Dr. Margaret-Ann Armour’s career as a research chemist, educator, and advocate spanned more than forty years. Much of her work took place within a disciplinary culture ignorant of the scholarship supporting organizational change towards inclusive excellence. Her contributions are extensively covered in other articles in this special issue, and her achievements are all the more remarkable given that her colleague, Dr. Gordon Freeman, held gender-biased attitudes which he shared in a peer reviewed article in a national science journal. Three decades later another Canadian chemist, Dr. Tomáš Hudlický, published a peer reviewed essay in an international chemistry journal which included his views on the negative impacts of diversity initiatives on organic synthesis research. Both articles were retracted, but clearly a faulty and pervasively biased peer review system enabled the distribution of prejudiced opinions which were not informed by demonstrated expertise, nor supported by data. These two events are reflective of challenges that Dr. Armour faced in her efforts to diversify chemical sciences. We need to build on her critical work to increasing awareness about inclusive excellence in chemistry, as well as educating scientists on what constitutes an informed opinion. Here, we use Freeman and Hudlický incidents as case studies to indicate how pervasive bias can be superficially perceived as scientific scholarship. Furthermore, we use analogies of analytical processes to illustrate how talent gets systemically excluded. Finally, we provide recommendations to chemistry community members for improving outcomes in terms of synthesis of new knowledge, ideas and solutions, toward leveraging all the available human talent and creating an environment that is both excellent and inclusive.