I’m a young molecular biologist. At my research institute, there isn’t a single black PI, and very few black postdocs/grad students (none of them are African-American; almost all are actually from Africa). Yet almost the entire janitorial and maintenance staff is black.

At a recent conference I went to, there was a section on “aging and gender” looking at the molecular biology intersections between the two subjects. At the end of the session, a woman stood up and noted, in a rather confrontational manner, that none of the speakers were women. Half the audience clapped and the other half seemed mostly stunned.

I think these are real issues, but it doesn’t help anyone to talk about them in accusatory or moralizing terms (not saying you’re doing that, but it seems to be the most common mode of speech in these discussions). The real question is, WHY does scientific leadership (except the political types at NIH/NSF for whom talk is very cheap) seem to be so hesitant to touch these issues?

I think the fundamental reason is that we want science to be diverse if possible, but it also has a extremely strong meritocratic tradition. The idea is that we are to be judged by the quality and quantity of our work, not identity politics. And bringing these things up puts those two goals into direct tension. From my talks with more senior people about these issues, it seems they largely care about them and want to find some way to improve the situation without undermining the meritocracy. But is there a way to do it without imposing some equivalent to affirmative action in science (which would, if we are to be honest, probably undermine the meritocratic ideal by weighting factors other than merit)? I don’t know the answer.