Jill Biden’s dystopian vision for women’s health

Highly praised by the White House Initiatives in women’s health research This month, we launched our first major commitment of $100 million. ”sprint for women’s health“Targeting”Industry and venture capital” and aims to risk progress to create an avenue for investors to capitalize on new discoveries and technologies in women’s health.

in a moment huge economic disparity With women’s health and reproductive health care at stake, this vision of the future – venture capital accelerating commercial technology products to market – is dystopian. Sprint awards proposals primarily on the basis of commercial feasibility, rather than impact on women’s health.

Since the 1970s, the women’s health movement has aimed to put knowledge in the hands of women and build collective power within communities around women-identified needs. Sprint for Women’s Health is very different from this vision. With a mission of women’s health equity and an infusion of potentially transformative government support, we are diverting public resources into private, profit-driven businesses.

The program is an offshoot of a dangerous movement that Jamie Marsella and colleagues at Harvard University’s Gender Science Institute have dubbed “investment feminism.” Dissatisfied with policy solutions, investment feminism argues that gender health equity can only be achieved through the use of markets. Reflecting this ideology, McKinsey It recently released a report calling closing women’s health disparities a “multi-trillion dollar opportunity.”

The White House project, led by First Lady Jill Biden, is prioritizing proposals aimed at developing profitable technologies in “competitive health care markets.” We think he has two problems. First, it confuses patients with customers, and second, it replaces technology on the brink of marketability with standards of empirically supported science. “Sprint” exists to line the pockets of venture capital and healthcare technology companies. Endpoints will become consumer products at the expense of much-needed but unprofitable research, policy, and solutions.

Biden is right that women are underserved by existing technologies and systems. However, this “women’s health disparity” is not caused by a lack of interest from financial companies.For-profit women’s health departments jointly raised funds. $1.14 billion From venture capital investors in 2023. femtech is one of Biggest growth area In this field. This is not an area that requires government funding. Despite this private investment, we have yet to see changes in the health of women, especially women from historically marginalized demographic groups.

For example, some diagnostic companies that specialize in women-specific diseases claim to offer women the opportunity to:be a pioneer” and “Transforming gynecological healthBy using smart tampons or pad devices, companies can collect data and potentially develop future diagnostics and treatments. These promises have not yet materialized, but even if they did, there is no guarantee that customers who submit menstrual data will have access to any treatments or diagnostic tools that may emerge. Only companies that succeed in producing them, or at least persuading investors to keep them alive, receive a return on investment.

More personalized home tests and smartphone health apps for women will only widen existing health disparities. In addition to this concern, Misuse of data (Especially since then Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization), as well as products such as fertility tracking apps. be monitored This is because there is a lack of evidence that they provide sufficient reliable information to achieve a successful pregnancy or prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Far from removing barriers for women who don’t have regular access to doctors and specialists, these technologies work best when used in conjunction with existing health care facilities. Her $100 million commitment to market-ready technology will make women’s health tools more convenient for the wealthy and socially connected, while also improving policy and public infrastructure for those who need it most. A future will be built where investment in will continue to be ignored.

The White House’s efforts overlook the fact that most, if not all, of women’s health problems are women’s faults. policy.Women often belong to America social safety netHowever, individual women cannot counteract the health effects. precarious working conditions, Lead in municipal water supplies and industrial pollution (Here are some examples) or address unfair issues their medical expenses By itself.

What women need and deserve are better policies.Is required labor policy It includes paid sick leave, higher minimum wages, and worker safety protections.Achieving quality requires public policy and funding child and elder Care. We need environmental policies that: air and water reduce pollution, dependence toxic resources,curb climate change and please consider waste stream of new innovations.Must be accessible to all communities Transportation facilities and health care Facility.

We applaud the White House’s progress on women’s health, highlighted this week in the following statement: presidential order President Biden’s signature. But what we need most to improve women’s health isn’t some high-tech, money-making solution. Women’s health advocates reiterate this presidential commitment to a vision true to the women’s health movement: addressing barriers to health for all women and empowering women to take control of their bodies and the role of technology. We should join the urgent call to focus. life and their future.

Jamie Marsella is a PhD candidate in the history of science at Harvard University. Katherine Lee is an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology at Tulane University. Sarah Richardson is the Alamont Professor of History of Science and the Study of Women, Gender, and Sexuality at Harvard University, and Director of the Harvard Gender Science Institute.