Scientific research strives to answer the big questions facing the world today. But who decides what makes a question big? Who sets the priorities within a company, an institution, a country? Whose voices are shaping the future of scientific progress—and whose voices are being left out?
Technology Networks recently spoke with a range of experts across academia and industry, from institutions and companies around the world, to ask them all one question: “Which voices are still underrepresented in major scientific conversations, and what practical steps could help improve inclusion?”
Guozhen Liu, PhD. Professor of biomedical engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen.
“Despite significant progress in STEM participation, women scientists in China, like many around the world, often find their voices underrepresented in critical workplace discussions and decisions.
“It is essential to recognize that these disadvantages stem not from a lack of merit or ambition, but from a scientific ecosystem historically modelled around a male-default archetype of the ‘ideal researcher’. Achieving true equity requires dismantling this outdated framework and rebuilding a system that genuinely values diverse life paths, voices, and forms of contribution.”
Augusto Schneider, PhD. Associate professor in the Faculty of Nutrition, Universidade Federal de Pelotas.
“I think that scientists from developing countries do not receive the attention they deserve. We see excellent research being produced, but because many labs lack the funds to travel to international conferences or pay for publishing in expensive journals, that work remains invisible. When young scientists see that their work isn’t getting seen or cited, it discourages them from pursuing a certain project and may delay new discoveries.”
Shafagh A. Waters, PhD. Scientia associate professor at the University of New South Wales and co-lead of the Non-Animal Technologies Network.
“We often focus on demographic representation—which is critically important—but there are also structural voices missing from major scientific discussions.
“Technical specialists and platform engineers, for example, are rarely part of strategic decision-making. Yet, in fields like organoids and non-animal technologies, they are the custodians of reproducibility and scalability. Including them formally in governance and funding panels would strengthen translational outcomes.
“Regulatory scientists are another under-integrated group. If we want innovative models to gain approval, regulators need to be embedded early in validation pathways, not consulted only at the end.
“Patients—particularly in rare and pediatric diseases—should move from advisory roles to true co-design partners. They bring perspective on acceptable risk, meaningful endpoints, and lived disease burden that cannot be inferred from data alone.
“Finally, we need to recognize the pressures on mid-career researchers and the growing gap between academic and industry compensation. If we want to retain technical expertise in advanced biomedical platforms, career stability and infrastructure investment must be part of the inclusion conversation.
“Inclusion is not only about who is visible. It is about who has influence in shaping decisions.”
Stephanie T. Page, MD, PhD. Chief of the Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology, and Nutrition, University of Washington.
“The voices that guide policy and allocation of scientific resources are both political and driven by short-term economic gains. Voices that represent the under-resourced are faint, in part because these communities do not have the educational opportunities to get to the table. Improving education and access to medical education across the socioeconomic spectrum is a critical step in shifting our priorities.
“Young people need to see science and medicine as fun, interesting, and a realistic path for their future. Our current public and higher education systems are lacking in making this a reality, and thus we have not diversified our scientific leadership.”
Karim Khaled, PhD. Postdoctoral researcher at the Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine, Lebanese American University.
“Voices from low-resource settings, early-career researchers, and scholars from interdisciplinary or non-traditional backgrounds remain underrepresented in major scientific conversations.
“Practical steps to improve inclusion include diversifying editorial boards and grant review panels, supporting mentorship and capacity-building initiatives, and valuing locally relevant research questions rather than prioritizing only those aligned with high-income country perspectives.”
Bryan Dechario, PhD. Chief operating officer, GeneDx.
“The voices that remain underrepresented are wide-ranging. They include individuals from historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups, patients and families living with rare diseases, and those from low-income and rural communities.
“When these perspectives are missing, critical health needs, cultural context, and real-world challenges are less likely to be reflected in research priorities, clinical guidelines, or policy decisions.
“To improve inclusion, the scientific community can:
- Proactively seek out and involve diverse patient populations in research design and data collection, as [we] have done by building a rare disease dataset with over 50% non-European ancestry representation.
- Empower frontline clinicians, such as general pediatricians, to participate in research and guideline development.
- Foster partnerships with advocacy organizations and community leaders to ensure patient and caregiver voices are heard, especially in rare disease research and policy.
- Expand education and outreach to reduce barriers to participation and make resources, technologies, and findings more accessible to all stakeholders.
“By intentionally diversifying who is at the table, and whose data is represented, we can accelerate scientific discovery, improve clinical outcomes, and create a more equitable healthcare ecosystem for everyone.”
David Hava, PhD. Chief scientific officer, Alltrna.
“Patient communities, frontline clinicians, and scientists working outside traditional power centers are still underrepresented in many major conversations. Practically, improving inclusion means bringing those voices in earlier, not just as validation at the end. That can look like involving patient advocates in target selection, engaging clinicians when defining meaningful endpoints, and creating real opportunities for early-career and international scientists to contribute to platform-shaping discussions. Inclusion works best when it is embedded into how decisions are made.”
Junyue Cao, PhD. Associate professor and head of the Laboratory of Single-Cell Genomics and Population Dynamics, The Rockefeller University.
“Researchers from lower-resource institutions and countries, and many historically excluded groups, remain underrepresented in high-visibility venues—such as keynote talks, editorial roles, policy panels, etc.
“Practical steps include transparent selection processes for speaking roles and committees, funded travel/childcare support, and stronger incentives for journals and conferences to build diverse reviewer and speaker pools.”
Rob Estrella. Chief executive officer, Elemental Machines.
“Early-career scientists, technicians, and operations professionals are underrepresented, even though they often see the day-to-day friction that shapes scientific quality. Practical steps might include creating more forums where operations and bench insights are valued, funding mentorship and leadership pathways, and ensuring that credit and authorship practices recognize the work that makes research possible.”