaccines, contraception, gender-affirming care, and more. The removal of these webpages has global consequences. Researchers, policymakers, and healthcare professionals worldwide rely on these databases for access to studies, guidelines, previous research, and funding opportunities. Limited access to these resources hampers international collaborations and undermines the development of evidence-based policies. Moreover, although some of the web pages have been restored, researchers are wasting time advocating for these resources, and ensuring research is not being erased. 

“The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and you spend twenty years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art, so you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdoms, so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary. There will always be one more thing.”

― Toni Morrison

Following attempts to remove critical health-related resources, a Program Officer at the National Science Foundation unofficially shared that government agencies were instructed to withdraw publication submissions immediately and flag grant applications that mention a long list of terms interpreted as DEI (diversity equity and inclusion). This list includes the terms ‘female’, ‘women’, ‘gender’, ‘disability’, and any racial or ethnic descriptors (for an exhaustive list, see Darby Saxbe’s Bluesky post). In addition to targeting marginalized communities that already experience greater health inequities, these restrictions are specifically designed to stop research focused on women and females, as the words ‘men’ and ‘males’ were not included in the list of flagged terms. 

 

Although these restrictions appear to target topics that the US government deems “too woke”, the impact extends far beyond ideological debates. Terms like ‘systemic’, ‘diversity’, and ‘bias’ are fundamental and widely used across scientific disciplines. Systemic isn’t just a political term—it describes treatments administered throughout the body. Diversity is essential not only in cultural discussions but also in gut microbiome research, ecology and genetics. Bias isn’t just a social concern; it’s a critical concept in statistics and machine learning, physics and astronomy. These efforts, aimed at reducing diversity in research, are extending to exclude diverse researchers across all career levels. Specifically, unofficial reports from NIH employees revealed that they were instructed to withdraw diversity funding applications for early career researchers (disqualifying individuals in underrepresented groups). This led to an uproar of complaints that resulted in some applications being reinstated for review while some applications have yet to be reconsidered. The messaging behind these actions is that by removing diversity applications, this will make the research funding pool an “equal” playing field. However, there is nothing equal about the systemic obstacles that marginalized people face to gain access to the same opportunities as others. In this case, equality (albeit on a surface level) can not be reached without equity. 

These barriers to conducting biomedical research are intended to deliberately cause harm to the people who would benefit from it and are mirrored in the healthcare industry. Trans and abortion rights are particularly under attack. Since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade (the seminal case on which abortion rights in the US depended) in 2022, abortion rights have eroded in several states. This has led to more maternal death due to sepsis. As of 2025, the policies of the current federal administration in favour of a nationwide abortion ban and enforcement of the Global Gag Rule indicate that women’s health is at further risk. Moreover, the rise in anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, which has specifically targeted transgender and non-binary individuals, has disrupted the legal recognition of transgender people and created barriers to gender-affirming hormone therapy. These combined threats are not just restricting access to essential healthcare—they are creating a climate of fear and uncertainty for patients, providers, and researchers alike. The dismantling of these protections undermine reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare; it sets a dangerous precedent for the politicization of medicine and public health. In fact, we need more research in this realm such as gender-affirming hormone therapy to better serve these communities. 

The dismissal of women’s health and SGBA+ research and the discrimination faced by transgender individuals and racialized groups did not happen overnight or begin with the current administration. This rhetoric has deep rooted histories built upon oppressive hierarchies. There are clear reasons why many research articles on topics such as women’s health frequently include words like “understudied”, “undervalued” and “underfunded”– because they are. Indeed, granting agencies such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research have attempted to enforce the inclusion of sex and gender in research (i.e. SGBA becoming a requirement for CIHR grants in 2010 and a scorable factor in 2019). However, the actual inclusion of these factors in research remains shockingly low. Specifically, a study found that from 2009 to 2020, only 1.57% of funded grants even mentioned sex in their abstract. although there was a 3.47% increase in funding for female-specific health research, there was no corresponding rise in the number of abstracts funded that explicitly focused on female-specific health. Similarly, although the percentage of grants mentioning 2S/LGBTQ +-specific health tripled across the same period, they still accounted for less than 1% of all funded grants. Despite mandates implemented over the last decade (i.e. SGBA becoming a requirement for CIHR grants in 2010 and a scorable factor in 2019), the actual inclusion of these factors in research remains shockingly low. Even with such limited funding, this research continues to drive critical advancements and save lives. Therefore there must be dedicated funding for 2S/LGBTQ + and women’s health research.

