0
0
By Cristina Serra
Women account for a growing share of the global scientific workforce (31.1% of researchers worldwide in 2022, according to UNESCO), but they remain underrepresented in the organizations that shape scientific recognition, leadership, and decision-making. A new global report released today by the International Science Council, the InterAcademy Partnership, and the Standing Committee for Gender Equality in Science finds that the representation within scientific academies and international scientific unions continues to lag behind the composition of the wider scientific community. 11 February 2026.
Scientific academies and international scientific unions play an important role in shaping scientific agendas and norms, recognizing scientific excellence, and advising policymakers. Through these functions, they strongly influence whose expertise is visible and whose voices shape science. Persistent underrepresentation within these bodies raises questions about inclusiveness, legitimacy, and the effective identification and use of scientific talent.
The report, “Toward gender equality in scientific organizations: assessment and recommendations,” presents the most comprehensive global assessment to date of gender equality in scientific organizations. Drawing on institutional data from more than 130 academies and international scientific unions, alongside responses from nearly 600 scientists worldwide, the study analyzes patterns of representation, participation, and leadership of women scientists based on data collected in 2025.
What the evidence shows
Since the first report in 2015, women’s representation has increased modestly on average, but progress has been uneven. Women remain underrepresented in leadership roles, governing bodies, and systems of recognition such as senior positions and awards. In national academies, women represent on average 19% of members in 2025, up from 12% in 2015 and 16% in 2020 (second report), with wide variation across institutions (from less than 5% to nearly 40%). Underrepresentation is more pronounced in senior leadership: among 50 national academies, only 20% currently have a woman president, a modest increase from 17% in 2015 and unchanged since 2020. In international scientific unions, overall representation largely reflects disciplinary gender composition, while women’s representation in leadership is comparatively higher, at around 40% across unions.
These gaps cannot be explained by pipeline effects alone. Instead, institutional processes matter. Gender gaps in representation do not primarily result from explicit restrictions on eligibility. Most scientific organizations report formally open and merit-based procedures. However, nomination practices, selection norms, and reliance on informal networks continue to shape who is identified, encouraged, and put forward. As a result, women remain underrepresented in nomination pools relative to their presence among eligible scientists.
Many organizations have introduced initiatives or policy statements aimed at improving gender equality. However, these measures are often limited in scope, focusing on awareness or encouragement rather than changes to core organizational processes. These measures are also, in the great majority, not supported by dedicated resources, clear mandates, or embedded governance structures, and thus have further limited impact.
Lived experience behind the data
Responses from the individual survey of scientists illustrate how these patterns are experienced in practice. Women who join scientific organizations participate at levels comparable to men, but this does not translate into comparable progression or recognition. Women are three times more likely to report barriers to advancement, including missed opportunities linked to care responsibilities.
Across disciplines and organizational settings, women are also significantly (4.5 times) more likely than men to report experiences of harassment and microaggressions and to express lower levels of trust in the transparency of selection processes and in mechanisms for reporting and addressing misconduct.
An earlier pilot study had documented strategies women use to navigate these environments, including focused engagement at the international level, reliance on women’s networks, and advocacy—compensating individually for institutional gaps rather than benefiting from systemic support.
From diagnosis to action
Rather than proposing fixed targets, the report identifies a set of institutional levers that can support fairer participation, leadership, and recognition. These include reforms to nomination and selection processes, improved collection and use of gender-disaggregated data, and stronger monitoring and evaluation practices. The report also highlights good practices from scientific organizations where changes to formal rules and structures have supported more sustained progress.
Taken together, the findings point to a structural challenge rather than a lack of qualified women. Scientific organizations remain shaped by long-standing practices that influence who is nominated, selected, recognized, and heard. By documenting these mechanisms across institutions and disciplines, the report provides a robust evidence base to support more transparent, accountable, and inclusive organizational practices. 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.
