Science academies failing to put women at the top

[MEXICO CITY/LONDON SciDev.Net] National science organisations may have more women members today than a decade ago, but representation at the highest level has failed to keep pace, according to analysis published today, on International Day of Women and Girls in Science.

The International Science Council (ISC), InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) and Standing Committee for Gender Equality in Science (SCGES) looked at data from 136 scientific organisations and surveyed nearly 600 scientists to get a picture of gender equality across science academies and unions worldwide.

They found that women made up around 19 per cent of science academy members in 2025–up from 12 per cent in 2015. But only one in five academies was chaired by a woman and almost half had no women as vice-presidents or co-chairs, representing a “very limited increase” in the last decade and no progress in the last five years, according to their report.

“Gender equality must be built into the DNA of scientific organisations. That means embedding it in statutes, assigning responsibility to governing bodies, creating dedicated committees, funding sustained activities and reporting progress regularly.”

Peter McGrath, IAP coordinator

Science academies play a role in shaping research agendas and standards across different disciplines and advising policymakers.

On paper, most science organisations promote themselves as open and inclusive, with election procedures based on academic merit. But informal networks persist that determine who is put forward for leadership roles, the report suggests.

Additionally, women are 2.5 times more likely than men to report experiences of discrimination or harassment within scientific organisations and show less confidence in organisational mechanisms to address misconduct, it says.

Regional variation

Léa Nacache, lead author and study coordinator at the International Science Council, said the findings showed significant regional variations, but no single region performed “uniformly better or worse” than another.

“Academies with the highest proportions of women members (30–39 per cent) are found across different regions, notably in parts of Latin America and Asia and the Pacific,” she told SciDev.Net.

“In every region, some organisations have made measurable progress while others continue to face persistent barriers […] showing that unequal outcomes are not inevitable and can be addressed through deliberate institutional change.”

The report recommends that gender equality should be woven into governance, budgets and strategy, including clear gender and diversity plans, accountability mechanisms, and funding to support gender equality activities.

IAP coordinator Peter McGrath warns it can’t just appear on an agenda once every five years. “Gender equality must be built into the DNA of scientific organisations,” he said.

“That means embedding it in statutes, assigning responsibility to governing bodies, creating dedicated committees, funding sustained activities and reporting progress regularly.”

According to the report, only around two thirds of science academies have gender-related policy documents, just over half have undertaken initiatives to promote gender equality, and fewer than 10 per cent have a dedicated budget for gender equality.

Sexual harassment

A separate study, based on interviews with more than 100 female scientists from Mexico, Argentina, Colombia and Peru, found that power networks in scientific institutions are sustaining and legitimising sexual and psychological harassment, institutional exclusion, appropriation of others’ work, and penalties for motherhood.

The study’s author, Carolina Espinosa Luna, from the Regional Centre for Multidisciplinary Research at the National Autonomous University of Mexico,

believes unequal relationships are entrenched in academic institutions and socially validated.

“Abuse is more than just an interpersonal act,” she told SciDev.Net.

“A professor’s misogynistic comment or the decision to take away a colleague’s teaching hours–these acts of abuse are possible because there are networks of abuse of power in academia.”

According to the researcher, the power of laboratory heads, thesis supervisors, journal editors or award-winning scientists is sustained by managers and colleagues. “These power relations not only work to generate knowledge or train staff, but also to protect the perpetrators,” she added.

Even where institutions in the region had protocols in place to prevent gender-based abuse, Espinosa found that there were no consequences for alleged perpetrators.

Data gaps

Previous studies also point to persistent inequalities in publishing opportunities for scientists. A study published in PLOS Biology analysed more than 36 million biomedical and life science articles and found that those written by women had review times of up to 15 per cent longer than those by male authors.

But Helena Nader, president of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, says that, although some figures are available, inequalities in science need to be studied in greater depth.

“In Latin America, women represent around 50 per cent of university students,” she told SciDev.Net.

“However, as they advance in their careers, they become a minority. Why? It makes no sense.”

As for abusive behaviour, she believes greater transparency is crucial.

“In Brazil, many colleagues report all kinds of abuse: harassment, sexual harassment or moral abuse, but it is not known how these investigations end,” she said.

“There must be transparency about why a person is convicted or acquitted.”

Espinosa added: “As long as power networks are not dismantled, perpetrators continue to enjoy impunity because of their position, and universities prioritise institutional stability over victims, protocols will remain symbolic.”

This article was produced by SciDev.Net’s Latin America and Caribbean and Global desks.