On the 17th, the Korean Science and Technology Gender Innovation Center (GISTER) holds a press conference in Jung-gu, Seoul with Lupa Sakar, the editor of The Lancet Digital Health (second from left). /Courtesy of News1

In July, Muk In-hee, head of the National Dementia Research and Development Program (Seoul National University College of Medicine), announced research findings indicating that the Alzheimer’s disease treatment drug 'Leqembi' is effective for men but has no effect on women. This result clearly shows that male-centric research can lead to outcomes unsuitable for female patients.

The science and technology community emphasizes the importance of 'gender innovation' to prevent such biased research. Gender refers to social sex. While past distinctions were made solely on biological sex, the term now encompasses social sex. Gender innovation is the concept that characteristics such as gender should be considered in scientific research and technological development, reducing data bias related to specific populations and resulting in accurate research outcomes.

Rupa Sarkar, editor of the international journal The Lancet Digital Health, met with reporters on the 17th at a restaurant in Jung-gu, Seoul, to highlight the significance of global gender innovation, stating, 'Through gender-based research, we can enhance the quality of research outcomes and accelerate advancements in medical technology.' Sarkar serves as the gender lead at Elsevier, a major academic publishing company, and is at the forefront of gender innovation in the science and technology sector.

Gender innovation is the path to saving patients. Historically, most lab mice used in drug development were male, as hormonal fluctuations in females due to their estrous cycle make reliable experimentation difficult. Consequently, the efficacy of drugs on females was unknown. This has resulted in female patients experiencing side effects that are twice as likely as those of male patients. The exclusion of women in clinical trials has worsened the situation, leading to the development of drugs that have only been tested on men.

In the global scientific community, gender innovation is reflected in the increasing number of female researchers. Sarkar stated, 'According to a report published by Elsevier in June, the proportion of female researchers in the world's top 20 countries increased from 28% in 2001 to 41% in 2022,' adding that 'In interdisciplinary research where various fields of study intersect, there have been instances where female researchers have stood out.' The proportion of female researchers is considered a key indicator for assessing the degree of gender innovation.

However, Sarkar noted, 'There is still a long way to go in terms of overall research outcomes and citation counts,' stating that 'The gap between female and male scientists in various research fields has also been prominent.' He emphasized, 'Early investment in research funding and assistance is needed to enhance research capabilities and improve collaboration among researchers to facilitate balanced gender-based research.'

The South Korean science and technology community still has a long way to go. According to Kim Hye-jin, a senior researcher at the Korea Gender Innovation Center for Science and Technology (GISTER), only 1% of research in the life sciences sector in South Korea reflects gender characteristics. In comparison, the United States has recorded 10% in the same field, highlighting a very low figure for South Korea. Additionally, as of 2021, South Korea ranked 13th globally in research related to gender characteristics.

Sarkar stressed the importance of internally examining and collecting data on what roles female researchers can play to overcome gender differences in South Korea, saying, 'By collecting accurate data and comparing it with global statistics, we can identify what measures are needed.'

He added, 'To increase the activities of female scientists, mentoring programs should be provided to female researchers in the early stages of research, and the tools used to evaluate research should be improved to assess and reflect the degree of gender innovation.'