图片来源：Andy Brunning/Compound Interest

从DNA的结构、计算机科学以及空间站电池，几个关键的科学发现改善了我们如今的生活，而这些都是由某些意义上边缘化的科学家们所创造。三位科学家，Rosalind E. Franklin、Alan M. Turing以及Olga D. González-Sanabria并没有按照全球社会文化对科学家形象和行为的期望而随波逐流。但遗憾的是，边缘化的科学家通常被当作是一种资源，而不是构成科学本身的命脉。卓越和真理源于多样性和包容性，这是科学影响政治和经济成果的基石。面向科学领域的多样性、公平性和包容性（DEI），作者们联合提出相应建议。

认识和量化不平等

非多元化的学术环境是封闭的群体。主流科学家（即文化背景下，符合形象和行为期望的科学家）不知道或不了解边缘化的科学家所面临的挑战。开始理解这些挑战的第一步是倾听边缘化科学家的声音。跨阶层绘制学术界的多样性格局对于了解边缘化科学家至关重要。该数据应定期收集并公开报告，以便可以透明地观察和跟踪其进展。这种信息收集将为决策者和相关组织提供量化的多样性观点，并为创建公平的政策和实践提供背景。

给边缘化科学家提供支持

科学界的歧视和缺乏社交联络对边缘化科学家的工作经历和工作表现产生负面影响。科学界的每个成员都有责任采取行动并形成支持体系，以促进边缘化科学家的职业发展。通过有效的指导、在线同行群体的分享与交流、财政支持等途径，减少边缘化科学家从事科学职业的障碍，支持边缘化科学家的职业发展。同时，要认可边缘化科学家的工作，尊重他们的成就，包括：理解他们的工作、关注他们的发现、合作开展联合研究项目、引用他们的工作、提名他们担任领导职务和奖励等。

重新定义和扩展“卓越”

科学的卓越成就通常是具有广泛社会影响力的基础研究发现。传统的卓越观在历史上是在非多元化的群体中塑造的，这些群体的流行文化崇拜艾萨克·牛顿、托马斯·爱迪生、阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦等科学英雄，崇拜天才而与社会环境无关。这种对卓越的狭隘看法会导致资源集中到已得到认可的科学家手中，它限制了科学的进步，新基础研究思想的产生，以及跨学科研究领域的发展。我们要不断更新我们对“卓越”的理解，前提是必须对定义“卓越”的结构组成进行更新，而这可以通过“终身职位”和“职位晋升”等来实现。为了使职位晋升公平，将“卓越”重新定义时，必须考虑科学家在科研工作，教学和服务工作等方方面面取得的所有成就。

出版领域的包容性

出版行业的参与者尚未普遍显示出科学界的多样性。来自科学界各个方面的利益相关者在出版行业各个环节都有代表时，才真正反映了科学的多样性和包容性。出版界所需的变化包括制定期刊政策、日常运营、选择审稿人、为编辑人员提供指导、雇佣更多元化的团队。边缘化的科学家需要在出版社内部的咨询委员会和编辑委员会发挥作用。期刊可以通过清晰地陈述其使命倡议并做出直接声明来解决针对边缘群体的任何偏见，从而创建一个更加公平和值得信赖的出版流程。这些声明应每年更新一次，并得到有关一线编辑团队、审稿人、作者的多样性数据分析的支持。拥有这些透明信息，出版商可以发现偏见并采取措施消除偏见。更大而公平的人才库也将减轻边缘化科学家的负担。

香港大学任詠华院士和吉林大学杨英威教授是本文共同作者。这篇观点文章已同时在多个化学领域杂志全文发表：

Nature Chemistry (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-020-0529-x)

Chemical Science (https://doi.org/10.1039/D0SC90150D)

Journal of the American Chemical Society (https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.0c07877)

Angewandte Chemie International Edition (https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202009834)

Canadian Journal of Chemistry (https://doi.org/10.1139/cic-2020-0323)

Croatica Chemica Acta (https://doi.org/10.5562/diversity2020)

英文原文：A diverse view of science to catalyse change

Valuing diversity leads to scientific excellence, the progress of science and, most importantly, it is simply the right thing to do. We can value diversity not only in words, but also in actions.

From the structure of DNA, to computer science, and space-station batteries, several key scientific discoveries that enhance our lives today were made by marginalized scientists. These three scientists, Rosalind E. Franklin, Alan M. Turing and Olga D. González-Sanabria, did not conform to the cultural expectations of how scientists should look and behave. Unfortunately, marginalized scientists are often viewed as just a resource rather than the lifeblood that constitutes science itself. We need to embrace scientists from all walks of life and corners of the globe; this will also mean that nobody is excluded from tackling the life-threatening societal challenges that lie ahead.

Science policy deals with creating the framework and codes of conduct that determine how science can best serve society. Discussions around science policy are often accompanied by anecdotes of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ practices regarding the merits of diversity and inclusion. Excellence and truth, which flow inexorably from diversity and inclusion, are the bedrocks upon which science should influence political and economic outcomes. A vital area of science policy is to support the professional development of marginalized scientists, an objective that must be acted upon by scientific leaders and communicators.

