“Draw a Scientist”

Since the 1960s, researchers and educators around the globe have asked children to draw a scientist to explore their perceptions of those who work in science. Most drawings feature crisp white lab coats, books, and laboratory equipment—likely inspired by what children have seen in picture books and TV shows. When Dr. David Chambers began conducting his now-famous Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST) in the 1980s, a distinct trend emerged: of the 5,000 drawings produced, only 28 depicted a woman, and all were drawn by girls. Most of the children’s drawings portrayed middle-aged men, reflecting a monolithic view of scientific researchers in young children.

Above: A child’s drawing of a scientist from the DAST. Image courtesy of the California Academy of Sciences.

Since its invention, the DAST has been administered to thousands of children worldwide. Research by Dr. David Miller and colleagues at Northwestern University found that since the 1980s, more children are drawing women. In fact, around 28% of children are now drawing female scientists compared to the initially observed 0.6%. This change in social perceptions of science is groundbreaking, but it raises the question of how we form these perceptions of scientists and why diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) matter in scientific spaces.

The State of Diversity in STEM

Over the past several decades, an abundance of evidence has indicated that the overall diversity of a team is more impactful than the individual aptitudes of its members when conducting strong, innovative work. Despite this, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics reports that women make up less than 30% of scientists worldwide, and on average, those who do enter the field receive lower compensation and advance more slowly in their careers, struggling to reach tenure and other career milestones compared to their male colleagues. Moreover, the Pew Research Center reports that Black and Hispanic workers are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, particularly among scientists with doctorates. Representation of women, Hispanic, and Black scientists is lowest in physical sciences, engineering, and math compared to other STEM fields. Less data exists for other underrepresented minority groups on the basis of ability, age, religion, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation in STEM; however, these individuals also likely face substantial barriers. 

Despite growing evidence that diversity fosters creativity, underrepresented minority groups continue to face barriers in academia, struggling to climb the academic ladder or receive the same accolades as their white male colleagues. Drs. Bas Hofstra and Daniel McFarland, researchers at Stanford University, studied recipients of doctorates in a variety of fields and found a striking pattern: underrepresented minorities and women produce a higher rate of innovative ideas, yet their contributions are less likely to be accepted by their colleagues or the greater scientific community as a whole. As a result, these groups were less likely to receive coveted promotions and higher-ranked faculty positions. 

This gap speaks to a larger hierarchical problem within academia that maintains a largely white male majority in higher administrative positions despite the diversification of student programs. Although scientific fields are becoming more diverse at the trainee level, the reality is that faculty remain disproportionately white and male, highlighting a historical imbalance in who holds power and influence in academic institutions. For example, in 2023, the Duke University School of Medicine (DUSoM) reported that 70% of faculty identified as white, 20% were Asian, while only the remaining 10% identified as Black, AIAN, NHPI, Hispanic, Latino/a/e or mixed race. Among biomedical PhD students, although still predominantly white (42%), 8% were Black, 8% identified as Hispanic or Latino/a/e, and 1.6% identified as AIAN or NHPI. While 55% of faculty identified as male, only 26% of health professions students and 39% of biomedical PhD students identified as male. Increasingly diverse student populations, both with respect to gender and race, promise a more diverse scientific workforce in the future.

The underrepresentation of marginalized groups in the sciences has become even more urgent as President Donald J. Trump, just one month into his second presidential term, has launched a vehement attack on DEI initiatives within scientific research. For instance, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), just one of many congressionally funded scientific institutions, has closed down its Office of Diversity and Inclusion and removed links to DEI resources. This change follows executive orders from the Trump administration to remove specific programs and words from their websites. Unfortunately, NASEM is far from the only federal organization scrubbing DEI from its websites and programs. Recently, the National Aeronautics and Space Association (NASA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Department of Energy have all taken steps to remove mentions of DEI from their websites. 

​​

Above: The James H. Shannon building on the National Institutes of Health Campus in Maryland on July 1, 2015. Image courtesy of Lydia Polimeni/NIH.

Recent efforts from the Trump administration have also mandated flagging of grant proposals to the National Science Foundation (NSF) containing certain keywords, including “barrier,” “biases,” “diversity,” “gender,” “female,” “racially" and “equity.” These unprecedented moves within the executive branch mark a rapid shift to remove DEI initiatives and limit research activity that examines inequities in the sciences and healthcare. The executive orders have put an immediate pause on work funded by the NSF that does not comply, which includes research studies, conferences, workshops, and trainings. 

Even private institutions—once seen as a safe haven from federal attacks on DEI—are now rolling back their diversity initiatives. For example, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), one of the largest private biomedical research organizations globally, abruptly canceled its Inclusive Excellence program, a $60 million initiative that boosted diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM education. All evidence of the program's existence has been removed from the website. Even more recently, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), a science philanthropy founded by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan, also recently announced the cancellation of its DEI programs and grants supporting research focused on immigration reform. 

Why Diversity Matters

But how does diversity make science stronger? One important reason is that diverse scientists ask diverse questions. For example, a study revealed that Black scientists are more likely than researchers from other racial groups to investigate certain topics and apply for grants containing the words “socioeconomic,” “disparity,” “psychosocial,” “adolescent” and “risk,” among others. These results suggest that scientists of different backgrounds gravitate towards different areas of research, creating a diverse body of research that addresses multiple aspects of disease. Additionally, researchers of diverse backgrounds may notice details that other scientists may overlook. For instance, Indigenous people in British Columbia have been able to differentiate species of wolves that some researchers have struggled to identify.

Above: Scientists converse about a topic. Cartoon courtesy of Understanding Science.

Furthermore, diversity in science creates space for recognizing bias within all areas of research. Consider animal models in neuroscience research, for example. The mouse and human brain share anatomical and genetic similarities, making mice a classic animal model for neuroscience research. Historically, however, some peer-reviewed studies have excluded female mice under the assumption that female hormone cycles would introduce variability and complicate the results of behavioral experiments. However, a study led by lead author Dana Levy of Harvard Medical School and Dr. Rebecca M. Shanksy of Northeastern University revealed that despite their hormone fluctuations, female mice maintained more stable exploratory behavior compared to male mice. Levy also expressed concern that male mice are more likely to be used in preclinical drug testing for depression and anxiety medication, even though depression and anxiety have sex-specific symptoms. As Shanksy points out, women face more side effects when taking these drugs, illustrating the ramifications of single-sex animal research. Since 2016, the NIH has required studies to include both sexes of animals to help close this gap. However, it remains that over 50 years of research ignored sex differences and identified the male sex as the default for medical research. This study underscores the importance of diversity in science–not just the subjects studied but the scientists leading the work. Different perspectives challenge biases, ensuring that science serves everyone.

Looking to the Future

With widespread efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives sweeping the American scientific community and higher education, scientists are struggling to navigate and imagine the future of scientific research in this country. Decades of research have revealed the advantages of maintaining a diverse scientific workforce—both for establishing the United States as a leader in research and generating data to help understand and treat a variety of conditions, especially those that disproportionately impact marginalized groups. These recent attacks on DEI in STEM elicit a familiar question: How will future generations of children draw a scientist?