 

The foundations of our research and how it saves lives

The study of women’s health has taken an arduous path to get where it is today. For instance, in the 1960s, Dr. Roger Gorski and Dr. Jackson Wagner were the first to look at the effects of steroid hormones on the brain. Researchers today are unveiling how steroid hormones shape the brain across the lifespan, and how sex hormone fluctuations render some susceptible or resilient to certain diseases. Specifically, honing in on female-specific experiences with attributable steroid hormone fluctuations as in the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, postpartum, and menopause we can begin to cater treatments that reflect underlying biology that’s been neglected for so long. 

By the 80s and 90s, researchers including Dr. Marianne Legato, Dr. Nanette Wenger, and Karin Schenck-Gustafsson laid the foundation for our understanding that females present different symptomology and physiological changes in cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared to males. For many women, these findings meant their symptoms could finally be “interpretable” in healthcare settings. However, a paper in 2020 reported findings that females face poorer prognosis for cardiac arrests than males in the hospital setting. As menopause is a time of higher risk for CVD, it is important to emphasize how the work we are building must go beyond sex and gender in understanding these female-specific factors because we could be missing factors that, as mentioned, could save lives. Seminal research papers like these set the stage for looking at the effects of female-specific factors. Although strides have been made, healthcare equity is far from being reached. However, for this work to persist, its importance must be recognized and funding continued.  

 

The Resistance

Those involved in women’s health and sex and gender based research are no strangers to uphill battles for funding and recognition in wider health research spaces. Communities across the United States, and beyond have already made strides in the fight against anti-DEI movements. 

Several journals, including The Lancet, Nature, and the British Medical Journal, have released statements in response to the removal of health resources and data from US government websites and the anti-DEI mandates. They emphasize the threats these orders pose to ethical scientific practice, production of accurate medical and health-related research, and overall health and wellbeing. These and other journals have also made clear their stance  against the administration’s argument that these orders are protecting women’s rights and removing “advantages” marginalized people received from DEI-related initiatives– they believe it will do the opposite. 

While these actions may not change the stance of the government, it is reassuring that leading journals—and the broader global scientific community—remain committed to upholding rigorous, ethical research. Their continued support ensures that vital health data, diverse perspectives, and evidence-based findings will not be erased, but will instead find new avenues to thrive and inform the world.

In response to the disappearance of crucial data and resources from health-related government websites, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health held a Datathon. Organized by the newly formed “The Preserving Public Health Data Collective”, participants raced to preserve vital public health datasets that were at risk of being lost completely. Volunteers focused on archiving information targeted by the government, primarily related to LGBTQ+ issues, racism, climate change, and health equity. Some key researchers involved in these efforts, and who have publicly pushed back against the executive orders, include Dr. Nancy Krieger, Dr. Ariel Beccia, and Jonathan Gilmour. 

While threats towards women’s health issues, sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA+), and marginalized communities will likely increase globally as a result of the US government’s international influence, many organizations have developed valuable resources that can help guide advocates and preserve the integrity and rigor of science-based progress. Research teams all over the world are also continuing the fight against this suppressive rhetoric. Teams in the US include, Dr. Emily Jacobs the director of  The Ann S. Bowers Women’s Brain Health Initiative; the Society for Women’s Health Research who recently celebrated 35 years of advocating for women’s health, SGBA+ research, policy reform, and science-based resources and programming; and Dr. Carolyn M. Mazure, founder and director of the Women’s Health Research center at Yale. 

