Ethical Considerations in Scientific Research

🚨New study on Climate and Inequality 🚨 Thrilled to share that our latest paper, "Climate Change and the Global Distribution of Wealth", has just been published in Nature Climate Change! In this work, we explore how climate change and climate policies are reshaping wealth inequality worldwide. Our findings reveal that climate impacts and investments could significantly alter the distribution of wealth, affecting everything from housing to financial assets. For instance, we show that the top 1% global wealth share could rise from around 38.5% today to 46% in 2050 if the wealthiest individuals own all the new low-carbon infrastructure. Conversely, if low-carbon investments are financed by a tax on the top 1% and then owned by governments or not-for-profit actors, the top 1% wealth share could drop to 26%. Climate change and climate investments have the potential to reshape global wealth inequalities on an unprecedented scale. It’s going to be critical to keep an eye on this. Thanks to our incredible team (Cornelia Mohren, Philip Bothe and Gregor Semieniuk) and all those who supported this work. Comments welcome! Published article : https://lnkd.in/ehQVkEQC Open-access preprint : https://lnkd.in/ePzdtCFQ

"Communities and countries, and ultimately the world, are only as strong as the health of their women," Michelle Obama once said. The impact of women’s health on our societies cannot be overlooked. The theme of today’s International Women’s Day is #InspireInclusion. To me, closing the gender health gap is an important requirement to create a truly inclusive society. Women are still underdiagnosed, undertreated, and underserved – often due to a historical lack of women-centric research and female health data. They face serious health risks because of this. Last year, a study suggested that women may be twice as likely to experience a fatal heart attack because of unrecognized unique risk factors. In its recent report on women’s health, the World Economic Forum revealed that women are diagnosed later than men: 4.5 years later for diabetes. 2.5 years for cancer. These years can cost lives. Genetics and environmental factors might be at play here, but gender bias is also an important factor. The latest #WEF report suggests that addressing this bias and closing the women’s health gap would allow 3.9 billion women to live healthier and higher-quality lives. As the gender health gap really is essentially a female data gap, AI and digitalization offer huge opportunities to transform women’s health. Health apps can facilitate access to services and empower women with technology that is tailored to their needs and lifestyles, for instance. AI can help process huge amounts of anonymized data that may help close the gap. I strongly believe that health equity and inclusion are about overcoming disparities, about looking for what unites us. However, in order to tackle the gender health gap, we must first acknowledge the differences. Male bodies have represented humanity for too long, with women treated as “small men”. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, proved just how untrue that is. It revealed the fundamental gender differences in the immune system – just one instance where a human organism’s gender matters. One interesting fact: Women account for almost 80 percent of people with autoimmune diseases. Immunologist Akiko Iwasaki, who was honored with the Else Kröner Fresenius Prize for Medical Research in 2023, has devoted herself to teasing apart the differences between the immune responses of men and women to COVID-19 and other viral infections. Incidentally, our very own female leader, Else Kröner, was an early advocate of better healthcare for women. In 1973, she joined the international women's association #Zonta and became one of its most active German leaders. To this day, Zonta remains committed to improving health access for women and among others to equal rights issues. From Else Kröner to Akiko Iwasaki, countless remarkable women have made tremendous contributions to improving women’s health. Kudos to their commitment! Let’s take this day as an opportunity to raise further awareness and to commit to advancing this important topic. #IWD2024

💃🏽 “𝗪𝗲 𝗼𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵.” – 𝗟𝗶𝘀𝗮 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗶 Until 1993, women were largely excluded from clinical trials. Not by accident, but by design 👀 Women were left out of research because our biology was seen as disruptive. Hormones made the data harder to control, so the answer was to exclude us 🤷🏽♀️ The default became male & the consequences followed. What worked in the lab didn’t always work in the real world & it still doesn’t ❌ That choice didn’t stay in the past 🔙 You can still see it in drugs that fail to accurately recognise women’s symptoms, in the medtech equipment that doesn’t quite fit in a female surgeon's hand, in the research that skips over the questions that matter to half the population 🌎 As we move into an AI-first future, we’re building on data that never really saw women to begin with. The risk isn’t just bias, it’s getting things wrong at scale 📈 If women aren’t included in the data, the systems we rely on won’t just miss us, they’ll misrepresent us. We need women shaping the research, the trials, the tech – not just for fairness, but so it actually works 📊 If we want healthcare that works for women, we need to start with research that sees us clearly, not as complications, but as standard 💭 𝗪𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗪𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 📏 -- ♻ Re-share if this resonated with you. 👩🏽⚕️ Follow Dr Fiona Pathiraja-Møller for more. #womenshealth #AI #science #clinicaltrials

