Editor’s note: The opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the AAMC or its members.
Scientific progress is often conceptualized in terms of the “what”: seminal discoveries, lifesaving cures, new-age therapeutics. But behind every great biomedical advancement is a scientific researcher questioning how to stretch the confines of human knowledge. This is the “who”: the investigators who comprise an inimitable branch of the U.S. biomedical workforce.
As a nation, it is essential that we continue to explore the “who”: Who are the individuals investigating the tenuous balance between health and disease? Who are the people paradoxically hunting for specificity (sometimes down to a single base pair of DNA), all while keeping an eye out for big-picture trends (such as health disparities in entire populations). Who are the investigators who borrow dogmas, frameworks, and theories from a vast array of fields — physical sciences, public health, computer science, biological sciences, engineering, and behavioral health — to drive scientific research forward?
Since my youth, I — like many — have been taught that the “who” largely resembled the likes of Gregor Mendel, Albert Einstein, and Thomas Edison. I was taught to laud Charles Darwin, Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Galileo, James Watson, and Francis Crick. These were the greats: White American or White European men, whose dominance in U.S. classrooms no doubt contributes to the fact that surveyed grade school children generally perceive the prototypical scientific researcher as a male with glasses and messy hair.
Yes, these scientists may be outstanding. But we often fail to acknowledge that their immortalized status and homogeneous representation are not because populations who have been missing from the dominant narrative have biological differences in aptitude, or a lack of natural ability, or have experienced a deficiency in meritocracy.
On the contrary, countless brilliant minds have been systemically marginalized and excluded from joining in our nation’s discoveries — in turn leading to entire populations that are underrepresented in the U.S. biomedical workforce.
Indeed, historically excluded populations represent a small fraction of the biomedical sciences educational pipeline and workforce. In 2023, Black men and women earned just 7% of doctoral degrees in science and engineering, according to the National Science Foundation. Likewise, Black men and women represented just 9% of the STEM workforce in 2021.
While the proportion of Black women in scientific research is bleak, it is even more so in academic medicine. Recent AAMC data (2023-2024) find that among all full-time women faculty in basic and clinical departments — the academic homes for scientific researchers at U.S. medical institutions — Black women constituted a mere 5% of full professors, 5% of associate professors, 6% of assistant professors, and 6% of instructors. Career advancement in scientific research mirrors the same trend: According to the latest data, Black women constitute a paltry 2% of basic science department chairs and 10% of clinical department chairs.
Why does this matter?
Effective scientific research relies on “team science” — the ability to collaborate and cross-pollinate beyond singular individuals, research teams, fields of study, techniques, and institutions. In fact, research shows that diverse teams outperform homogeneous teams (see also this research article). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) strategic plan 2021-2025, under former NIH Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, opened with a message to the American people: “The increasingly complex scientific questions that our society will face in the future will require not only diversity of scientific disciplines, but also diversity of thought, experience, and demographics.”
This is why the “who” matters: the totality of the U.S. biomedical-research enterprise — from the research itself to the populations we serve, to the policies, laws, and regulations that govern discovery — can be effective only if that enterprise mirrors the population it studies.
And yet, because Black women make up such a small fraction of the U.S. scientific workforce, how are we to get a real sense of the factors that contribute to or prevent their inclusion and success?
One way is to explore their experiences and narratives — in their own voices.
Heather Beasley, PhD, a postdoctoral research scientist at Vanderbilt University and vice chair of the National Black Postdoctoral Association, reflects, “As you go into faculty, the fewer you see of women who identify as being Black, like I do. That can be a hindrance in a lot of ways, because being the first of anything comes with its own barriers.”
Audrey Bowden, PhD, associate professor of Biomedical, Electrical and Computer Engineering and professor of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at Vanderbilt University likewise reflects on being a trailblazer and the challenges that come with that: “At my first institution, I was the first Black woman in the engineering school. And now, at my second institution, I am the first Black woman with tenure in the engineering school, and I was the only Black woman until recently. I've been in a lot of spaces where I’m the only one in the room, so for me, finding community has meant stepping outside of my disciplinary boundaries.”
