We Need More Queer Scientists: strategies for improving LGBT representation in STEM

LGBTQ individuals continue to be underserved and underrepresented in STEM fields. Studies show that the LGBTQ community faces harassment and discrimination in professional STEM settings. There is also little funding and research on disparities in LGBTQ health. Without funding initiatives dedicated to improving the LGBTQ retention and support in STEM, we will continue to exclude and lose out on a vital part of the STEM workforce.

LGBTQ individuals face discrimination in STEM

Discrimination against the LGBTQ community is a pressing and understudied concern in academia and the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) [1–4]. LGBTQ individuals are underrepresented in STEM and adversely affected by discriminatory policies and environments. A 2018 study found that LGBQ individuals (gender identity was not reported) were 8% more likely to leave a STEM major in undergrad as compared to their heterosexual peers[5]. Last year, a survey of 21 U.S.-based STEM professional societies included just over 1,000 LGTBQ identified participants in the first large-scale study of LGBTQ experiences in STEM for non-federal employees. The results of this study show that LGBTQ STEM professionals experienced higher rates of harassment, professional devaluation, and career obstacles than their non-LGBTQ counterparts. Linked to this, LGTBQ individuals experienced more frequent health concerns and were more likely to consider leaving STEM [4].

Despite these studies, there remains a severe lack of data on the experiences of LGBTQ researchers in STEM[6]. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) do not count LGBTQ members as an underrepresented population and do not track or survey their experiences, as they do for women and racial minorities. It is not currently known if LGBTQ individuals face a barrier to entering STEM majors as compared to their peers or if they complete post-secondary degrees (i.e., masters and doctorates) at similar rates[5].

In addition to ignoring the issues LGBTQ professionals in STEM face, institutions and scientific societies continue to support conferences in countries and U.S. states that have anti-LGBTQ laws [7]. Conference organizers must pay attention to the laws and policies of conference locations. U.S. states, including Texas, Arkansas, and Florida have recently passed anti-LGBT and targeted anti-trans laws [8]. Similarly, countries including Russia, Malaysia, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia promote state-sponsored homophobia [9]. Hosting conferences in these areas not only contributes to these policies by economically benefitting such places, but also makes it difficult for LGBTQ+ scientists to participate [7]. Researchers should not have to choose between attending a conference with crucial networking opportunities and their personal well-being.

Why it matters

Other than for the obvious reasons of human rights and dignity, diversity is crucial in STEM. Research continues to show that diverse workforces increase output and creativity in problem-solving [10]. The discrimination LGBTQ professionals face also drains resources from STEM, which often requires highly specialized and lengthy training. Losing skilled and experienced professionals due to prejudicial treatment will slow scientific study and innovation at a time when scientific endeavors should be increasing [4].

As well as being underrepresented in STEM, LGBTQ communities are underserved and understudied by STEM institutions. An analysis of NIH-funded research from 1989 through 2011 shows that only 0.5% of all funded studies focused on LGBT health. Excluding projects about HIV/AIDS and other sexual health matters, only 0.1% of all NIH-funded studies concerned LGBT health. During this same period, researchers found that LGBT individuals experience higher rates of mental health issues (including anxiety and depression) and substantial barriers to accessing healthcare[11].

This paucity of research is caused both by a lack of funding for LGBT health and a lack of scientists able and willing to conduct such studies. It’s clear that without improving LGBT representation in STEM, obtaining sufficient and accurate data on LGBT health matters will continue to be ignored and underfunded. Thus, the inclusion of LGTBQ identities on research teams is necessary to accurately study and address health concerns unique to members of the community.

What can we do

Support LGBT scientists. While it is difficult to properly address the issue of underrepresentation and discrimination considering the limited research on the subject, steps can be taken to improve the situation. Most institutions have begun to prioritize training and support for initiatives on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Adding LGBTQ matters to these initiatives is a vital first step for improving workplace environments. Additionally, support networks for LGBTQ employees and students should be created at all STEM institutes and societies. Scientific societies should consider the policies and safety of locations for hosting conferences with regards to LGBTQ identities and if hosting conferences online or utilizing a hybrid format would counter this. Universities and institutions should create mandatory trainings for faculty, staff, and students that address discrimination against LGBTQ members.

Increase funding for LGBT issues. Research funding agencies, including the NSF and NIH, must set aside funding specifically for projects researching LGBTQ experiences in STEM and health disparities of the community in general. Universities and research institutions need to prioritize hiring and supporting LGBTQ students and faculty to conduct the research that their peers have not.

Diversity in STEM is necessary for innovative and robust research. Factors that affect the success and retention of LGBTQ individuals in STEM are a major concern in creating a more equitable and inclusive workforce. If educators and policymakers do not institute policies to address these issues, the loss of LGBTQ professionals will continue, and continue to diminish our ability to produce vital research and innovations.

Works Cited

1. Patridge, E.V., R.S. Barthelemy, and S.R. Rankin, Factors Impacting the Academic Climate for Lgbq Stem Faculty. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 2014. 20(1): p. 75–98.

2. Yoder, J.B. and A. Mattheis, Queer in STEM Workplace Experiences Reported in a National Survey of LGBTQA Individuals in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Careers. Journal of Homosexuality, 2016. 61.

3. Cech, E. and M. Pham, Queer in STEM Organizations: Workplace Disadvantages for LGBT Employees in STEM Related Federal Agencies. Social Sciences, 2017. 6(1).

4. Cech, E.A. and T.J. Waidzunas, Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM. Science Advances, 2021. 7.

5. Hughes, B.E., Coming out in STEM: Factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM students. Science Advances, 2018. 4.

6. Freeman, J.B., Measuring and Resolving LGBTQ Disparities in STEM. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2020. 7(2): p. 141–148.

7. Mallapaty, S., Conferences Failing to Protect LGBT+ Researchers. Nature, 2020. 584: p. 335.

8. ACLU. Legislation Affecting LGBTQ Rights Across the Country. 2022 04/29/2022; Available from: https://www.aclu.org/legislation-affecting-lgbtq-rights-across-country.

9. Lucas Ramon Mendos, K.B., Rafael Carrano Lelis, Enrique López de la Peña, Ilia Savelev, Daron Tan, State-Sponsored Homophobia 2020: Global Legislation Overview Update. 2020, ILGA World: Geneva.

10. B. Hofstra, V.V.K., S. Munoz-Najar Galvez, B. He, D. Jurafsky, D. A. McFarland, The diversity-innovation paradox in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 2020. 117: p. 9284–9291.

11. Coulter, R.W., et al., Research funded by the National Institutes of Health on the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations. Am J Public Health, 2014. 104(2): p. e105–12.