What are we researching in "#WomenAfterDark" WAD research? In our Women After Dark (WAD) research at The Gendered City, we explored the unique challenges women* face navigating urban spaces after dark. Our pilot study, conducted across five European cities—Milan, Amsterdam, Paris, and Rotterdam—revealed critical insights into how #gender shapes spatial experiences at #night. Key emerged terms that are the focus of our research include "#MentalMaps," the cognitive representations women form based on perceived safety and potential threats, and "#FearZones," areas identified as unsafe due to poor lighting, isolation, or prior incidents. Many women reported relying on "#SafeRoutes," familiar paths they feel comfortable using, highlighting the impact of #GenderedGeographies on their movement. More findings underscore the importance of considering #SpatialAgency, or how women navigate and influence urban spaces, often constrained by #InvisibleBarriers embedded in city design. We also observed #TerritorialBoundaries, where certain areas are deemed off-limits after dark, reflecting broader issues of #SpatialFear and #SafetyPerception. #FeministUrbanism, #Womenledurbanism, and through #FeministPlacemaking and #GenderSensitiveDesign lead our research to create safer, more accessible cities for everyone. The goal of our studies to help inform future urban interventions aimed at reducing #UrbanInequality and fostering #UrbanJustice. Stay tuned as we continue to explore how to design urban environments that reflect the lived realities of women* and other marginalized groups.

"This report developed by UNESCO and in collaboration with the Women for Ethical AI (W4EAI) platform, is based on and inspired by the gender chapter of UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. This concrete commitment, adopted by 194 Member States, is the first and only recommendation to incorporate provisions to advance gender equality within the AI ecosystem. The primary motivation for this study lies in the realization that, despite progress in technology and AI, women remain significantly underrepresented in its development and leadership, particularly in the field of AI. For instance, currently, women reportedly make up only 29% of researchers in the field of science and development (R&D),1 while this drops to 12% in specific AI research positions.2 Additionally, only 16% of the faculty in universities conducting AI research are women, reflecting a significant lack of diversity in academic and research spaces.3 Moreover, only 30% of professionals in the AI sector are women,4 and the gender gap increases further in leadership roles, with only 18% of in C-Suite positions at AI startups being held by women.5 Another crucial finding of the study is the lack of inclusion of gender perspectives in regulatory frameworks and AI-related policies. Of the 138 countries assessed by the Global Index for Responsible AI, only 24 have frameworks that mention gender aspects, and of these, only 18 make any significant reference to gender issues in relation to AI. Even in these cases, mentions of gender equality are often superficial and do not include concrete plans or resources to address existing inequalities. The study also reveals a concerning lack of genderdisaggregated data in the fields of technology and AI, which hinders accurate measurement of progress and persistent inequalities. It highlights that in many countries, statistics on female participation are based on general STEM or ICT data, which may mask broader disparities in specific fields like AI. For example, there is a reported 44% gender gap in software development roles,6 in contrast to a 15% gap in general ICT professions.7 Furthermore, the report identifies significant risks for women due to bias in, and misuse of, AI systems. Recruitment algorithms, for instance, have shown a tendency to favor male candidates. Additionally, voice and facial recognition systems perform poorly when dealing with female voices and faces, increasing the risk of exclusion and discrimination in accessing services and technologies. Women are also disproportionately likely to be the victims of AI-enabled online harassment. The document also highlights the intersectionality of these issues, pointing out that women with additional marginalized identities (such as race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or disability) face even greater barriers to accessing and participating in the AI field."

