Why Women and Girls in Science Can Help Close the Health Gap

Bayer, VML forge pathways to better care

A few years ago, the Super Bowl did something unexpected. Between the trucks and the beer, we saw ads about menopause, periods and breast health. For a moment, women’s health was part of the mainstream conversation rather than a whispered sidebar. But in 2026, it’s worth asking: How far have we really come?

This year, a fourth-quarter Super Bowl spot called out the health-wealth gap, reminding us that wellness is a his-and-hers issue, shaped as much by economics as biology. If equality on the field of life is the goal, the scoreboard is still uneven.

Today is the International Day of Women & Girls in Science. It exists because the systems shaping health were never designed with women in mind. The result is a stubborn gender health gap: Women live longer than men yet spend around a quarter more of their lives in poor health. Longevity has not meant wellbeing.

Around the world, girls still miss school because of period pain. Women endure heavy bleeding or the symptoms of menopause because they’ve been conditioned to believe their suffering is normal. Nearly half of menopausal women struggle through it without meaningful support. These are not exceptions. They are everyday realities that shape education, careers, relationships and economic independence.

The imbalance is built into the engine room of science itself. Only about 1 percent of research funding goes to female-specific conditions outside of cancer. Five conditions that uniquely affect women—endometriosis, maternal health, PMS, menopause and cervical cancer—represent 14 percent of the female disease burden. Yet they receive less than 1 percent of investment. Until the 1990s, many clinical trials did not even require women to be included, leaving decades of evidence biased toward male biology.

Design has consequences. And in healthcare, those consequences show up as misdiagnosis, delayed treatment and avoidable suffering.

This is a moral issue but also a major opportunity. When women are healthier, families trend healthier, economies grow stronger and societies become more stable. Closing the gender health gap is one of the smartest investments we can make.

As communicators in health, we have a particular responsibility. Science alone does not change lives. Communication determines whether innovation reaches the people who need it—and whether they’re motivated to change what they do next. When we challenge long-held assumptions about women’s health, we create pathways to better care.

I’ve seen what is possible when industry chooses to lead. A good example is our recent partnership with Bayer titled “Anything But Normal.”

Through its consumer-facing platform, “WOMEN | Bayer,” the campaign challenges the conditioning that tells millions of women to simply endure symptoms, from debilitating menstrual pain to menopausal hot flashes and sleep disruption. By confronting what has too often been dismissed as normal, it shows that communications can move from awareness to action.

Bayer’s long heritage in women’s health deserves acknowledgment; the company has built a platform for action and innovation in areas too often undervalued. Their example sets the tone for what the whole sector can achieve when women’s needs are given due attention. Beyond empowering women, it gives healthcare professionals the insight and language to look beyond “I’m fine.” Great communication shapes what gets asked, what gets funded and ultimately what gets solved.

The same principle applies to science itself. When more women sit at the research table, different questions get asked. More attention is paid to symptoms that have been dismissed, to outcomes that matter in the real world and to the lived experience behind the dataset. Last year, a woman received the Nobel Prize for Medicine, a reminder of what leadership can look like when doors are open.

For those of us in health marketing and wider pharma, the task is clear. We must use our platforms to insist that women’s health is core business, not a niche. We must encourage girls to consider scientific careers and ensure they can see a future there that welcomes them. And we must design communications that replace endurance with agency.

The Super Bowl spotlight will move on quickly (advertising never stands still). The work of rebuilding health systems around women will not.

Backing women and girls in science is the lever that moves everything else. More women in science means better questions, better science and better care for everyone.