Donald Trump’s ongoing criticisms of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have been aggressive, indiscriminate, and on the rise since his inauguration in January. A tragic plane crash was unfoundedly attributed to DEI. All DEI programs in public entities have been terminated, and private contractors risk cancellation if they fail to comply. Websites that advocate for religious diversity in the context of Holocaust remembrance have been removed.
Science and academia have come under particularly intense scrutiny. Universities are threatened with the loss of federal funding if they endorse DEI initiatives. Government reports and research financed by the government are being suppressed if they contain prohibited terms such as “gender,” “pregnant person,” “women,” “elderly,” or “disabled.” Grants supported by the National Institutes of Health are being revoked if they address diversity, equity, or inclusion in any manner.
Furthermore, this complete “war on woke” (more accurately termed a “struggle for fairness”) is taking place in both the UK and the US. Already, British companies and regulatory bodies are retracting their commitments to diversity. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has labeled diversity initiatives as a “poison.”
These assaults are founded on deliberate misinterpretations of what DEI truly represents. Two significant myths need to be confronted. Firstly, the idea that diversity and inclusion initiatives undermine employee quality by favoring incompetent candidates based on their minority status. Secondly, the notion that DEI serves as a distraction that impedes success. Let’s examine each of these, using the realm of science as a case study.
The belief that DEI emphasizes group identity over ability, leading to the selection of unqualified candidates, is a gross mischaracterization. Scientific competence is not confined to a single gender, ethnicity, or religion, nor is it exclusive to able-bodied individuals. Embracing diversity simply broadens the talent pool available for scientific roles. DEI initiatives aim to ensure that less capable individuals from privileged groups are not favored over more capable individuals from marginalized groups.
Bias often begins early in education, particularly in the physical sciences, where both girls and boys come to view these subjects as “boy subjects” by their teenage years. Even after entering academia, bias continues to influence grant funding decisions and publication rates. Women and minorities face additional challenges in career advancement: for instance, female and ethnic minority scientists frequently receive less recognition for their contributions compared to their male and white counterparts. Workplace bias can also impact a scientist’s sense of belonging. Institutions that address various barriers faced by women and ethnic minorities (such as inflexible work hours, tolerance of harassment, and culturally insensitive social practices) have higher retention rates for women and minority researchers. Diversity in the workplace entices a wider range of applicants, creating a beneficial feedback loop. Moreover, scientific research teams and institutions that prioritize diversity tend to perform better.
As for the second misconception that DEI hinders success, research indicates that diversity enhances the quality of scientific work. Evidence shows that research papers authored by ethnically diverse teams are more impactful than those produced by homogenous groups. Furthermore, studies suggest that diverse teams evaluate more alternatives and make superior decisions.
Scientists from varied backgrounds introduce new research inquiries and priorities, particularly those affecting marginalized communities. The absence of women in top positions within biomedical science has resulted in a notable lack of research regarding menstrual and reproductive health issues. The shortage of black scientists has contributed to the neglect of conditions impacting black individuals, such as sickle cell disease. Additionally, when examining the intersections of race and gender, the situation is even more concerning. It has only been in recent years that it became evident that black and Asian women face a significantly higher risk of dying during pregnancy or childbirth compared to white women.
People attend a Stand Up For Science rally at Washington Square Park on 7 March 2025. Photograph: Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/Rex/Shutterstock
The medical and social sciences have historically suffered due to a lack of diversity in research design, which has compromised the efficacy of medical findings across different populations. For instance, clinical trials have predominantly tested treatments on men and white individuals, resulting in poorer health outcomes for women and minorities. A diverse group of researchers increases the likelihood of minority participation in trials and helps ensure varied participant recruitment, thereby enhancing scientific validity. It also fosters greater trust among minority communities in research outcomes (such as vaccine development) and consequently boosts the societal impact of the research (for example, their likelihood of getting vaccinated).
Ultimately, prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the scientific community leads to improved scientists and higher-quality science. While our examples stem from the scientific realm, this principle applies much more broadly. DEI initiatives are designed to guarantee that we consistently choose the most suitable candidates, regardless of group membership, rather than selecting individuals based solely on group identity irrespective of their qualifications. Science fundamentally revolves around uncovering truths through rigorous, impartial, and transparent inquiry; a limited array of talents or perspectives complicates this pursuit. Therefore, DEI initiatives are essential to fulfill the core mission of science, rather than being a diversion from it.
-
Christina Pagel is a Professor of Operational Research within UCL’s Clinical Operational Research Unit. She is a member of Independent Sage and serves as vice president and EDI lead for the UK Operational Research Society.
-
This article is based on a new report by Independent Sage highlighting the significance of DEI in science. Christina Pagel led the report, with contributions from all members of Independent Sage.