Diversity 101

To paraphrase Zimmerman and Anastas on the topic of green chemistry, if people are confused about what diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are, it is difficult to imagine that from confusion will arise a clear path on how to implement them. If we want to achieve DEI in science, we need to be clear about the definitions of the following key terms.

Diversity: the ways in which people differ, encompassing all the characteristics that make one individual or group distinctive.8 The dimensions of diversity include, but are not limited to, (i) ethnic or national origins, skin colour or nationality, (ii) gender, gender identity, and gender expression, (iii) sexual orientation, (iv) background (socio-economic status, immigration status or class), (v) religion or belief (including absence of belief), (vi) civil or marital status, (vii) pregnancy and maternity, paternity, parental leave, (viii) age and (ix) disability.

Equity: the fair treatment, access and opportunity that lead to the advancement of all peoples. Equity is about striving to identify and remove barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups. Improving equity means increasing justice and fairness within the processes of institutions or systems, as well as communication and sharing of resources. Addressing issues of equity require a deep understanding of the sources of disparity in our society.

Inclusion: the act of creating an environment in which any individual or group feels (i) welcomed, (ii) safe, (iii) supported, (iv) respected and (v) valued to participate. An inclusive and welcoming culture embraces differences and offers respect in words and actions to all people. It is important to note that while an inclusive group is by definition diverse, a diverse group is not always inclusive. Increasingly, recognition of implicit bias helps organizations to be constructive about addressing issues of inclusion.

Implicit bias: people are not neutral in judgement and behaviour, but instead have experience-based associations and preferences or aversions without being consciously aware of them.

Microaggressions: these are often manifestations of implicit bias, typically in the form of comments or actions.

Marginalized scientists: scientists who are at the periphery of social, economic and scientific discussions.

The reason marginalized scientists leave science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) is not an accident. It results from the historic expectations of how a scientist should be perceived and, in turn, the different treatment of scientists who don't conform to those expectations. The pursuit of equity will dismantle these beliefs, driving policy development and creating equal access to positions of leadership and opportunities for all.

This article is a message for (i) current and future scientists, (ii) students, mentors and educators, (iii) science communicators, (iv) publishers and (v) science policy makers. It has two purposes: (1) provide marginalized scientists and their allies with a space to talk about their approach towards scientific advancement, mentorship and how to challenge systemic injustice and (2) provide actionable advice to implement equity in academia and related businesses and organizations.

Identifying and quantifying inequity

Science can only expand the research questions and problems defined as important with a broad pool of life experiences and knowledge. Non-diverse academic environments are closed communities that reinforce traditional stereotypes of who gets to be a scientist. This situation is analogous to the political science phenomena known as ‘echo chambers’. Each country has its own demographics, and consequently the make-up of marginalized populations may differ. Most well-represented scientists—that means scientists that conform to the cultural expectations of how scientists should look and behave—do not know or understand the challenges that exist for marginalized scientists. The first step towards beginning to understand these challenges is to listen to marginalized scientists. This must then be followed by collecting reliable data, informed by the individual experiences of marginalized scientists.

For example, in the UK, a 2018 report by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) noted that the percentage of students from minority groups falls from 26% at the undergraduate level to 14% at the postgraduate level. Unfortunately, this study was not able to show the ethnicity data for staff in higher-education settings. This incomplete dataset highlights the need for transparent and consistent reporting of DEI data from universities. The RSC also shared that the percentage of minority ethnic chemical scientists in academia appears to drop significantly with increasing career stage. Meanwhile, in the US, a study by C&EN found that 12.3% of the US population is Black, yet only 1.6% of chemistry professors at the top 50 US universities are Black.

Mapping the diversity landscape of academia across hierarchies is vital to understanding the severity of the underrepresentation of marginalized scientists. This data should be collected and reported on a regular basis so that progress can be monitored transparently. This information gathering will give organizations a quantitative perspective of diversity in their communities, and provide context to create equitable policies and practices.

Supporting marginalized scientists

Discrimination and lack of social connections in the scientific community have a negative impact on the experiences and performance of marginalized scientists, ranging from poor physical and mental health, to low self-esteem.The psychological cost of not feeling socially or professionally connected is impactful, persistent and has a similar effect as physical pain. Regardless of minority status, marginalized populations experience a higher amount of stress.

Every member of the scientific community has a duty to act and create support structures that promote the career development of marginalized scientists. Below are some examples of specific support systems, and how they play a key role in a marginalized scientist’s career.

Mentorship: supporting the personal and professional growth, development, and success of scientists through the provision of career and mental-health advice. Mentorship has an overall positive effect on retention and career success of mentees across STEM disciplines. Despite current efforts in DEI, however, marginalized individuals enrolled in STEM degree programs typically receive less mentorship than their well-represented peers. Research has shown that marginalized scientists already dedicate more hours of service engaging in invisible work, including mentorship, than their peers. This imbalance reduces their available time to perform tasks that are deemed more valuable for career progression. Mentoring marginalized scientists should also be the responsibility of well-represented scientists.

