Women have been critical to biomedical innovation and to the development of the biopharmaceutical industry. Early female pioneers fought significant prejudices and often did not receive proper recognition for their contributions. While the journey to equity remains unfinished, things have definitely improved. In recent years, many Nobel prizes in the biosciences have been awarded to women, and the number women entering the biopharma workforce has largely reached parity with men. There are growing numbers of women in leadership positions, too. However, C-suite positions, boardrooms, and funding organizations remain dominated by white men, most of whom continue to choose other white men for these positions.
History of Female Paradigm Shifters
Women have behind many innovations that have enabled and advanced important developments in the biological sciences and the biopharma industry, starting with the ineffable Marie Curie. Gertrude Elion developed a new class of antiviral drugs. Leila Denmark was one of the creators of a vaccine for whooping cough. Brigitte Askonas was part of the team that developed a method for cloning antibody-forming B cells in vivo. Jane Mertz discovered the first enzyme for joining together DNA from different species, enabling the development of recombinant DNA cloned in bacteria.
More recently, Frances Kelsey, while working at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), pushed for a ban on thalidomide in the United States, preventing the tragedy that unfolded in Europe when thousands of children were born with serious defects because their mothers were prescribed the drug during pregnancy. Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier are widely known today for the discovery of CRISP/Cas9 gene editing technology, for which they were awarded a Nobel Prize. Katalin Karikó and her colleague Drew Weissman also received a Nobel prize for their research on mRNA.
However, there are notable examples of how important work conducted by women has been belittled or ignored. In 1905, Stevens was the first to provide clear evidence that chromosomes determine sex, through her work on beetles. Her publication, Studies in Spermatogenesis, documented her discovery of the X and Y chromosomes and their role in determining male or female offspring. Despite the significance of her contribution, her work was historically underrecognized — often overshadowed by her male contemporary, Edmund Beecher Wilson, who published similar findings around the same time. More disturbing is the fact that the X-ray diffraction data for DNA collected by Rosalind Franklin, which enabled Watson and Crick to develop their double helix model was only recently acknowledged. It turns out a male colleague, Maurice Wilkins, had secretly shared her unpublished data with the two men, who then did not credit her — but they did credit Wilkins, who shared the Nobel with the two men.
Further indications of the challenged faced by women striving to be recognized for the achievements and contributions reside in the length of time it has taken them to gain high positions in leading biopharma companies. It was not until 2012 that a woman became CEO of a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company (Heather Bresch at Mylan), and not until 2017 that a women headed up a top-10 pharma company (Emma Walmsley at GlaxoSmithKline).
Female Leadership Matters
Those that wonder why the issue of female leadership in biopharma is an important one may be surprised to learn about the extensive evidence that has been developed in support of including women at the highest levels. They afford a range of financial and other advantages.
McKinsey reported in 2018 that companies with more women in top roles financially outperform companies that are male dominated 21% of the time, and 27% are better at value creation.1 A follow-up study from McKinsey in 2020 found that companies with better than 30% female representation in their executive teams are much more likely to outperform companies with teams including 10–30% women, and they more likely to outperform companies with teams having less than 10% women members.2 Overall, the most gender-diverse companies outperformed the least by nearly 50%.
In a separate study, it was found that although just 2% of women-led biotech startups received venture capital funding, they generated 10% more revenue over five years than male-led firms. In addition, the SPDR MSCI USA Gender Diversity "SHE" Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF), which tracks female-led companies, often outperforms the S&P 500.3
More recently, the UK BioIndustry Association reported that, while only 17% of biopharma CEOs in the United Kingdom in 2022 were women, they raised 22% of the capital and completed 25% of the deals.4 In 2024, when 18% of CEOs were women, they accounted for 22% of the deals. Companies with a commitment to diversity also bring up to twice as many products to market than those that are less diverse.5
In addition to improved financial performance, diverse teams have also been found to benefit from better decision-making and increased responsiveness.6 Women leaders often help increase diversity due to their tendency to prefer collaboration and inclusion.7 Inclusive environments, in turn, lead to greater employe satisfaction and talent retention levels. The emphasis that female leaders place on patient-centric drug development strategies, which they enable with greater understanding of market needs.
Current Facts and Figures: Slowing Progress
The numbers show some progress, but it appears to be slowing. In 2022, while women made up half of graduates in the biosciences and close to 50% of the overall biopharma workforce, less than one-third of executives in general and less than 10% of CEOs were women.7
In 2023, GSK remained the only top-10 pharma company with a women at the helm,8 and women accounted for just one-quarter of biopharma executive teams.9 The same year, just nine of the 102 companies launched or garnering series A financing had female CEOs.10 Furthermore, between November 2024 and February 2025 (last month studied), not a single biotech that launched or raised Series A funds (20) was headed by a women. The last was Axion Therapeutics (founded in 2020), which raised $115 million in series A funds under the leadership of Joanna Stanicka. Since October 2023, just 8% of biotechs with early raises were led by women.
