Understanding Biases in Plant Science: Why It Matters for Early-Career Researchers
Recently, conversations about inclusion have gained visibility across the film industry, public policy, and even toy design. Yet how often do we pause to reflect on equity within science itself, particularly in academic environments?
Bias is a preference for or against a person, group, idea, or belief, often based on stereotypes rather than evidence (Murphy, 2021). It can be explicit or implicit (Drake University, n.d.), shaping decisions and perceptions in plant science.
Explicit bias involves conscious beliefs about others. It appears in open opinions and unfair actions, such as choosing a man over an equally qualified woman for a promotion or preferring a candidate from a specific region (Researcher.Life, 2025). Training and education often target explicit bias.
In contrast, implicit bias operates unconsciously. These biases consist of deeply rooted stereotypes that influence our judgment and actions without our awareness (Drake University, n.d.). Implicit biases can take many forms, including ageism, affinity bias, and gender bias (Murphy, 2021). Because individuals are unaware of holding these biases, addressing them requires deep self-reflection. Questions such as Why am I thinking in this way?, are a good starting point for recognizing unconscious patterns.
Science and academia are part of society and often mirror its (Diele-Viegas et al., 2022). This post asks readers to consider how systemic biases, such as those based on gender and geography, affect early-career paths in terms of authorship, mobility, and opportunities.
Examples of Biases in Science:
Gender Bias.
Gender disparities are deeply embedded in science. According to (UNESCO, 2019) women earn approximately 44% of PhD degrees worldwide, yet they represent only about 29% of researchers, with substantial variation across countries. For example, women account for 34% of researchers in Colombia, 25% in France and Germany, and 15% in Japan (Paz & Pardo-Díaz, 2024). Early career participation does not guarantee long-term research roles.
This imbalance is also evident in scientific authorship, a central metric of recognition. Women comprise only ~33% of first authors and hold just ~18% of senior author positions, which are typically linked with principal investigators and lab leaders (Bendels et al., 2018). While this might signal potential growth in women-led research, trends suggest slow progress.
In most original articles published, first authorship reflects early-career contributions, while the last author position corresponds to the senior research or principal investigator (PI). Authorship, therefore, is not solely a measure of intellectual contribution, but is also shaped by lab hierarchies where bias can influence recognition and career progression (Tscharntke et al., 2007).
A major factor behind the gender leadership gap is the unequal family and caregiving load borne by women, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Women are more likely to leave tenure-track careers for roles with greater flexibility, parental leave, or childcare (Das et al., 2024)[4], which limits career continuity and leadership progression.
Addressing gender bias requires acknowledging its complex and systemic nature. Effective solutions rely on data-driven analysis to expose structural barriers and guide policy (Paz & Pardo-Díaz, 2024). Programs such as Supporting Women in Science are helpful, but most interventions focus on skill-building rather than changing institutional structures (UNESCO, n.d.).
Data limitations hinder our complete understanding of gender bias. Reliance on binary classifications restricts meaningful analysis of intersectional identities, disproportionately affecting groups like the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. A lack of tailored support can negatively impact productivity and well-being, while dominant groups often benefit from broader networks to manage challenges such as impostor syndrome (Diele-Viegas et al., 2022).
Gender bias does not act alone; it combines geography, language, and resource disparities to determine who participates in science and whose contributions are valued.
Understanding these intersections is crucial for early-career researchers navigating their fields.
Underrepresentation of Researchers from the Global South
Discussions of racial and ethnic bias in science highlight global disparities in participation and recognition, especially between researchers in the Global North and South. Bias often reflects structural inequalities in how expertise is recognized and valued across regions, rather than just overt discrimination. This dynamic is evident in the persistent underrepresentation and marginalization of Global South researchers within global knowledge production. Despite greater attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion, scientific research continues to reproduce a division of labor between the Global North and South (Nakamura et al., 2023).
