Nous avons analysé le rapport annuel produit en 1999 par l’Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail du Québec et nous avons constaté que, dans les professions et secteurs concernés par les études financées, le pourcentage moyen de femmes est de 15 % (comparé à 45 % de femmes parmi la population au travail). Douze populations étudiées sont équilibrées ou composées en majorité de femmes, et 76 sont composées d’hommes à plus de deux tiers. Le montant moyen accordé aux études sur une population équilibrée ou majoritairement composée de femmes était de 86 339 $ comparativement à 114 480 $ pour les autres. Nous considérons plusieurs hypothèses d’explication de ces différences. Nous concluons que, peu importe la cause, un effort soutenu de recherche ciblée vers les emplois des femmes est essentiel, en plus d’une analyse différenciée en santé au travail.Recently, researchers have suggested that it is important to include women and to integrate gender into occupational health studies. We analysed the annual report of Québec’s Robert Sauvé Institute for Research in Occupational Health and Safety (IRSST), and found that the professions and sectors involved in studies carried out in 1999 had an average of 15% women workers. The Québec workforce is 45% female. Twelve of the 88 study populations were mixed or had a female majority and 76 were more than two-thirds male (Table 2). The former studies received an average grant of $86,339 compared to $114,480 for those on predominantly male populations (Table 1).Previously, we had examined the composition of the six employment groups ranked by the Québec Occupational Health and Safety Commission (CSST) in order of priority for intervention and had noted that, as the priority level increased, the proportion of women decreased. We therefore examined the possibility that women workers were less often research subjects because their employment groups had lower priority for intervention. We did, in fact, find that many more grants are given for the study of workers in groups with high priority. Group I received $15.53 per worker in research grants while group VI received $0.91 per worker. However, even if the priority of the employment group is taken into account, women are underrepresented in research. In each priority group, there are fewer women in the professions and sectors studied than in the group as a whole (Table 3). A possible explanation for this is that women work in areas where there is little risk for their health. We have presented our arguments against this commonly-held idea elsewhere, but summarize these arguments here. In fact, rather than being absent, risks in jobs held by women are different from risks in other sectors, and are associated with specific health issues. For example, women are well represented in the helping and service professions, said to be at risk for mental health problems.We therefore consider some additional hypotheses. First, it is likely that the choice of research themes by the Institute’s research council (accide...