Despite the widespread adoption of inclusive policies and growing public attention to the issue, gender equality in science is still a long way from being achieved. Inequalities are not only evident at the entry point to scientific careers – where the number of women has, on the whole, increased over time – but are also apparent throughout the structure of research organisations, in which women are significantly under-represented in decision-making roles, at the highest academic levels and in governing bodies. This phenomenon, known as the “leaky pipeline”, affects scientific systems in many countries, regardless of their level of economic development, with direct implications for strategic priorities, resource allocation and recruitment policies.

This is the conclusion of a new global report, Towards gender equality in scientific organisations, released on 11 February to mark the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, established by the UN in 2015 to promote gender equality in STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). The report, produced by the International Science Council (ISC), the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) and the Standing Committee for Gender Equality in Science (SCGES), expands on previous work conducted in 2015 and 2020, also introducing a qualitative dimension for the first time. It specifically focuses on international academies and scientific unions, combining institutional data provided by 136 of these organisations with responses to a global survey of around 600 scientists and qualitative interviews with a dozen people in leadership roles.

Science and gender equality: the data

Overall, the proportion of women has increased over the last decade. In 2025, women accounted for an average of 19% of members in the academies, up from 12% in 2015 and 16% in 2020: a steady but modest improvement, still well below the proportion of women in the global scientific workforce, which stands at 31.1%, according to various global estimates cited in the report. The situation appears even more critical in leadership roles: only one in five academies is led by a woman, with no improvement over the last five years.

Women's participation in international scientific unions is higher than in academies, with an average of 40% of women in governing bodies. This figure rises to 46% among SCGES partner unions, thanks to more flexible governance models and a more explicit commitment to gender policies. A paradox emerges when examining the reasons behind this situation: most organisations claim to have open, merit-based admission procedures, but in reality the processes remain driven by informal networks, which tend to favour the visibility of those already embedded in certain circles.

Academies that employ dedicated election committees report an average female representation of 34%, compared with 17% in those that rely on a vote by all members, suggesting that structured approaches promote fairness. Female scientists also face working conditions that differ significantly from those of their male colleagues: according to the survey, they are 4.5 times more likely to miss out on career opportunities due to care-giving responsibilities (such as looking after children or elderly relatives) and 2.5 times more likely to experience discrimination or harassment.

Finally, the report does not stop at analysis but proposes various strategies for change: these range from incorporating a commitment to equality into statutes to introducing action plans with dedicated budgets (currently only 10% of academies have specific funds) and from defining appointment procedures based on transparent criteria to the creation of balanced shortlists and committees designed to mitigate bias. Furthermore, it is necessary to implement clear codes of conduct and independent reporting channels for harassment, provide support for parents, promote mentorship and leadership programmes for women, and systematically collect data broken down by gender in order to monitor progress.

International case studies

Promoting the exchange of best practices among different organisations is also crucial, proving that structural change is possible when there is a clear political will. For example, in Spain, the Royal Spanish Academy of Sciences has introduced, in addition to a 50% generational renewal rule for those under 50, a 40% gender quota for new appointments, raising female representation from 9.7% to 24% within a few years. Similarly, in Japan, the reform of the Science Council of Japan’s appointment system, introduced in 2005, has increased the proportion of women from 6% to 39%.

Furthermore, in Slovakia, the Slovak Academy of Sciences has introduced the Return to Research grant to support parents after parental leave; in Hungary, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences has devised specific funding for female researchers with children under the age of 14 who wish to pursue advanced academic qualifications; and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research), which operates globally but is registered in the United Kingdom, has adapted its evaluation criteria to take into account career breaks due to family responsibilities.

This is not merely an ethical or social issue, but also a scientific and economic one. As the report highlights, the future of science depends on its ability to reflect the full diversity of global talent: research organisations that are more gender-balanced demonstrate better performance, greater capacity for innovation and a broader ability to transfer knowledge to society, through a variety of approaches and solutions. Conversely, the systematic exclusion of a section of human capital represents a net loss of skills and investment in training.

Cover: Envato image