Beyond the bench: how inclusion and exclusion make us the scientists we are

Recent events encompassing social injustices, healthcare disparities, and police brutality against Black citizens highlight the continued need to strive toward unbiased and inclusive practices in all realms of the world. Our voices as cell biologists are powerful tools that can be used to combat inequities in the scientific landscape. In this inaugural Voices essay, we discuss how exclusion and inclusion events have contributed to our scientific journeys and how scientists can work to create an inclusive environment for our trainees and colleagues. As underrepresented minority scientists in the early and late stages of our scientific training, we frame the trainee experience to provide insight from unique perspectives. This essay also provides actionable items that the cell biology community can implement to promote inclusivity. We anticipate that initiating an open dialogue focused on diversity and inclusion will promote growth in the field of cell biology and enable scientists to assess and assume their role in creating welcoming environments. We believe that scientists at all stages in their careers can make meaningful and habitual contributions to supporting inclusivity in cell biology, thereby creating a future where diversity, equity, and inclusion are expected, not requested.

How Diversity Matters in the US Science and Engineering Workforce: A Critical Review Considering Integration in Teams, Fields, and Organizational Contexts

How the race and gender diversity of team members is related to innovative science and technology outcomes is debated in the scholarly literature. Some studies find diversity is linked to creativity and productivity, other studies find that diversity has no effect or even negative effects on team outcomes. Based on a critical review of the literature, this paper explains the seemingly contradictory findings through careful attention to the organizational contexts of team diversity. We distinguish between representational diversity and full integration of minority scientists. Representational diversity, where organizations have workforces that match the pool of degree recipients in relevant fields, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for diversity to yield benefits. Full integration of minority scientists (i.e., including women and people of color) in an interaction context that allows for more level information exchange, unimpeded by the asymmetrical power relationships that are common across many scientific organizations, is when the full potential for diversity to have innovative outcomes is realized. Under conditions of equitable and integrated work environments, diversity leads to creativity, innovation, productivity, and positive reputational (status) effects. Thus, effective policies for diversity in science and engineering must also address integration in the organizational contexts in which diverse teams are embedded.

Diversity Exiting the Academy: Influential Factors for the Career Choice of Well-Represented and Underrepresented Minority Scientists

A national sample of PhD-trained scientists completed training, accepted subsequent employment in academic and nonacademic positions, and were queried about their previous graduate training and current employment. Respondents indicated factors contributing to their employment decision (e.g., working conditions, salary, job security). The data indicate the relative importance of deciding factors influencing career choice, controlling for gender, initial interest in faculty careers, and number of postgraduate publications. Among both well-represented (WR; n = 3444) and underrepresented minority (URM; n = 225) respondents, faculty career choice was positively associated with desire for autonomy and partner opportunity and negatively associated with desire for leadership opportunity. Differences between groups in reasons endorsed included: variety, prestige, salary, family influence, and faculty advisor influence. Furthermore, endorsement of faculty advisor or other mentor influence and family or peer influence were surprisingly rare across groups, suggesting that formal and informal support networks could provide a missed opportunity to provide support for trainees who want to stay in faculty career paths. Reasons requiring alteration of misperceptions (e.g., limited leadership opportunity for faculty) must be distinguished from reasons requiring removal of actual barriers. Further investigation into factors that affect PhDs’ career decisions can help elucidate why URM candidates are disproportionately exiting the academy.