Which institutions did you visit during your fellowship?
My fellowship had two parts. The first was science policy with the Lithuanian Research Council and with the European Institute of Women’s Health. The second part was with the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences to understand if scientists face barriers in studying women’s health research.
My focus was funding for women’s health research. What priorities are set, what is funded? The broader European context part was the most difficult because nobody tracks overall how much funding goes to female health research. I received answers such as ‘we don’t track because nobody asked for that’. Step by step I found the European Institute of Women’s Health because they publish reports and papers that go to the European Parliament and Commission, and they push for change. And they have a lot of data!
What do you mean by women’s health research in this context?
There is a view that women’s health research is basically only related to the reproduction system, like gynaecological cancer or breast cancer. These are important of course, but menopause/perimenopause, hormonal contraceptives and gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis are still viewed as taboo topics. Women have brains, hearts, joints and lungs, and the data is problematic. For instance, about two-thirds of Alzheimer’s patients are women, but most neuroscientific research historically have focused on male brains because women have a complicated hormonal cycle, and this is viewed as ‘noise’ in scientific studies.
Scientists study male bodies, and in many cases then also apply the results to women’s bodies. The main problem mentioned is although you are required to include women and elderly in clinical trials, almost nobody disaggregates the data afterwards according to sex. The clinical trial design is very important if you design your study according to a default of the average male body.
A new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease was registered last year (anti-amyloid antibody lecanemab) that claimed to help against cognitive decline, and journalists started asking ‘do you have data disaggregated by sex’? It turned out there is no clear evidence that the observed benefits extend to women, and this happened not 20 or 30 years ago, but in 2025.
To illustrate my findings, I analyzed 224 studies funded by the Lithuanian Research Council from 2011 to 2024 in the biomedical and medical fields. Only ten mentioned women’s health, and most of them were focused on early loss of pregnancy, subjects like bacterial infections that affect pregnancy, the outcomes of gestational diabetes for the fetus, and so on. None of these studies focused on menopause, PMS or chronic pain, none of them mentioned disease burden.
How will you use the knowledge you gained during the fellowship?
I want to collaborate with one of the Lithuanian news outlets and maybe write a book. For International Day of Women and Girls in Science I am recording a show dedicated to women’s health for one of the television networks in Lithuania. I also initiated a project with UNESCO that aims to raise awareness amongst policy makers and journalists. And it’s just the beginning.
How important was the fellowship for you?
It was a gift. I had time to focus on a topic that is important, and to broaden my network. In one of the interviews I was talking about the EMBO fellowship, and I said this topic – women’s health – makes me feel I should take a microphone, go out into the street and talk about it.
Why did you choose journalism as a profession?
I remember when I was little, I was fantasizing about journalism, sitting late at night and typing something into my computer on something important – very energetic and frustrated at the same time. This is probably how journalists were portrayed in movies, right? Even my parents and grandparents started calling me a journalist. I wrote my first article pretty early for one of the newspapers in my region. I got hooked – you see your name, and this is amazing!
When it was time to choose what to study at university I spoke to the editor in chief that was accepting my articles at that time, and he said study anything but not journalism, because it will put you in a box. That is why I studied cultural history and anthropology.
In 2010 I got a full-time job as a journalist, but the magazine was covering entertainment. I wanted to write about science! And I kept pushing until editors got annoyed with me and said OK – write about science if you want. In 2013 I was offered a news editor and science editor job at the National Radio and Television (LRT). To me, it was a natural transition. I’m a freelancer now since 2019.
Do you focus on scientific discoveries or also cover the wider scientific environment?
When I only wrote about the discoveries, it was all nice – the sparkles and unicorns and everything. But when you start raising questions about vaccinations during the pandemic, for instance, then you receive threats. One person threatened to cut my head off! I realized that ‘OK, science journalism can also be dangerous’.
I wrote an article about one of the federal Lithuanian agencies funding a device that would somehow measure your emotions. By doing so, the device could heal alcohol addiction, help suicidal thoughts, solve emigration – a panacea. I interviewed scientists asking: ‘how can this be possible?’ Of course, it was not possible, no research papers were published about this device. It was a scandal – 700,000 euros for that pseudoscientific device. It was complete nonsense, and the Ministry of Innovation decided to audit the application, and the project was stopped entirely. Everyone loves you when you talk about space exploration and show beautiful cosmic pictures but as soon as you start becoming inconvenient, they see you as an enemy.
