Who Belongs in Science? – Confronting Structural Inequalities in Global Science Research

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend a prestigious and renowned international scientific conference in my field of research and faced a somewhat unusual experience concerning inclusivity and diversity. It was electrifying to hear talks on cutting-edge discoveries—CRISPR innovations, epigenetic insights, translational breakthroughs. Yet amidst that enthusiasm, a more unsettling question took root in my mind as I looked through the crowd in the hall: the question of representation, the question of belonging, the question of trust within science. 

Seeing Beyond the Podium

I’ve long reflected on public trust in science—how we engage communities, communicate rigorously, and correct misinformation. But this time, I found myself wondering about the socio-structural aspect of trust within science- who gets to present data, lead panels, or simply join a dinner table conversation with big shots in the field? Beyond the formal scientific agenda, the crowd at such a conference often reflect deeper structural inequalities. Physical appearance matters- personally, as a 4 ft  9 in woman of colour, I have noticed fleeting looks that seemed to question whether I “fit” a scientist’s image. It is not uncommon for attendees from historically underrepresented backgrounds—especially those from the Global South—to find themselves quietly questioned, overlooked, or subtly marginalised. Delegations from South Asia often receive limited engagement at their posters, regardless of the quality of their research. Scientists whose accents, appearance, or cultural practices don’t align with the dominant western academic mould may face doubts about their legitimacy or competence. These experiences, though rarely discussed, are not isolated—they are patterned. They reflect the ongoing disparity in access, recognition, and trust within the scientific community.

Who sets the paradigm?

There is no denying the influence and contribution of the elite western institutions on delivering breakthrough discoveries and setting the direction of global science. But this dominance and somewhat exaggerated sense of superiority can narrow our collective imagination, as panels and keynotes often draw from a small, familiar network of labs and leaders, thereby missing out on diverse perspectives. Networking rituals and social expectations—right down to how one eats or speaks—can create invisible barriers for those outside the ivory tower of cultural capital. 

The under-representation and undermining of the Global South is not mere oversight; it is what sociologist Robert Merton called the “Matthew Effect”—the phenomenon where recognition and resources accumulate disproportionately to those who already have prestige, creating a feedback loop that marginalises equally deserving contributors. This raises fundamental questions about the meritocratic ideal in science. Supposedly, science rewards quality over identity, data over origin. But in practice, the system often favours those with institutional pedigree, Western affiliations, and fluent English over those with just as much intellectual rigour but fewer cultural affiliations or geographic advantages. 

Many conferences now include a mandate on DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). While this is progress on paper, it remains questionable how far inclusivity has been truly internalised. The geopolitical barrier in the form of the strength of passports remains a common impediment to date for developing nations to attend conferences in the Global North, followed by a lack of enough travel grants and visa support. The DEI discourse often remains a mere metric, while the broader considerations around examining how geopolitical contexts, colonial legacies, and funding asymmetries shape who gets to produce and publish science remain overlooked. Unfortunately, even in such huge trend-setting conferences, there is no discussion about the socio‑political context in which science is done. 

Reimagining inclusivity in global science

Experiences are contrasting when on one hand, there is so much dialogue around open science and democratisation of science, and on the other hand, a global science conference remains rather confined within technical science and fails to focus on the social responsibilities of and within science. The revelation of this reality is not about accusation, but rather to highlight the prevailing structural inequality, to point out the normalisation as unjust and hence the need for systemic change in selection bias, speaker invitation and such aspects of global science conferences. For science to live up to its universalist ideals in a true sense, we must address structural exclusions ingrained within global scientific systems—exclusions that produce unequal opportunity, undermine epistemic diversity, and weaken the quality and spirit of science itself.

Science is not just about experiments and data. It’s about liberation—the liberation of ideas, and the liberation of minds. Science is the strongest tool towards social emancipation, and therefore, it is crucial to pose these questions around inclusivity within science out loud, such that science can itself be liberated as a force that liberates the masses and fosters social equity.

- Alakta

Note: AI has been used for editing purposes.