August 01, 2022

Gender disparity at EOS orthodontic conferences: Sexism or chance?

Some time ago, I posted about the gender imbalance at orthodontic conferences. I did a simple piece of research where I just identified the gender of speakers at the major orthodontic conferences. I found a marked disparity with the three leading conferences of the WFO, EOS, and AAO having less than 30% of the speakers being female. This post resulted in a large number of interesting comments. Most of these comments expressed concern about this unsatisfactory situation. Therefore, I was interested in this new paper that looked at the gender disparity of speakers at the European Orthodontic Conferences from 2015 to 2020. Its results are somewhat concerning.

A Zurich-based team did the study, and the European Journal of orthodontics published the paper.

What did they ask?

They did the study to:

“Identify any potential gender inequalities related to the speakers at the European Orthodontic Society conferences held from 2015 to 2020”.

What did they do?

They did a straightforward and effective study. This had the following stages:

  • They searched the abstract books and programmes of the EOS conferences from 2015-20.
  • From this source, they identified the gender of the speakers for lectures. To do this as accurately as possible, they used online tools for gender identification ((, https://babynames. com/,
  • Then they calculated the gender ratio for each meeting.
  • The EOS meeting has a mixture of two types of lectures. One form is the long keynote lecture, and the conference committee selects the speakers. The other part of the programme is a series of short lectures. People make a formal application for consideration for the short lectures. Two assessors review these applications double-blind.  They only accept a proportion of these applications.
  • The study team, therefore,  divided the speakers into those who had applied for short oral presentations and those invited to give a longer keynote presentation.
  • Finally, they analysed their data with the relevant multivariate statistics.
What did they find?

Their data was interesting. The main points were

  • There were 84 invited lectures and 312 short oral papers during the study period.
  • Of the 84 invited speakers, only 15 (17.9%) were female.
  • However, when they looked at the short oral presentations, they found that 153 (49%) were female. Importantly, these were selected with no knowledge of their gender.
  • Overall, the odds of a female scientist being invited as a keynote speaker at the EOS conference ranged from 0.20 to 0.36 for the keynote lectures. Whereas, for the short oral presentations, the odds were 0.75-1.45.

Their overall conclusions were:

“There was a strong gender disparity in the invited keynote speakers for the EOS conference. However, there was no disparity for the short oral presentations”.

What did I think?

The results of this study were remarkable and disappointing. The data clearly suggested an equal representation of genders for the short oral presentations. Yet, the invited speakers had a marked bias towards males. In this respect, it is crucial to consider that the speakers for the short presentations had to apply to speak. Furthermore, their applications were assessed double-blind. Yet, the invited keynote lectures were invited directly by the conference committee.

In plain language, there was a significant male bias for the keynote lectures at the conference.

Furthermore, because they reviewed the applications blindly, it was clear that the scientific quality of the work produced by women was equally as good as men’s.

These are significant findings. It is established that women’s voice in science and academia is underrepresented. As a result, I was disappointed that this was evident in the speakers at the EOS conference. It is difficult to identify reasons for this, apart from bias in the selection of invited speakers towards men.

This leads to two main issues. Firstly, this leads to an absence of female role models for younger aspiring clinicians/scientists. Secondly, one of the criteria for promotion at many Universities is the number of keynote presentations a person has done. If women are not invited to give keynote lectures, then they are disadvantaged further in the promotion process. Finally, in my opinion, this imbalance is simply wrong and is likely to represent discrimination.

Final comments

I posted about this subject several months ago. Consequently, I was accused on social media of being woke, virtue signalling and naivety.

At the last meeting of the EOS, there were 12 male and only 4 female keynote speakers, so not much has changed! However, the  BOS conference held in Manchester in 2021 had a balance of male/female speakers. In this respect, it is good to see that the British Orthodontic Conference 2022 also has a gender balance of 40% female invited speakers. This illustrates that it is possible to achieve a balance. It just needs planning by the conference committees.  We just need to invite more women to speak; this is a simple step.

Related Posts

Have your say!

  1. It would be fair to have gender disparities in EOS conference speakers if there are gender disparities in contribution to the orthodontic science.

    Before deciding to achieve gender balance in conference speakers, we should look at the literature and evaluate the scientific contributions (articles/book publications) and if there are equal or not.

    • The disparity is not only on speakers, they started on the academy. More male professors, and so, probably more publications…

      But female dentists and orthodontists are the majority in numbers, including master degrees and PhDs…

      • Female dentist and orthodontists are more in numbers, this could be due to disparities in the admission process.

        Without solid evidence this discussion is endless.

  2. Has anyone looked at ethnic disparities in EOS conference speakers?

  3. This is fascinating, and indeed concerning. One of the rebuttals for gender parity is that females don’t want to or aren’t able to speak. If they are applying and getting parity in a blind selection process then I don’t see how that argument can still be used. There’s obviously more work to do but recognising the issue is a good step

    • Hilarious rebuttal. There isn’t equal representation because it’s still a Ole Boy’s Club. Simply not surprised.

  4. This is unfortunately part of a very disturbing trend, where the quality and content of the material appear to be de-emphasized in order to satisfy gender or ethnic diversity quotas. Equal opportunities should absolutely be provided, but never at the cost of compromised scientific rigor and integrity. Far too many tend to take undue advantage of such allowances, in order to further their own inimical agendas, and/or significantly dilute the quality of the scientific material. Our allegiance must be to the science first.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *