Abstract
Scientific research is often framed as a purely merit-based practice, yet both this capstone project and STS research demonstrate how advancements in medicine are shaped by social influences within operational structures. Together, these projects and analyses examine how systemic gender biases influence what conditions are studied and subsequently which medical devices are developed, ultimately creating inequitable limitations in patient care for women.
This capstone project addresses limitations in the diagnostic process for Exercise-Induced Laryngeal Obstruction (EILO), a respiratory condition that predominantly affects adolescent females. The consensus most effective diagnostic method, continuous laryngoscopy during exercise (CLE), currently lacks standardized devices available to reliably secure laryngoscopes during testing, creating variability in diagnostic effectiveness and limiting testing accessibility. To address these barriers, a stabilization system was developed that securely attaches the laryngoscope to an adjustable headpiece, effectively minimizing scope displacement and maximizing patient comfort. By reducing risk of damage to the scope and patient while improving image consistency, this technology aims to standardize CLE testing across clinical settings and expand access to accurate EILO diagnosis.
This lack of device development and clinic knowledge gap of this female-dominant condition reflects a broader issue of systemic disparities in research funding. To further investigate, this STS research uses a comparative case study of EILO and Pneumothorax, a male-dominate respiratory condition of similar incidence, alongside an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) analysis of the research funding process. Ultimately, the drastic gap in clinical research and funding found in favor of Pneumothorax follows patterns of underfunding of female-dominant conditions found in prior studies. Meanwhile, ANT reveals that this disparity emerges from interacting factors, including subjective funding review criteria, limited female representation in STEM fields, and political influences, that are all susceptible to social biases and collectively contribute toward inequitable funding decisions.
In summation, these findings reflect how gender gaps in medical treatment are the result of social biases. Addressing them requires not only intentional engineering innovations, but also systemic change in research prioritization.
