The report argues that such underrepresentation not only squanders talent but undermines the legitimacy of scientific advice shaping global policies.

In a stark reminder of the challenges facing gender equity in science, a new international report reveals that women, despite comprising nearly a third of the global research workforce, remain significantly underrepresented in the elite circles of scientific organizations. Titled Toward Gender Equality in Scientific Organizations: Assessment and Recommendations, the study – released jointly by the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP), the International Science Council (ISC), and the Standing Committee for Gender Equality in Science (SCGES) – highlights modest gains over the past decade but underscores persistent institutional barriers that hinder women’s advancement to leadership roles.

Drawing on data from over 130 national academies and international scientific unions, as well as surveys of nearly 600 scientists worldwide, the report paints a picture of uneven progress. While women’s visibility in these bodies has edged upward, deep-seated issues like biased nomination processes and a lack of dedicated funding for equality initiatives continue to perpetuate a “leaky pipeline” for female talent. The findings, based on 2025 assessments and compared to benchmarks from 2015 and 2020, come at a critical juncture as global science grapples with calls for more inclusive decision-making to address pressing challenges like climate change and pandemics.

Modest Gains Mask Broader Stagnation

The report documents incremental improvements in women’s membership in national academies, rising to an average of 19 per cent in 2025 from just 12 per cent a decade earlier. The report notes that this marks a welcome shift, with the proportion of academies boasting fewer than 10 per cent female members halving since 2015. Yet, the numbers vary wildly: some institutions hover below 5 per cent female membership, while a fortunate few approach 40 per cent. Leadership roles tell an even grimmer tale – only 20 per cent of national academies are presided over by women, a figure unchanged since 2020 and up only slightly from 17 per cent in 2015.

In international scientific unions, women fare somewhat better, holding about 40 per cent of leadership positions. However, this reflects disciplinary differences rather than systemic equity; fields like biology show higher female involvement, while engineering and physics lag behind. Globally, women make up 31.1 per cent of researchers as of 2022, according to UNESCO data, and outnumber men in higher education enrolment (46 per cent vs. 40 per cent). Yet, in the top 200 universities, just 18 per cent of leadership roles are held by women, signalling a bottleneck at the apex of scientific influence.

These disparities extend to awards and governing bodies, where women’s contributions are often overlooked. The report argues that such underrepresentation not only squanders talent but undermines the legitimacy of scientific advice shaping global policies. “Persistent underrepresentation within these bodies raises questions about inclusiveness, legitimacy, and the effective identification and use of scientific talent,” the authors note.

Barriers Beyond the Talent Pipeline

The study debunks the myth that gender gaps stem solely from a scarcity of qualified women entering science. Instead, it points to institutional “gatekeeping” mechanisms – nomination practices favouring informal male-dominated networks, rigid selection norms that penalize career interruptions, and a culture of microaggressions – as primary culprits. Survey respondents revealed stark lived experiences: women are three times more likely than men to cite barriers to career progression, such as caregiving responsibilities, and 4.5 times more prone to encountering harassment or exclusionary behaviours.

A “caregiving penalty” emerges as a particularly insidious factor. Women reported missing opportunities due to family duties at rates far exceeding men’s, exacerbating what the report calls a “trust gap.” Despite being 2.5 times more likely to experience exclusion, women express significantly lower confidence in misconduct reporting systems, viewing them as opaque and retaliatory. This cultural inertia persists even as 62 per cent of academies and 64 per cent of unions adopt formal gender equality policies – policies that, in most cases, lack the budgetary muscle to drive real change. Only 10 per cent of academies and 30 per cent of unions allocate dedicated funds, rendering commitments largely symbolic.

The report’s methodology underscores its rigor: beyond quantitative data on representation, it incorporates qualitative insights from in-depth interviews, capturing the emotional toll of these barriers. As one respondent put it, the gaps “cannot be explained by pipeline effects alone. Instead, institutional processes matter.”

Urgent Calls for Structural Overhaul

To bridge these divides, the report issues a blueprint for action, urging scientific bodies to embed gender equality into their DNA rather than treating it as an afterthought. Top recommendations include overhauling nomination and selection criteria to neutralize biases, mandating gender-disaggregated data collection, and bolstering monitoring systems with clear accountability metrics. Institutions should prioritize dedicated budgets for equality initiatives and redesign career timelines to accommodate caregiving from the outset, rather than offering ad-hoc flexibility.

The authors advocate learning from success stories: organizations that have sustained progress through structural reforms, such as transparent selection panels and mentorship programs tied to governance. International unions are encouraged to collaborate with bodies like SCGES for equitable funding, while academies could form analogous committees. “Addressing gender gaps in scientific leadership is not a matter of symbolism, but of institutional effectiveness, legitimacy, and the responsible use of scientific expertise in a complex global context,” the report asserts.

Experts echoed this imperative. “What we observe is a pattern of commitment without full operational follow-through,” said Léa Nacache, communications officer at the ISC. Professor Marie-Françoise Roy, emerita professor of mathematics at Université de Rennes and a co-author, added, “It is easier to accept the objective of gender equality in a text than to approve efficient mechanisms… which needs funding.” She emphasized the broader stakes: “Science’s vocation is to be truly universal… Having an inclusive attitude towards… women is part of the strategy.”

A Path Forward for Inclusive Science

As the scientific community reflects on these findings, the report serves as both diagnosis and rallying cry. With global enrolment trends favouring women, the onus is on institutions to dismantle barriers and harness diverse perspectives. “Gender equality must become a core institutional responsibility rather than an individual or symbolic effort,” Nacache concluded. Failure to act risks not just equity, but the very innovation science promises for humanity’s future.

In regions like South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa local academies face amplified urgency amid resource constraints. Yet, the global scope offers hope: collaborative reforms could accelerate change, ensuring science reflects the world’s full ingenuity.