An evidence generator in medicine is a physician or scientist with specific knowledge or expertise, engaged by stakeholders to inform device and drug development through all phases of study. This can be accomplished by serving in local roles participating in preclinical and clinical research, as well as national roles that strengthen professional standing and provide great visibility and opportunity. Not surprisingly, such roles are highly coveted and place individuals in milieus where their expertise and ideas are on display, including sometimes lucrative service on advisory boards, speaking engagements, and networking opportunities among other influential key opinion leaders. Most importantly, these opinion leaders are often at the helm of practicechanging research, generating evidence that influences the development and deployment of drugs and devices that ideally go on to benefit millions of patients around the world. This often means partnering directly with industry given their dominant role in funding innovation in cardiology and therefore may also have a downside; one must be careful to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest or manipulation of academic perspectives, and industry relationships may limit participation in professional society committees or guideline writing groups. Nevertheless, physician-industry partnerships are an established pathway that offers would-be evidence generators access to leadership roles in developing innovative drugs and devices, funding, authorship, and influence.There are good reasons for the scientific enterprise to want to diversify decision-making through the inclusion of women. Companies that use gender diversity as a cultural norm generate more productivity in market value and revenue. 1 In medical research, the National Institutes of Health have long supported the recruitment of women as investigators and enrollment of female participants. More robust data sets with sexspecific evidence can yield important insights and advance medical science in meaningful ways. Examination of sex-specific treatment indications is a wideopen area for discovery but one that might be unexplored without diversity among the physicians who lead and influence research.Given the coveted role of opinion leader, it is worth examining their selection process, historically led by industry owing to its heavy reliance on a physician-backed growth strategy. The process has evolved from what was once a subjective "who you know" list to a more metricdriven exercise. Nevertheless, it can be difficult to find women to participate on advisory boards or serve as principal investigators even if companies subscribe to an ethos of diversity. In fields such as cardiology where women represent about 13% of practicing cardiologists, 2 one might VIEWPOINT