In global collaborations, recognition is uneven: Global South researchers are often assigned to data gathering, while Global North partners are credited for theory. This is clear in plant and biodiversity science, where tropical studies are crucial yet local contributions are underrecognized (Amarante et al., 2022; Nakamura et al., 2023).
Beyond authorship and citation inequities, structural barriers related to mobility, funding, and institutional support continue to marginalize researchers from the Global South. Visa restrictions, high travel costs, and inconsistent institutional support limit access to conferences, fieldwork, and collaborative research, particularly in plant science, where ecological and biodiversity research often depends on in-person engagement. These barriers are not evenly distributed; scholars from low- and middle-income countries face greater financial risk, administrative scrutiny, and uncertainty, which can discourage participation in international research networks altogether. Over time, these constraints shape who is visible in global science, whose expertise is amplified, and who is positioned as a scientific leader.
Language also functions as a structural barrier. The dominance of English as the primary language of scientific communication disadvantages non-native English speakers in publishing and peer review. Biases in manuscript evaluation may conflate language proficiency with scientific quality, leading to additional revision demands or rejection independent of the research’s rigor. These challenges impose disproportionate cognitive, financial, and emotional burdens on researchers from linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Although this section highlights persistent racial and ethnic inequities in global scientific participation, it is equally important to acknowledge ongoing efforts by professional societies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. As a globally recognized organization, the American Society of Plant Biologists has taken meaningful steps to broaden participation and support early-career researchers. However, the global reach of plant science raises an important question: how effectively do these initiatives reach researchers in low- and middle-income countries, where structural barriers to funding, mobility, and institutional support remain most pronounced?
Strategies for Early-Career Researchers to Recognize and Navigate Bias
Bias can create missed opportunities, uneven expectations, and unspoken conditions for success in science. For early-career researchers, recognizing these structural barriers is the first step to confronting them, rather than internalizing them as personal shortcomings.
As a scientific community, we can raise awareness of biased habits, analyze their consequences within our research groups, and create or participate in mentoring spaces within scientific groups to provide information, support, and training (Paz & Pardo-Díaz, 2024).
It is also important to recognize that the current concept of productivity can function as a systemic bias. Traditional metrics often prioritize uninterrupted output and constant availability, creating clear disadvantages for researchers with caregiving responsibilities. Encouraging Institutions and funding bodies to consider care responsibilities in promotions and grant evaluations, and to provide childcare infrastructure, is a critical step toward more equitable assessment practices.
Early-career researchers may also find themselves disproportionately assigned to activities such as internal academic services, teaching, or participating in university outreach projects. Although these contributions are essential to academic life, they are often excluded from productivity metrics, reinforcing inequities rather than recognizing the full scope of academic work (Diele-Viegas et al., 2022).
At a border level, diversity in decision-making spaces is vital. Ensuring diverse evaluation committees, editorial, and peer-review boards could improve awareness of science produced by underrepresented groups (Diele-Viegas et al., 2022), opening up collaboration opportunities and institutional development that extend beyond individual careers.
While early-career researchers must take steps to recognize and navigate bias, meaningful change depends on collective action and institutional responsibility. Awareness and mentoring are essential tools for gradually reshaping how scientific careers are built and evaluated.
Positive Examples from Plant Sciences
Importantly, the plant science community has begun to name these barriers as structural and to propose concrete interventions. The American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) has implemented initiatives that support early-career researchers, promote mentoring, and increase access to professional development opportunities. Within ASPB, the Women in Plant Biology initiative specifically addresses gender-based inequities by fostering mentorship, visibility, and leadership opportunities for women across career stages, while recognizing the intersection of gender with race, geography, and caregiving responsibilities.
While these initiatives do not eliminate structural inequities in funding, mobility, or geopolitics, they collectively demonstrate how professional societies can move beyond symbolic commitments toward practices that meaningfully increase access, recognition, and belonging in plant science.
