https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.123.38

The Society’s drive to support diversity and inclusion extends to all areas of activity. To achieve this we established a network of individuals called the Diversity and Inclusion Task Force, which is made up of a member representative from each of our Advisory Committees.

Our Diversity and Inclusion Task Force is made up of Professor Raheela Khan (Trustee Champion), Dr Sue Deuchars (Trustee Champion), Dr Dayne Beccano- Kelly (representative from Conferences Committee), Dr Keith Siew (representative from Education, Public Engagement, and Policy Committee) and Professor Kim Barrett (representative from Publications Committee).

The Diversity and Inclusion Task Force works to ensure that the principles of diversity and inclusion are embedded across all activities of The Society. To read more about The Society’s Diversity and Inclusion work, visit: physoc.org/diversity

Tell us a bit about yourselves, both mentioning your scientific career but also anything you want PN readers to know about your personal background.

Professor Raheela Khan (RK): I grew up in a diverse London neighbourhood and was inspired by my father who worked in the medical field in Pakistan and encouraged his six children to aim for a university education. Even though I loved English literature, my curiosity in the natural world drew me to biology (although not creepy crawly insects). Imagine the irony when I ended up doing a PhD on the neuromuscular system, working with cockroaches daily! During this period my fascination with ion channels developed and I was fortunate to land a postdoc position studying potassium channels in the human uterus, and I continue to work in this field today. It was during this initial period that I realised how little was known about the specifics of female reproductive disorders and the relative lack of funding in women’s health, especially around pregnancy.

Dr Sue Deuchars (SD): I am proud of the fact that I am a scientist and a mum, choosing to work part-time for 21 years in order to balance my career and children. I obtained my PhD in Cardiovascular Physiology from The Royal Free Hospital and did a postdoctoral position in London before taking my first maternity leave and then moving to Leeds without a job. At that point, I took my decision to apply for funding in my own right as a PI but working 60% and luckily, the British Heart Foundation were very forward thinking and they funded me. I stayed working part-time, first as an independent researcher, then as an RCUK Fellow before moving straight onto Reader in Neuroscience. I still love neurophysiology and I want to inspire others to feel that a career in science or academia is open to everyone, regardless of their circumstances.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly (DBK): I have always been interested in how science can impact real-world health. During my undergraduate degree I went to the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville Florida to do a year in industry, which showed me how fascinating neurodegeneration is and that this was the area I wished to concentrate on during my career. I went on to do my PhD and postdocs in Alzheimer’s Disease and Parkinson’s Disease, focusing on electrophysiology.

Dr Keith Siew (KS): Well for those who might not know, I’m a mish-mash of various oddities. I’m a first-generation PhD from a largely working class family background, I’m biracial/biethnic (born to an Irish mother and Chinese-Malaysian father in Dublin, Ireland), I’m a cisgender openly gay man, I’m dyslexic and an atheist (although the latter seems like less of a minority these days). I wanted to be a scientist since about the age of 5 (thanks to many hours of David Attenborough) and fast forward almost three decades later, I’m now living the dream as a renal-cardiovascular physiologist with Sir Henry Wellcome Postdoctoral Fellowship at UCL working in a mixed team of clinicians and scientists to investigate the renal control of blood pressure.

Professor Kim Barret (KB): I got my PhD in biological chemistry and did a postdoc in immunology, but eventually I saw the light and moved my research programme into the area of gastrointestinal physiology, where I have been ever since. Most of my time has been spent as a professor in the medical school at the University of California San Diego, but I was also Dean of the Graduate Division for 10 years and am currently working as a rotating Division Director at the National Science Foundation in Washington DC. I grew up in London, and neither of my parents completed high school, but I got interested in science at an early age and knew I wanted to make it my career.

What inspired you to get involved with D&I work?

RK: As a young scientist, one often views the world favourably and certainly in my time, I didn’t really pay much attention to inequality apart from an ethnicity perspective. I did think it felt unfair when the Wellcome Trust had no policies to support my maternity leave – that surprised me. As an academic, interacting more at the committee/management level, I began noticing certain exclusions on panels such as few women and even fewer people of colour or with a disability, let alone invisible, protected characteristics. Apart from taking part in demonstrations against apartheid, for example, professionally I came to D&I quite late but had my own lived reality of certain forms of prejudice. Until recently, I was lead of the Athena Swan Committee in the School of Medicine in Nottingham. As a parent, another very powerful driver in getting involved in D&I is to combat overt discrimination and implicit biases that can impact on people from a very young age.

SD: When I started out as a neurophysiologist, it was clear that there were very few women in science who had succeeded on a part-time basis or by setting their own agenda. I therefore wanted to motivate people to have conviction to work in science in the way that suits their lifestyle or situation best and not to be afraid to speak up about the obstacles that still exist to prevent this. As I took up different academic roles, it became clear that there was still not enough in place in science to support people with diverse characteristics, from undergraduate level to those in leadership, and I want this to change.

DBK: As a British-born scientist with Caribbean heritage, I have not encountered any Black scientists in positions of academic authority in my area of research to date. This led to feelings of isolation and imposter syndrome, questioning of the viability of my chosen career as a scientist of my colour, as well as a lack of role models to ask for advice. As a result, now that I am a group leader, I want to do my part to help eliminate these hurdles.

KS: During the early part of my studies, I was still struggling with my own identity, and this was not helped by the fact that almost every other LGBTQI+ person I knew in STEM during my BSc and MSc dropped out or transferred to the Arts & Humanities. When I got more involved with The Physiological Society as a PhD student I met a handful of other queer peers, but saw no one like me represented among the more visible members of The Society. In recent years I’ve decided to be more open about my diversity characteristics and experiences, because I felt that if I wasn’t seeing myself being represented, maybe I needed to stick my head above the parapet.

