There are shoes that hurt from the first day. They have always told us it's normal: "They'll break in". But what if the problem wasn't the foot or the shoe, but that it was never designed with that foot in mind?Designer Karen Korellis Reuther, a lecturer in the master's program in design engineering at Harvard University and former creative director at Nike and Reebok, has made this question the guiding principle of her book Man-made: How we designed a world that leaves women out, and how we can make it right [Made by men: how we designed a world that leaves women out and how we can fix it]. She highlights that the world has been designed mostly for men and by men.In the United States, Reuther recalls, only 18% of active product designers, 25% of registered architects, and about 12% of mechanical engineers are women. Who designs the objects we use, the buildings we live in, or the technologies we use inevitably conditions how we experience them.For decades, the industry's response was summarized in a formula: shrink it and pink it. Make the male product smaller and paint it pink. In short, marketing disguised as innovation.But women are not miniature men. Female feet, explains the author, tend to be more triangular (wide forefoot and narrow heel), while most athletic footwear is still designed on a male foot, which is more rectangular. Reducing the size does not solve this and can cause injuries.The same logic has been applied to crash test dummies. They were not female bodies: they were male bodies reduced in height. And a woman has different cervical musculature, sternum, and pelvis. Not testing this biomechanics, as Reuther says, can be very detrimental. When the pattern is wrong, the risk is also wrong.Reuther points out that the definition of "average" is based on male measurements from the seventies, and today's data still carries them. It is necessary, he says, to put an end to an idea of average that never included women.As a health researcher, I couldn't agree more. We have learned that evidence-based medicine is the best way to decide. But also that evidence is only as good as the data that supports it. If the data does not represent the entire population, neither will the algorithms, digital tools, or artificial intelligence that we train with them.Perhaps the challenge of the 21st century is not more powerful technology, but technology more aware of human diversity. Reuther proposes going beyond "universal design" and opting for "intentional design". Designing knowing that our bodies and our needs are not the same and that current technology allows us to take this into account from the very first sketch.It's an idea that goes beyond design and points to leadership. Of who sits at the table when it's decided what we investigate, what we build, and for whom. Because diversity is not a concession: it's a condition for innovating better.