In our world today, almost everything is designed with men as the default. From the buildings we live in to the policies that govern us, the male perspective is too often the only one considered. This pervasive bias extends even to critical areas like medicine and safety, where the consequences can be life-threatening for women. Take, for instance, the development of drugs. Even when creating treatments specifically for women's health issues, researchers frequently test these drugs on male subjects—both animals and humans. This approach fails to account for the physiological differences between men and women, leading to medications that may be less effective, or even harmful, for women. The repercussions of this oversight are not just about discomfort or inconvenience; they can have serious, even deadly, consequences. But it doesn't stop there. Consider the car you drive. Most crash test dummies used in safety testing are modeled after the "average" male body. As a result, women are 47% more likely to suffer serious injury in a car crash than men. The seats, seatbelts, and airbags are designed to protect a male body, leaving women at a disproportionate risk of harm. This is a systemic issue that permeates nearly every aspect of our lives. The world we live in has been engineered with one gender in mind, leaving the other to navigate a landscape that often doesn't account for their needs. It's not just about fairness, it's about safety, health, and ultimately, survival. It's time for a radical shift in how we design our world. We must move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach and start considering the diverse needs of all people. This means demanding that medical research includes both men and women, that safety standards account for different body types, and that every aspect of our world, from public spaces to the products we use, reflects the reality that women are not an afterthought. Women's lives, health, and well-being should never be compromised simply because the systems in place fail to consider them. It's time to build a world that is truly inclusive, where everyone’s safety and health are prioritized, not just those of half the population. Creator: @annaakana Shot by @johnleestills Grip @meliseeta Sound @mobleywillwork Edited by @benchinapen La Gouvernance au Féminin - Women in Governance

Sexism in academia is bad for science and a waste of public funding We just published this paper in Nature Rev. Mater. (2023) today. https://lnkd.in/exACJf7S   An open access link (without the interesting figures in the supplementary info) is given under this link https://rdcu.be/dr6Pp   Higher education and research institutions are critical to the well-being and success of societies, meaning their financial support is strongly in the public interest. At the same time, value-for-money principles demand that such investment delivers. Unfortunately, these principles are currently violated by one of the biggest sources of public funding inefficiency: sexism.   Academia is widely viewed as a meritocracy, a bastion of liberalism, and a place where people go to pursue a higher calling.   Yet research by the prestigious National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine published in 2018 shows that rates of sexual harassment in academia are second only to those in the military.   More common than overtly sexualised harassment, however, is gender bias. Studies show that women’s research receives tougher assessment, less funding, fewer prizes, and less citation than men’s. Female professors receive lower evaluations and more criticism from students, both male and female, and face higher expectations as mentors.   Women often face chilly academic climates, isolation, job insecurity, stalled promotions, and unequal or limited access to resources. These tendencies can easily verge towards incivility, ostracism, online abuse, academic sabotage, and malicious allegations.   And when women are brave enough to speak out? Most of the time it does not work out for them. They face, at best, minimisation or silencing. More threatening is retaliation, including from institutions themselves. They can find themselves under investigation, targeted for character assassination, retaliatory accusations, demotion, and even firing.   We show the cost of losing women at early and advanced career stages. Economic losses stemming from discriminatory science are especially harmful given that at all career stages, high-achieving women may be particularly targeted for incivility, harassment and take-down.   We call on governments to address sexism in higher education and research as a matter of urgency. Please join us in pressing for the proposed changes in this paper.

Ever wondered why so many groundbreaking contributions in #Science and #History are attributed to men? 🤔 This phenomenon has a name: The Matilda Effect. The term, coined by historian Margaret W. Rossiter, describes the systematic undervaluation of women’s contributions to science, where their work is often either attributed to male colleagues or collaborators, or downright stolen 😱 Here are five examples of the #MatildaEffect: 1️⃣ Ada Lovelace & Charles Babbage 👉 Known as the first computer programmer, Ada Lovelace developed algorithms for Babbage’s Analytical Engine. Yet, for decades, her contributions were minimized, with Babbage credited for ideas she originated. 2️⃣ Rosalind Franklin & the Double Helix 👉 Franklin’s X-ray diffraction images were critical to the discovery of DNA’s double-helix structure. However, Watson and Crick received the Nobel Prize without properly acknowledging her work. 3️⃣ Lise Meitner & Otto Hahn 👉 Lise Meitner co-discovered nuclear fission, yet it was Otto Hahn who received the 1944 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, despite Meitner’s pivotal theoretical contributions. 4️⃣ Jocelyn Bell Burnell & the Pulsar Discovery 👉 While a graduate student, Bell Burnell discovered the first pulsar. Her supervisor, Antony Hewish, received the Nobel Prize, with little recognition of her groundbreaking observation. 5️⃣ Henrietta Leavitt & Edwin Hubble 👉 Leavitt’s work on measuring stellar distances laid the foundation for Hubble’s research. While Hubble’s name became iconic, Leavitt’s contributions were largely overlooked. Why Does This Matter? 💬 The Matilda Effect not only erases women’s achievements but also perpetuates gender inequity in science and other fields. By bringing attention to these stories, we can ensure history reflects the truth and inspire future generations of women to pursue their dreams unapologetically. What Can You Do? ✔️ Amplify women’s voices in your industry. ✔️ Acknowledge and celebrate the contributions of all colleagues, regardless of gender. ✔️ Share the stories of overlooked trailblazers like these. 💬 Let’s Start the Conversation: Have you seen the Matilda Effect in your industry? Or do you know other women whose contributions were overshadowed or erased? Share their stories in the comments - let’s ensure they get the recognition they deserve! 🌟 #WomenInScience #WomenInSTEM #EqualityInScience #HERstory #RoleModels #WomenInTech

