Editorial: Some Real Action After Decades of Talk About Diversity

In 1989, the number of PhDs in science and engineering awarded to blacks in the United States was 222, just 1.8% of the total - and a drop from 288 in 1977. More recently the numbers are better. According to the National Science Foundation, 661 blacks received a PhD in science or engineering in 2003, 4.2% of the total.

But African-Americans represent over 12% of the general population, according to the 2000 census. While current statistics reflect some improvement, the factors people discussed in 1989 as barriers to African-Americans becoming scientists are those still cited today: poor high school preparation, too few role models and mentors. The problems of nearly 20 years ago remain the same, and the solutions don't appear to have changed much either.

However, people are finally talking about tackling these problems scientifically. In "A Scientific Approach" on page 8, Clifton Poodry says there's a lot of work to be done, from a comprehensive review of existing literature to evaluation of outcomes. Wendy Raymond and Robert Lue address another key element of this approach in "Shared Challenges, Shared Solutions" (page 38)-sharing data on what works. They've co-chaired Howard Hughes Medical Institutes-sponsored symposia where dozens of colleges and universities met to learn from institutions that are doing a good job of getting minorities into the sciences, including historically black colleges.

Another shift is that industry is beginning to acknowledge that the original "business case" for diversity, that a diverse workforce is good for productivity and innovation, needs to be looked at in a more nuanced and qualified way in "Diversity: The New Business Case" on page 42.

The idea of ethnic diversity as a positive in and of itself is being challenged in another arena-the courts. For the first time since 2003, the Supreme Court is revisiting the question of whether diversity is itself of educational value. Meanwhile opponents of affirmative action are targeting programs intended to help women and minorities enter particular fields, including the sciences, and may be putting such programs at risk, as Damaris Christenson points out in "Losing Ground?" on page 10.

Women still face hurdles to advancing and getting paid as much as their white male colleagues, writes Anne Fleckenstein on page 14. In fact the National Academies released a major report in September, charging that unintentional biases and outmoded institutional structures are responsible for hindering women's progress in the sciences, not any innate inability to do math or intrinsic lack of competitiveness.

Diversity is a very hot topic these days, and we may finally be starting to see some effective action after decades of talk. This supplement is intended to give readers a sense of the current controversies in the field, and why we should care about them. Having a rainbow coalition in the lab or the classroom may not be of intrinsic scientific and economic value, but it certainly is valuable for us as a society to break down any barriers that still stand against anyone choosing, and succeeding in, a scientific career.

The supplement consists of three sections: "From the Field," a series of articles on the current state of diversity, including how globalization is affecting industry's perception of diversity and how diversity is defined in Europe; ten profiles of key figures in the life sciences who are helping to promote diversity, who themselves belong to underrepresented groups, or both; and "Toolkit," several pieces describing effective strategies for promoting diversity in academia and the private sector while addressing common pitfalls and misconceptions.

We've tried to go deeper and a bit further afield in this year's supplement, and we hope you will find it valuable and thought-provoking.