For centuries, science and technology have assumed that the male body is the "universal" human standard. This approach, with the male as the default, has created a world designed for men: from life-saving medication to everyday products. And this often comes directly at the expense of women’s health, safety, and opportunities.
It is time to recognize: women do not just need a seat at the table. They deserve a science that takes their own biology into account.
The deadly price of the "Default Male"
When products are developed solely on the basis of male data, the consequences are often dangerous.
A classic example is the automotive industry. For decades, vehicle safety was tested using crash test dummies modeled after a robust male body approximately 1.80 meters tall. The slighter or pregnant female body was ignored in the process. Consequently, car accidents became one of the leading causes of death for unborn children because seat belts were not designed to keep women safe.
This bias extends into the professional world and sports. Women and girls are three to six times more likely to suffer cruciate ligament injuries in the knee than men.
Research attributes this, among other things, to the fact that they have to perform in a "man's world": using soccer cleats designed for male feet, which have different arch support and a different stud configuration.
The situation is similar with personal protective equipment in healthcare and law enforcement. It is often just a scaled-down version of men’s equipment that does not provide women with adequate protection.
A medical system that misunderstands women
In medicine, the male standard can lead to fatal misdiagnoses.
A heart attack often presents differently in women than in men. Because doctors are trained to look for "classic" male symptoms, women who do not show these typical signs are often sent home from the emergency room without treatment.
Furthermore: clinical drug trials have historically excluded women. The justification was that female hormones would "complicate" the study—so researchers stuck with male test subjects.
This means that dosages and side-effect profiles are frequently tailored to men. As a result, women face a significantly higher risk of adverse reactions.
When science ignores biological sex as a variable, it is not "objective." It is incomplete.
The myth of genius and the scissors effect in the graph
The problem begins long before women enter a laboratory or a doctor’s office. It starts with social stereotypes that label genius as a masculine trait.
Studies show that by the age of seven, girls are already more likely than boys to believe that men are "smarter."
Marketing reinforces this conditioning. Toys for boys invite building and fighting, while products for girls revolve around beauty and magic.
This culture contributes to a pattern known in academia as the "scissor effect" (leaky pipeline): women are often in the majority during bachelor’s studies. But the closer one gets to leadership positions and professorships, the more their share drops.
Women in science also encounter the myth of the lone genius. It devalues the very collaborative teamwork in which many of them excel. And they frequently receive letters of recommendation that use gender-coded language, describing them as "hardworking" or "nice" instead of "brilliant" or "world-leading."
A new field: products for women's health
The tide is slowly beginning to turn. A new wave of FemTech and longevity research is putting female physiology at the center.
At last, products are being created that are specifically developed for the female aging process and cellular health.
One example is NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide). It is currently being studied for its role in increasing NAD⁺ levels, which can support metabolism and energy supply—areas that are particularly relevant for women during hormonal transition phases and in old age.
By orienting themselves toward the biological specificities of women, these new products are closing a gap left by classical science.
Conclusion
True scientific progress requires diverse perspectives. Those who develop for the "Default Male" lose out on the very innovations that arise when the full potential of the population is included.
Closing the gender gap in science is not an act of charity. It is the prerequisite for a safer, more accurate, and more effective world.
Women deserve their own science. Because without it, science is failing half the population.