In addition to a well-documented lack of representation, Black women researchers and clinicians face a unique set of systemic, institutional, and cultural barriers, including implicit bias, enduring microaggressions, overt discrimination and racial bigotry, a minority tax, and sexual harassment that establish and fortify a sense of isolation throughout their scientific careers. It is therefore crucial that we focus not simply on the proportion of Black women in the biomedical sciences, but also on aspects of the research environment that serve to thwart or amplify their success.
On an institutional level, many solutions and interventions have been proposed to address the underrepresentation of women in science, engineering, and medicine, and to accelerate the path to gender equity in science. Specific strategies to bolster the representation of Black women and women of color (WOC) in STEMM include overhauling biased faculty-hiring processes to eliminate barriers of entry for historically excluded groups. Among other strategies are offering visiting professorships to WOC, particularly for named lectures and topics in addition to DEI and gender, providing mentorship and sponsorship to WOC, reducing barriers to retention and promotion, enhancing cultures of inclusive excellence through cohort hiring, promoting safe spaces (referred to as counterspaces), and expanding scientific workforce diversity as a field of data-driven inquiry.
What you can do
Promoting the health of the research environment for Black women is not simply a task for Black women but, rather, the biomedical community at large.
- Narratives are data. To get a more sophisticated and complete view of the experiences of Black women in higher education, be curious. Read stories and op-eds, and listen to interviews, seminars, and podcasts. We must begin to appreciate lived experiences as valuable information that can be used to propose solutions and implement change.
- Diversity is for all. Narratives that feature Black women as central characters are not restricted only to Black women. Rather, the experiences of Black women in scientific research are a window by which anyone and everyone can listen and learn. Everyone — not just Black women — has the power to create positive change in the academic medicine research environment.
- Black women deserve the mic. Rather than seeing Black women as a passive and downstream audience of policy change, we must view Black women as active and essential community partners who are overqualified at proposing strategies and solutions that promote their growth (e.g., Equitable Hiring Strategies Towards a Diversified Faculty).
- Data should be examined critically. Some of the most seminal findings about equity in the research space (e.g., racial disparities in NIH research-grant funding) have arisen out of analyzing disaggregated data. We invite readers to examine data critically in order to understand the implications for the populations that are or are not represented by the data.
- Data has limitations. Compelling social and behavioral research pioneered by scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, JD, the Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher professor of law at Columbia University, reveals that Black women often have an experience distinct from either one of their identities of being “Black” or a “woman.” In a recent article, Shelby Billups and her research team uncovered data highlighting the “striking illustration of the combination of Black race and female gender as having the effect of essentially erasing both race and gender identity, thus rendering Black females invisible with respect to social stereotypes concerning women and Black people.” Moreover, Maria Ong, PhD, an expert on women of color in STEM disciplines, declares that “history has borne out the reality that programs intended to serve women disproportionately benefit white women, and programs intended to benefit minorities mainly benefit minority males.”
- Investment in the research ecosystem is critical. Research, cures, and therapeutics are outputs. Biomedical progress relies on the input of a healthy, safe, equitable research environment. Positive factors (such as mentoring) and negative factors (such as bullying and harassment) are crucial drivers that shape the nation’s biomedical-research workforce. Investment in understanding how the research environment promotes a diverse workforce is an investment in biomedical progress itself.
- Social media is a powerful form of community. For those who are often “the first” or “one of few” in their research spaces, social media is a powerful tool that can provide community, belonging, and safety. Moreover, social media provides an accessible platform for getting to know an individual’s viewpoint, journey, perspective, or story despite the possible constraints of a limited social circle. I encourage all to utilize social media as a gateway to exploring the diverse cultures, sentiments, and thoughts of Black women scientific researchers.
We are at an inflection point in society: Black women in higher education, particularly those who champion an equitable, inclusive, and diverse workplace, are under attack. In these times, we must rely on voices — voices that have long been stifled or silenced — to guide the way. The worthy fight to build a scientific workforce that represents the U.S. population necessitates that we stop and find a way to listen.