Online peer communities: communities such as #ScienceTwitter are free resources to build connections, learn about career opportunities, and share expert advice. These platforms can increase the visibility and reach of scientific work. Scientists can increase their visibility and use their platform to promote marginalized colleagues.

Financial support: the barriers for marginalized scientists pursuing and engaging in scientific careers can be reduced through financial support. Scientists and scientific organizations need to create and promote equitable financial aid opportunities that support marginalized scientists in career development and be mindful of the costs of participating in networking events.

Effective inclusion and diversity support: these systems can identify, and address, the negative experiences of marginalized researchers; they must be approachable, trustworthy and accountable. Research suggests that such support is best provided through independent and impartial structures.

Recognizing the work of marginalized scientists: it is crucial that the achievements of marginalized scientists be valued, respected and credited appropriately. This recognition involves (i) reading their work, (ii) engaging in their discoveries, (iii) cooperating in joint research projects, (iv) citing their work and (v) nominating them for leadership positions and awards.

Expanding and redefining excellence

Excellence in science is often equated to fundamental discoveries with broad societal impact. The conventional view of excellence was historically shaped within non-diverse communities that celebrate heroes of science like Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein as pop-culture icons—geniuses isolated from societal context. This narrow perception of excellence results in funnelling of resources into the hands of already recognized, established and well-represented scientists—the perceived heroes of tomorrow. Further, it limits the progress of science and the development of fundamentally new ideas, and interdisciplinary fields of investigation.

Diversity in science has helped to bring forward advances in areas that the well-represented cannot fathom, because they do not share the problems and perspectives of marginalized scientists. Furthermore, the technical and societal problems that marginalized scientists value are not weighted equally. It is, not only, that well-represented scientists have a narrower conception of what constitutes excellence, but also many of them will fail to attain the level of excellence that the achievements of marginalized scientists already have in contemporary society.

If we want to renew our understanding of excellence, we must also renew the composition of the bodies that define it. This renewal could be achieved through the tenure and promotion process. In order for the promotion process to be equitable, all the achievements of scientists in research, teaching, and service must be included in the redefinition of excellence.

Academics should care about DEI because marginalized scientists matter. Academia has been slower to embrace diversity than the private sector where diversity has been linked to the financial bottom line, in that the more diverse the corporation, the more valuable and profitable is the company. A broad understanding of excellence embraces the diversity of the creators and beneficiaries of science. As institutions redefine excellence to include all, the benefits for all will be tremendous.

Inclusion in the publishing space

Scientific communication throughout the mass media and academic outlets remains the fundamental pillar of the relationship between scientists and society. Participants in the publishing process, however, do not yet universally reflect the diversity of the scientific community, which itself does not reflect the diversity of society as a whole. This lack of diversity reduces the participation of marginalized groups when it comes to publishing. Their inclusion will not occur until stakeholders from all parts of the scientific community are represented at all levels of the publishing process. This change means: (i) shaping journal policies, (ii) influencing daily operations, (iii) choosing reviewers, (iv) giving guidance to editorial staff and (v) hiring more diverse teams. Marginalized scientists need to play leadership roles in the establishment of advisory and editorial boards within publishing houses.

Journals can create a more equitable and trustworthy publishing process by stating their mission initiatives clearly and making direct statements addressing any kind of bias against marginalized groups. These statements should be updated annually and be supported by data analysis on the diversity of (i) frontline editorial teams, (ii) reviewers, and (iii) authors both of submitted manuscripts and accepted articles. Given this transparent information, publishers can identify biases and take steps to eliminate them. A larger and equitable talent pool would also unburden the marginalized scientists who are currently stretched thin across editorial positions.

Conclusion

The uptake of DEI support structures has started to address shortcomings, and we see an upward—but often anecdotal—trend in the inclusion of some marginalized groups in STEM. These efforts, however, focus on dealing with the consequences, rather than eliminating systemic discrimination and implicit bias in academia.  All scientists can contribute to reducing the impact of implicit bias by accepting, learning, and identifying their own biases through active and continuous self-assessment. For example, Project Implicit, a non-profit organization, has developed a set of online tools for understanding attitudes, stereotypes and other hidden biases that influence perception, judgment and action.

Reducing the inequalities in STEM requires a data-based, holistic approach to DEI. We all need to become advocates of marginalized scientists and give them equitable opportunities to advance their careers because it is ultimately the right thing to do. Additionally, the result will not only be a broader pool of future talents, but also an unprecedented level of excellence that a more colourful and inclusive scientific community can attain.

We have collected statements from scientists that come from all walks of life to share how they value DEI initiatives (https://chemistrycommunity.nature.com/channels/diverse-views-in-science). These statements contain individual calls to action, as well as broader advice to the younger scientists. We hope that you find them interesting and, in the words of Michael Polanyi, use them for “coordination by mutual adjustment of independent initiatives.” Let us use these statements to learn from each other as we do in science.