Inequality in science and the case for a new agenda

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The history of the scientific enterprise demonstrates that it has supported gender, identity, and racial inequity. Further, its institutions have allowed discrimination, harassment, and personal harm of racialized persons and women. This has resulted in a suboptimal and demographically narrow research and innovation system, a concomitant limited lens on research agendas, and less effective knowledge translation between science and society. We argue that, to reverse this situation, the scientific community must reexamine its values and then collectively embark upon a moonshot-level new agenda for equity. This new agenda should be based upon the foundational value that scientific research and technological innovation should be prefaced upon progress toward a better world for all of society and that the process of how we conduct research is just as important as the results of research. Such an agenda will attract individuals who have been historically excluded from participation in science, but we will need to engage in substantial work to overcome the longstanding obstacles to their full participation. We highlight the need to implement this new agenda via a coordinated systems approach, recognizing the mutually reinforcing feedback dynamics among all science system components and aligning our equity efforts across them.

Related collections

Most cited references 59

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science

Bas Hofstra, Vivek V. Kulkarni, Sebastian Munoz-Najar Galvez … (2020)

Prior work finds a diversity paradox: Diversity breeds innovation, yet underrepresented groups that diversify organizations have less successful careers within them. Does the diversity paradox hold for scientists as well? We study this by utilizing a near-complete population of ∼1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977 to 2015 and following their careers into publishing and faculty positions. We use text analysis and machine learning to answer a series of questions: How do we detect scientific innovations? Are underrepresented groups more likely to generate scientific innovations? And are the innovations of underrepresented groups adopted and rewarded? Our analyses show that underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty. However, their novel contributions are devalued and discounted: For example, novel contributions by gender and racial minorities are taken up by other scholars at lower rates than novel contributions by gender and racial majorities, and equally impactful contributions of gender and racial minorities are less likely to result in successful scientific careers than for majority groups. These results suggest there may be unwarranted reproduction of stratification in academic careers that discounts diversity’s role in innovation and partly explains the underrepresentation of some groups in academia.

0 comments Cited 270 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

More than Tuskegee: understanding mistrust about research participation.

Darcell P. Scharff, Katherine J. Mathews, Pamela Jackson … (2010)

This paper describes results of a qualitative study that explored barriers to research participation among African American adults. A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify African American adults with and without previous research experience. A total of 11 focus groups were conducted. Groups ranged in size from 4-10 participants (N=70). Mistrust of the health care system emerged as a primary barrier to participation in medical research among participants in our study. Mistrust stems from historical events including the Tuskegee syphilis study and is reinforced by health system issues and discriminatory events that continue to this day. Mistrust was an important barrier expressed across all groups regardless of prior research participation or socioeconomic status. This study illustrates the multifaceted nature of mistrust, and suggests that mistrust remains an important barrier to research participation. Researchers should incorporate strategies to reduce mistrust and thereby increase participation among African Americans.