In new book, Professors Mary Armstrong and Susan Averett examine economic inequities among diverse women in STEM fields: "Tapping into data from the American Community Survey, published by the Census Bureau, which provides vital information on the U.S. and its people, their book focuses on the STEM participation and earnings of intersectional groups of women in STEM. They present four in-depth case studies examining Black women; American Indian and Alaska Native women; Asian and Pacific Islander women; and Hispanic women. Also included are four case studies of women who are frequently bypassed by the STEM inclusivity literature: foreign-born women, women with disabilities, queer women, and mothers. Years in the making, their book documents the inequities and offers hopeful recommendations for rethinking STEM equity. The project began when an editor at MIT Press approached Averett, whose research interests include gender and the economy, about her interest in developing a book project. 'I talked to Mary, who has an interest in gender studies and was doing a lot of work in STEM already,' Averett recalls. 'She’s very much an expert on that. We decided that maybe we could make something out of this.' Armstrong and Averett found interdisciplinary synergy almost immediately, and their inherently collaborative work is aimed at scholars, Ph.D. students, policymakers, and others interested in better understanding the situation for diverse women working in STEM and how to level the playing field in STEM professions." #WomenInSTEM #GirlsInSTEM #STEMGems #GiveGirlsRoleModels https://lnkd.in/e9kfZ27B

'Advances in biomonitoring technologies for women’s health' article, published in Nature Magazine, review addresses the long-standing bias in biomedical research and healthcare toward male populations, which has resulted in women (and transgender individuals) being underrepresented in studies, diagnostic norms, and device design. The review explores applications of wearables and biosensors across multiple domains of women’s health, including fertility, pregnancy and maternal health, hormonal monitoring, vaginal infections, gynecologic and breast cancers, and osteoporosis. 📌 For example, devices that track basal body temperature, sweat biomarkers, or hormonal shifts can help with ovulation tracking and fertility. 📌 In pregnancy, smart textiles, abdominal sensors, and wearable ECG/uterine contraction monitors are being developed to continuously monitor maternal and fetal biomarkers. 📌 On the diagnostic side, innovations in point-of-care assays and microfluidic devices are being adapted to detect vaginal pathogens (e.g. via pH, enzymatic markers, or nucleic acid amplification) and early signals of gynecologic cancers (liquid biopsy, micro-exosome capture, multifunctional immunosensors). The authors argue that this gap contributes to delays in diagnosis, suboptimal treatments, and systemic inequities in women’s health. They survey emerging technologies—especially wearable sensors, point-of-care diagnostics, and AI/ML tools—that can help close that gap by enabling continuous, non-invasive biomonitoring tailored to female physiology. However, the authors underscore significant barriers and challenges to adoption. Many of the devices are still in prototype or small-scale testing stages and lack validation in diverse, large populations, especially in low-resource settings. Usability, user compliance, comfort, data interpretation, cost, and integration with clinical workflows are major hurdles. In addition, socioeconomic and digital divides—such as access to internet, smartphones, and health literacy—can limit uptake among marginalized groups. The review also discusses how AI and machine learning could amplify the impact of biomonitoring by improving predictive accuracy and pattern recognition, though models must be trained on more balanced, representative datasets to avoid reinforcing bias. Find out more via link 🔗 https://lnkd.in/d-xh9R6m #femtech #womenshealth #innovation #biomonitoring #biomarkers