Final thoughts
Bias in science is embedded in the structures that shape careers, recognition, and opportunity, as well as in individual attitudes. Nowadays, gender and geographic inequities influence who advances, whose work is visible, and who is positioned to lead.
For early-career researchers, recognizing these patterns is a step toward clarity, not self-blame. Awareness can inform career decisions, strengthen peer support, and help reframe challenges as structural rather than personal.
Small, consistent actions within labs, institutions, and societies can help build a plant science culture where diverse researchers not only enter the field but thrive within it. It is necessary to question how productivity and excellence are defined.
References
Murphy, N. (2021, November 10). Types of Bias | What Are They?, Cognitive & Unconscious Bias Differences. https://cpdonline.co.uk/knowledge-base/safeguarding/types-of-bias/
Drake University. (n.d.). Understanding Bias. Retrieved January 13, 2026, from https://www.drake.edu/diversity/initiatives/training/bias/
Researcher.Life. (2025, February 5). What is Explicit Bias? Definition and Examples | Researcher.Life. https://researcher.life/blog/article/what-is-explicit-bias-definition-and-examples/
Diele-Viegas, L. M., Sales, L. P., Slobodian, V., Virginio, F., de Araújo Sousa, S., Pareja-Mejía, D., Bacon, C. D., Mugarte, A. S. X., Amati-Martins, I., Dias-Silva, F., Araújo, O. G. S., Nassif, J., Carvalho, M., Luz, C., Soares, B. E., Pêgas, R. V., & Souza, L. G. (2022). Productivity in academia: When the rules determine the losers. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.1021812
UNESCO. (2019). Women in science (IUS Factsheet No. 55; UNESCO Digital Library, p. 4). UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370742?posInSet=1&queryId=5a0da293-19ca-4f4a-868b-420103351fbc
Paz, A., & Pardo-Díaz, C. (2024). Female researchers are under-represented in the Colombian science infrastructure. PLOS ONE, 19(3), e0298964. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298964
Bendels, M. H. K., Müller, R., Brueggmann, D., & Groneberg, D. A. (2018). Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals. PLoS ONE, 13(1), e0189136. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189136
Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications. PLOS Biology, 5(1), e18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018
Das, J. K., Raza, M., Padhani, Z. A., Hussain, N. F., Villar, J., Kennedy, S., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2024). Addressing inequities in research for early to mid-career women scientists in low- and middle-income countries: “Supporting Women in Science” programme. Frontiers in Global Women’s Health, 5, 1386809. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh.2024.1386809
UNESCO. (n.d.). Supporting Women in Science (SWIS) Programme—Open and Inclusive Science Hub. Open and Inclusive Science Hub. Retrieved January 13, 2026, from https://www.unesco.org/en/open-science/inclusive-science/supporting-women-science-swis-programme
Nakamura, G., Soares, B. E., Pillar, V. D., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., & Duarte, L. (2023). Three pathways to better recognize the expertise of Global South researchers. Npj Biodiversity, 2(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00021-7
Amarante, V., Burger, R., Chelwa, G., Cockburn, J., Kassouf, A., McKay, A., & Zurbrigg, J. (2022). Underrepresentation of developing country researchers in development research. Applied Economics Letters, 29(17), 1659–1664. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2021.1965528
______________________________________________
About the Authors
Montserrat Lopez-Coria
Montserrat is a 2026 Plantae Fellow, and a plant biology researcher with experience in industry and academia. She is passionate about science communication and education and is excited to contribute to the Plantae Fellows Program by creating accessible resources that connect diverse audiences with plant science.
Deborah Ighalo
Deborah is a Ph.D. student at East Tennessee State University specializing in plant molecular biology and lipid metabolism and a 2026 Plantae Fellow. Her research focuses on the transcriptional regulation of oil biosynthesis in seed tissues using genes typically expressed in non-seed tissues, aiming to enhance the production of heart-healthy oils in plants.
