Why We Should and How We Can All Engage in Championing LGBTQ+ Voices in (Plant) Science

/in , /by

Coming up through the university system in Brazil, discussion of issues faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other members of this community (LGBTQ+) was mostly confined to student-led political movements and the Humanities departments. The STEM fields were, in fact, painted as unmarred havens of hard science, devoid of all that “politicisation” that was seen to plague the Social Sciences.

Dismissing the issues affecting minoritised people as politicised distractions from the work is not just unfair, it is unscientific. This position ignores emerging robust datasets that reveal the role of privilege in generating different experiences in academia. Recent groundbreaking work by Cech & Waidzunas (2021) surveying over 25,000 STEM professionals in the US highlighted how LGBTQ people feel more devalued, socially excluded and harassed than their non-LGBTQ counterparts. Evidence also indicates aggravated stress, depression and poorer sleep quality in LGBTQ professionals in STEM, culminating in an increased likelihood of leaving the profession.

In the field of Plant Science, a letter by Field & Rajewski (2021) to the editor of The Plant Cell lays out the progress so far and offers resources for a brighter outlook for LGBTQ+ professionals. Toone et al. (2022) set ten recommendations for supporting LGBTQ+ restoration scientists while centering their voices and protagonism. Through courageous community drive, intrepid STEM professionals have created networks and groups that offer support to fellow LGBTQ+ scientists through online and in-person gatherings. ASPB’s own LGBTQ+ Plant Scientist Network is a prime example, with resources ranging from literature to webinars made available and curated for the public (LGBTQ+ Plant Scientists Network, 2024).

These groups form the basis for change but cannot be tasked with tackling systemic issues without wider support. They can, however, set the agenda, pointing to field-specific gaps in support that might be overlooked. Fieldwork, for instance, is often a component of Plant Science research, and therefore the safety and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ plant scientists must be considered. Yet another layer of complexity is added when fieldwork is to be conducted in a country that lacks the same legal protections enjoyed by LGBTQ+ scientists where their home institution is located. Recently suggested best practices in LGBTQ+-inclusive fieldwork (Coon et al., 2023), from safety plans and procedures agreed upon by the whole team to safeguarding advice to individuals. The responsibility for keeping LGBTQ+ plant scientists safe cannot rest solely upon themselves. For us to progress as a diverse research community, this undue burden must be shared, as we all engage in taking care of one another.

Without the active participation of LGBTQ+ scientists from a variety of fields within STEM, we may fall short of addressing day to day issues that build up to chronic effects. Herein lies the complexity and the power of considering the intersections between sexuality and gender and factors such as ethnicity and disability. In fact, data emerging from the same 25,000+ cohort of US STEM professionals shows exactly that: privilege in academia is filtered through the intersection of these factors (Cech, 2022). LGBTQ able-bodied white men still enjoy a higher level of privilege than fellow LGBTQ STEM professionals who are non-white and/or women and/or disabled. Far from framing the issue as a privilege contest, this dataset points to the need to hear from people across these diverse experiences within the LGBTQ+ sphere. For instance, as a cisgender white neurodivergent man, reading about Dr Charlotte Owen’s lived experience of transitioning while working as a plant scientist (Owen, 2022) gives me perspective of the depth of diversity in experiences we have as a community.

Exposing structural biases: true objectivity in science depends on diverse scientists

Faced with the available evidence, it is time to boldly admit that the idea of keeping LGBTQ+ issues from “soiling” the pristine marbled halls of the so-called objective STEM areas is a choice. That shortsighted view makes a career in STEM, including Plant Science, less accessible and less sustainable to excellent prospective scientists, especially those at the intersection of other minorities. It also holds back fresh interdisciplinary perspectives on seldom questioned conventions. A recent example can be found in the naming of plant spores associated with prescribed gender roles (Subramaniam & Bartlett, 2023).

Science cannot consciously repeat its past errors that kept minorities from being treated at par with the arbitrary standard cisgender heterosexual white male. Scientific investigation is ultimately a human enterprise. The choice to dehumanise the scientist, allegedly to strip away their biases, reveals instead structural ones – at best unconscious and at worst deliberate – that ultimately disproportionately benefits a very specific population. We must be brave to break with the idea that anyone who has been historically marginalised into minority groups is by definition a deviation from how a scientist should look, act, speak and think. We must instead work towards a research culture centred on diversity itself as one of our most human qualities. We must actively bridge the gaps left by our limited engagement with the LGBTQ+ community and other groups so they can participate in the dawn of a truly objective, equitable and inclusive STEM landscape.

Fighting systemic barriers by widening engagement in championing LGBTQ+ scientists

Many of the top-ranking universities and research centres already offer some sort of network or signposting for LGBTQ+ scientists. However, some of the available support can feel performative, box-ticking and vague, or nothing more than a rushed reaction to new Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) guidelines required by regulatory bodies. Rainbow flags and lanyards are a start, but they are no replacement to bottom-up and/or long-term commitments such as the following:

  • Holding meetings to hear demands from LGBTQ+ individuals and support groups.
  • Rethinking broad and vague information on websites in terms of intersectionality.
  • Establishing protocols for risk assessments that consider LGBTQ+ specific demands during fieldwork/conferences abroad.
  • Co-creating a clear institutional vision for EDI that engages everyone in the institution, not just EDI officers and minorities people themselves, who have enough to deal with.
  • Allowing academic staff time to engage with EDI activities and value time invested in improving research culture in promotion/career progression discussions.
  • Stating clearly what are the channels of communication to report discrimination against LGBTQ+ scientists in the workplace.

Supervisors and plant science group leaders – who themselves fall somewhere within the privilege spectrum (Cech, 2022)– can play an essential role in creating nurturing spaces for LGBTQ+ plant scientists to thrive. Ways in which this can be facilitated include:

  • Respecting that disclosing one’s LGBTQ+ status is an individual process.
  • Familiarising yourself with inclusive and respectful language, including preferred pronoun choice.
  • Respecting a LGBTQ+ team member’s choice to take part in a social gathering/support group meeting; these events can help them overcome issues and boost their morale in a way that will surely reflect in the quality of their work.
  • Considering factors impacting the safety of LGBTQ+ members of the group when planning fieldwork.
  • If you see yourself as an ally, stating that you will not stand for discrimination and are supportive of a diverse research landscape; do not assume your allyship is self-evident.

As for LGBTQ+ plant scientists, we will strive to embody the idea that we do belong here and that we bring something unique to the table. We will also fight not to be pigeonholed and have our gender, disability and ethnic background ignored to “simplify” things. We are diverse, complex, and our fight for an equitable playing field is not “political nuisance” distracting us from work.

Unfortunately, keeping safe is still a prominent part of being a scientist and LGBTQ+. Throughout the world, there are many of us who are not afforded the most basic legal protections, or whose theoretical protections do not guarantee in practice safety from physical or verbal violence (United Nations, 2024). While working in different labs in Brazil, I often felt ashamed for not standing up for myself, for masking my identity and for not denouncing the continuous microaggressions disguised as jokes that gnawed away at my self-worth as a researcher. We who are fortunate enough to openly bear our flags and inform the discussion of this topic must never forget the daily acts of courage performed around the world, from protesting repression of diversity to the continued dedication that showcases LGBTQ+ excellence in research.

 

______________________________________________

About the Author

Johnatan Vilasboa is a research Fellow investigating tree propagation at the University of Nottingham and a 2024 Plantae Fellow. He is passionate about all the ways in which science and education intertwine, Johnatan is also a languages and puzzles enthusiast, and looks forward to contributing to a more diverse scientific community.. You can find him on X at @vilasjohn.