KB: My first-gen status was one of the most important factors, along with starting out as a woman in chemistry, where there were very few female role models at the time – there were no women on the academic staff in the Chemistry Department at UCL during my time as a student there, for example, and many experiences of overt sexism.

What is the main aspect of positive change in the D&I world that is happening currently?

RK: For me, it’s the local and global efforts tackling the root causes of inequality – such as the Black Lives Matter movement, which has made us challenge our own biases but also generated awareness around Black scientists through social media promotion. Not everything about social media is good but used appropriately, it is helpful in wider dissemination and discourse, in forming new ideas and also challenging corporations, organisations and governments to accelerate change in EDI. For scientists, the open discussions around research and workplace culture will hopefully lead to more equitable routes to success through fairer peer-review processes, funding outcomes, diverse boards/panels, and better work-life balances to overcome many of the unhealthy expectations of a career in science.

SD: The fact that society and, more importantly to us, scientific and academic communities are moving from mere acknowledgement of the issues to positive actions to ensure equality and inclusion. Being involved in the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Science and Health coalition has really encouraged me to believe that we will be able to make change, rather than just paying lip-service to the issues. This is being supported by strong guidelines from funding bodies such as UKRI, who influence the careers of so many in our community. DBK: Accountability. Institutions like UK Research and Innovation are publishing statistics on the demographics of their membership and awardees. This provides empirical evidence that is hard to refute, thus shining a spotlight on areas of inequity. Furthermore, the fact that the data are in the public domain means that changes can be monitored over time to track progress.

KS: I think the fact that the necessary conversations are actually being had (although not always comfortable). Old perspectives, laws and cultural norms are being challenged, and largely with a view to change things for the betterment of everyone. I’m most encouraged to see large organisations like funding bodies incorporate policies that will truly motivate change, because money talks!

KB: The biggest change I have seen in my lifetime, which was totally breath-taking to me, was the rapidity with which society at large started to accept the marriage rights of the LGBTQIA+ community. When I look at my nieces and nephews, sexual preferences just don’t seem to be an issue for them. That is not to say, however, that we are anywhere near full acceptance of this or other underrepresented communities in STEM fields and in academia, and many people still feel they cannot bring their whole authentic selves to the scientific workplace.

What is a major obstacle that often goes unnoticed, that is keeping us from a diversity-inclusive and equitable scientific community?

RK: Barriers due to age – either being too young and therefore perceived as lacking experience to contribute effectively to decision-making or older scientists in mid- late career who may not be as well supported but still have ambitions to do their best science.

SD: As a female scientist, I have been encouraged by the changes made over my career to promote gender equality in science but we are still not taking into consideration to the same extent other characteristics such as disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation or socio-economic status. Until this changes, we are not supporting our whole community to achieve to the best of their ability.

DBK: Underrepresented demographics (such as those who identify as Black) lacking in positions of authority means that there is less of a driving force for the issues that matter to certain demographics. Whilst people with the power to effect change do understand the importance of improvement in D&I, it does not affect them personally and the issues are not prioritised.

KS: I think what one might call the “invisible” disabilities. There are too many people who quietly suffer from mental health issues such as depression or anxiety that fly under the radar. There is both a lack of awareness (I myself didn’t know how to recognise I was depressed during my PhD write-up until 2 years or so into it) and also pervasive dismissive attitudes towards mental illness that would never be tolerated if it were physical illness.

KB: I think that those who hold first-gen status in academia, and/or who come to science from disadvantaged backgrounds, are something of an invisible minority. There are so many cultural touchpoints and unwritten rules for us to navigate.

If you could give your younger self one piece of advice, what would it be?

RK: Don’t judge a book by its cover – we are all shaped by different, diverse experiences that are not obvious unless you listen and observe.

SD: Have conviction in what you are capable of and how you work – others are not always doing it better!

DBK: Recently I have discovered networks and collectives of Black academics that exist to support some of the issues I identified above. I wish that I had sought these out earlier in my career and would have told my younger self to do so.

KS: Everyone is the protagonist in their own story; you’re just another side character. In other words, people aren’t thinking about you as much as you think they are, so be less self- conscious, be more yourself and embrace your differences. In the end it’ll often be what people value most about you.

KB: Stop listening to the constant voices of doubt, and just do it!

Have you any words of advice for your colleagues on how to be an ally, to any community?

RK: Find out how minorities feel, learn from them and support them by calling out inappropriate actions. I think this is an area that needs more attention to encourage people who don’t know what it means to be an ally, but can make a huge difference to individual wellbeing and culture.

SD: Have confidence in your ability to speak out in any situation where you feel that others are not being treated equally or there is unwarranted prejudice. If you chat to others, you will realise that there are many in the same or different situations as you who will also relish having a strong informal network of support. Do not be afraid to be actively involved – if you state your situation explicitly, it will help others to speak out, thus avoiding relying on implicit assumptions.

DBK: The networks I have mentioned do not have to solely be for Black people. I would encourage people to join them, listen to the issues raised, and suggest ways to change things, as opposed to asking how to solve problems and deferring responsibility back to Black scientists.

KS: Don’t be afraid to ask questions; most of us don’t bite. Be a good listener, and take part in activities where you can grow your social circle to include more diverse communities.

KB: Those of us with privilege definitely need to step up. We can’t expect those who have historically been marginalised, or who continue to suffer microaggressions, to carry all the weight of making our discipline more diverse and inclusive. Simply stopping the action, asking questions, and gently calling out what Jana and Baran have labelled “subtle acts of exclusion” can make a huge difference.