In Canada, Dr. Liisa Galea, our leader here at the WHRC and womenmindTM not only leads these groups powerfully but is a trailblazer in studying the female brain as well as has engaged in advocacy work (Dr. Galea has testified at the house of commons for women’s health); Dr. Gillian Einstein who founded the Collaborative Specialization of Women’s Health at the University of Toronto Dalla Lana school of Public Health; The Women’s College Hospital in Toronto – with researchers such as Dr. Simone Vigod leading a project to create the first clinical guidelines for perinatal depression; the Women’s Health Research Institute with researchers such as Dr. Lori Brotto (an executive director and a member of the WHRC advisory committee); the  Pan-Canadian Women’s Health Coalition. In Germany, Dr.Birgit Derntl and Dr.Inger Sundström-Poromaa are leading the International Training Group 2804 (IRTG) for women’s mental health research. It is the steadfast efforts of teams like these (and many more) that will continue furthering what we know is critical research.

The National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health in Canada created a national guide for how to conduct SGBA+ health research. Nutrition International also developed an SGBA+ toolkit specifically for nutrition programs. FIND Diagnoses for All is dedicated to progressing access and diagnoses internationally, and are developing sex-and-gender-responsive diagnostic tools and systems to advance gender equity and social inclusion.

Beyond the research community, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education is leading a lawsuit against the US government administration. Joined by a coalition of researchers, university professors and officials, a restaurant worker advocacy group, and the City of Baltimore, this lawsuit outlines the detrimental consequences of these Anti-DEI Executive Orders on research progression, fair wages for the working class, and freedom of speech and expression. The lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward, a legal organization working to fight for democracy and social progress in the United States. Founded in response to the 2016 election, Democracy Forward is committed to defending communities across the country who are fighting against oppressive policies and political powers. The coalition is also being co-represented by Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood and GLAAD remain steadfast advocates for women’s health, reproductive rights, gender-affirming care, LGBTQ+ health, and SGBA+ research. They continue to release up-to-date resources and direction to services, to help those affected navigate any uncertainty or ambiguity resulting from new policies.  

The Executive Orders aim to disenfranchise marginalized communities, and while we push back against political powers, it is important to remember the compounding consequences racialized, gender-diverse, and immigrant communities will continue to experience. The efforts outlined above underscore the necessity for interdisciplinary collaboration and alliances to protect the rights, health, and wellbeing of communities within the United States and beyond. As members of the Women’s Health Research Cluster we have committed to progressing sex-and-gender health equity. To that effect, we support efforts that recognize the intersectional effects of the US administration’s actions and we are committed to fighting to preserve ethical scientific processes, progress, equity, and inclusion.  

 

Where does this leave us?

Fortunately for us, or perhaps unfortunately, we are not in “uncharted waters” or “unprecedented times.” We have been here before, we have struggled and fought and made progress. It is critical that we look back upon past successes to inform our future directions. This means engaging in women’s health topics, as well as committing to Sex and Gender Based Analysis whether or not they are mandated by federal funding agencies. To counter the attack on research that focuses on sex and gender, researchers must account for gender diversity in all our research, so that the censoring of gender-inclusive terminology cannot stop the inclusion of gender in our hard-won scientific progress. 

For us to further our research and resist these systemic barriers, we must take careful attention to people, activists, and writers that have dedicated their whole lives to dismantling these systems.  Remembering that we, as a community are strong enough to keep moving the momentum forward. As Audre Lorde has written: 

“It is learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause with those other identified as outside the structures, in order to define and seek a world in which we can all flourish. It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” – Audre Lorde

Lastly, for women and gender diverse individuals facing an increasingly broken healthcare system, particularly those with racialized intersections, we already know what we have to do: stay informed, join forces, and remain hopeful. American organizer and educator Mariame Kaba says that hope is a practice, meaning it is not a passive feeling but rather an active skill that must be an ongoing, deliberate effort. We must refuse despair, cultivate opportunities for change, and believe in the possibility of a better future for all of us, regardless of our gender.