With regard to the percentages of companies helmed by women, S&P Capital IQ found that just 12% of U.S. biotechs with a market cap of $100 million at the time had female CEOs.10 A Bedford Group Transearch study found a similar result of 13%. In addition, that study revealed a decline in the percentage of female executives in U.S. biotechs from 20.1% in 2022 to 18.3% in 2023. Furthermore, while the percentage of female board members increased from 25.8% to 27.9% in the United States over the same period,10 in the UK, female board representation decreased from 25% to 22% from 2023 to 2024.4,11
Analysis by the UK BioIndustry Association suggests that while the number of UK biotechs with female CEOs has increased noticeably, more recently the percentage versus men has not changed, and thus growth could potentially be halted.4 In addition, while the percentage of women in pre-managerial positions is approximately 55%, representations falls to 31.5% at the executive managerial level, largely due to the fact that many women leave the workforce when they reach senior leadership positions.
A final sobering piece of data: although there are many more female biotech CEOs today than there ever have been in the past, at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference held in April 2025, there will still more men with the name Michael attending the meeting than women CEOs.12
Many Reasons for the Disparity
There are several contributors to the decreasing representative of women in higher-level positions at biotech/pharma companies, most tied to continuation of established behaviors and perspectives by the male leaders in the industry.
Two damning examples occurred as recently as 2016 and 2018, when parties with female models and topless dancers were held in conjunction with conferences held by the Bio Industry Association (BIO).13 In addition, leadership within BIO has been dominated by men since its founding.
The media is a significant contributor to the disparity as well, often barely mentioning top female leaders involved in newsworthy events.10 Recently, for instance, when Johnson & Johnson (J&H) acquired Intra-Cellular Therapies, only J&J’s Joaquin Duato was profiled, not Sharon Mates, Intra-Cellular’s founder and CEO.
Requirements for female representation in company leadership have also been struck down by the courts.10 That was the case in California, which had briefly required gender parity in companies headquartered in the state, and for Nasdaq, which was only able to implement a rule requiring companies listed on the exchange to have at least one woman and one member of a minority group in director positions for a short time before litigation ended the rule.
One of the biggest issues today is the preference of biotech companies to hire only those people with proven experience: leaders who have achieved notable success, such as getting their company acquired in a high-profile deal.10 There is strong evidence that both investors/funders and boards, which are male-dominated, are biased against selecting female CEOs and tend to select people they know, which are also men.4 For other executives, balancing work and family needs is an additional challenge.
Several Strategies for Breaking Barriers
Overcoming the entrenched male dominance (and bias) in roles involved in the selection/appointment of top biotech/biopharma company leaders is not a simple task, as clearly indicated by the slowdown in progress seen for women in the industry in recent years.
There are steps that women who want to hold top leadership positions can take, though. Finding mentors — both male and female — that can provide advice and support is one of the most important.10 The Biotech CEO Sisterhood is an example of a group created to provide mentorship on many activities expected of CEOs. Recognizing shortcomings and taking action to get needed additional experience to address those gaps is also essential, both while working up the corporate ladder and once at the help.
The key to success, in fact, is to leverage every possible tool available, not just mentorships, to overcome existing barriers such as gender bias in hiring and family life issues.7 Examples include developing company cultures that value diversity, modernizing hiring practices, expanding talent pools, and implementing means for measuring progress.
References
1. Hunt, V., Prince, S., Dixon-Fyle, S., Yee, L. “Delivering through diversity.” McKinsey and Company. 2018.
2. “Diversity wins.” McKinsey & Company. Accessed 16 May 2025.
3. “Women in Biotech Progress – Yet Challenges Remain.” Oppenheimer Equity Research Industry Update, 6 Sep. 2021.
4. Wall, Jane. “Women in biotech leadership: Representation at C-suite.” UK BioIndustry Association. 4 Mar. 2025.
5. “Why are diversity and inclusion critical in the workplace?” 2022. Penn LPS Online. University of Pennsylvania. Accessed 17 October 2024.
6. Hunt, Dame Vivian, Lareina Yee, Sara Prince, and Sundiatu Dixon. “Delivering through Diversity.” McKinsey & Company. 18 Jan. 2018.
7. Phillips, Jennifer. “Women in Biotech: A Long History of Accomplishment, and a Rising Tide of Recognition.” LifeSci Search Thought Leadership. 30 Mar. 2022.
8. “Sick and Tired: How the Lack of Women CEOs in Big Pharm Impacts Women’s Health.” StoryMD. Accessed 17 Oct. 2024.
9. Milkovic, P. “Women In Pharma – Are We There Yet?” One Nucleus. 2024 Accessed 17 October 2024.
10. Armstrong, Annalee. “Women Leaders Decline in Biotech’s Era of ‘Proven Leadership.’” Biospace. 5 Feb. 2025.
2025 EU/UK Biotech Board Remuneration & Diversity Study. PIR International. 2025.
12. Sutton, Sarah. “Reflections from the Biotech Sisterhood.” Mass Bio News. 14 Apr. 2025,
13. Dunn, Andrew. “Number of female biotech CEOs remains ‘shockingly low,’ putting spotlight on BIO.” Biopharma Dive. 31 Jul. 2019.