Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Racial equity and inclusion still lacking in neuroscience meetings

Nature Neuroscience volume 24, pages 1645–1647 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

This article has been updated

The death of George Floyd in 2020 sparked intense emotion, and increased recognition of the need to take active measures in matters of race within science and academia. This piece considers the field’s immediate actions with regard to Black representation at neuroscience conferences, and whether we are rising to the occasion in an area under our control.

In the spring and summer of 2020, there was a surge of emotion in the United States. Not only were we (along with the international community) dealing with a pandemic, but there was also a renewed focus on racial tensions, with a particular focus on Black and African Americans in the United States. This renewed focus stems from centuries-long issues of racial injustice that have been evident since the founding of the country. As a member (or past member) of several societies in my field, I noted great sorrow from colleagues globally on issues of American racial injustice, along with great energy regarding how science can be an active agent for change. As a Black person, I appreciated these responses. Following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, Ahmaud Arbery, and others, there were numerous statements from scientific societies on diversity, equity, and inclusion that pushed their organizations and memberships to do better. Several of these statements included support of a fundamental fact: racial discrimination is toxic, and should not be tolerated by science or society. This is a logical extension of various laws centered around racial discrimination1,2,3. These statements also included general support of the Black community specifically, with concerns about institutional racism, systemic racism, and explicit and implicit bias within the scientific ranks. The scientific field appeared highly mobilized to pursue progressive change. For example, the Society for Neuroscience offered a commitment to “promoting diversity and fostering excellence; to recognizing that many talented scientists, especially those from minority groups, have been excluded from our field; and to committing to do better”4. The editorial board of Cell put it clearly: “Science has a racism problem”5. The editorial board of Science committed to listening, learning, and changing any systemic racist practices it holds6. The ‘diversity–innovation paradox’ was quantified, revealing that underrepresented groups produced higher rates of scientific discovery, yet their contributions were more likely to be devalued and discounted7.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Percentage of Black speakers at all identified conferences.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Change history

  • 10 December 2021

    In the version of this Comment initially published, an unfortunate composition error in the sentence now reading “It is worth noting that several (but not all) of these conferences were diverse in other ways” was present (“noting” appeared as “nothing”) and has been corrected in this file as of 10 December 2021.

References

  1. Civil Rights Act of 1964 78 Stat. 241 (1964).

  2. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 82 Stat.73 (1968).

  3. Civil Rights Act of 1991 PL. 102–166 (1991).

  4. SfN Statement on Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity https://www.sfn.org/publications/latest-news/2020/06/02/sfn-statement-on-diversity,-inclusion,-and-equity (2020).

  5. Cell Editorial Team Cell 181, 1443–1444 (2020).

  6. Nature 582, 147 (2020).

  7. Hofstra, B. et al. The diversity-innovation paradox in science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 9284–9291 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Walker, R. Early Am. Stud. 19, 601–640 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brandt, A. M. Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (The Hastings Center, 1978).

  10. Truog, R. D., Kesselheim, A. S. & Joffe, S. Science 337, 37–38 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hardeman, R. R., Medina, E. M. & Kozhimannil, K. B. N. Engl. J Med. 375, 2113–2115 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pollock, A. R. D. et al. Catalyst 3, 1–38 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jones, C. P. Ethn. Dis. 28, 231–234 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Burke, L. #ShutDownSTEM Inside Higher Ed https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/11/scientists-strike-black-lives-more-inclusive-academia (2020).

  15. Society for Neuroscience Black Lives Matter and Neuroscience: Why This Moment Matters https://neuronline.sfn.org/diversity/black-lives-matter-and-neuroscience (2020).

  16. Ramos, R. L., Alvina, K. & Martinez, L. R. J. Undergrad. Neurosci. Educ. 16, A6–A13 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. NCES Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/csc (2020).

  18. Gibbs, K. D., Basson, J., Xierali, I. M. & Broniatowski, D. A. Elife 5, e21393 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Valantine, H. A., Lund, P. K. & Gammie, A. E. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15, 3 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hodes, R. J. Diversity in Scientific Meetings and Conferences Optimizes Research Innovations https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/diversity-scientific-meetings-and-conferences-optimizes-research-innovations (National Institute on Aging, 2019).

  21. Nat. Methods 16, 563 (2019).

  22. Platt, M. O. Nat. Rev. Mater. 5, 783–784 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pendergrass, A. et al. Guide to Organizing Inclusive Scientific Meetings: Where to Start (500 Women Scientists, 2019).

  24. Crutcher, B. N. Liberal Educ. 100, 2 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Forrester, N. Nature 585, S65–S67 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Foxx, A. J. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14931–14936 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank my colleagues on the ASNR Executive Board and the ASNR Program Committee, and the many colleagues who have reached out and asked me questions about what they can do.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Lewis A. Wheaton

Authors
  1. Lewis A. Wheaton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lewis A. Wheaton.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Neuroscience thanks Sheena Josselyn, Bianca Marlin, Lucina Uddin, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wheaton, L.A. Racial equity and inclusion still lacking in neuroscience meetings. Nat Neurosci 24, 1645–1647 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-021-00964-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-021-00964-9

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing