We're All In: Myth vs. Fact | GSBS

Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Racism and Bias Initiative (gRBI)

Myths and Facts

We’re All In! The Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences is committed to transformational anti-racist change to promote equity in the research and learning environment, where the evidence of racism and bias cannot be ignored. Let’s debunk some of the myths surrounding this evidence.

Fact Scientists are people, which means that their opinions, biases, and beliefs will be present in STEMM workspaces—this makes science inherently political. Scientists are people, which means that their opinions, biases, and beliefs will be present in STEMM workspaces—this makes science inherently political.

#1 “Myth” Front: “STEMM shouldn’t be about social or political issues.”

Even with comparable measures of scientific achievement (for example, previous grants, publications), BIPOC investigators have lower levels of success in obtaining NIH funding and attaining high-level promotions within their academic institutions relative to their white peers A recent survey of university faculty found that BIPOC and female faculty “feel they have to work harder than their colleagues to be perceived as a legitimate scholar,” with approximately a third of male and more than half of female BIPOC faculty reporting that they experience stress due to discrimination. Furthermore, exposure to discrimination, and even observing subtle biased acts against others, negatively impacts cognitive performance. Thus, not surprisingly, for those BIPOC scientists and clinicians who stay the course, success comes at significant cognitive, mental health and physical costs.

Scientists are responsible for generating data and interpreting results that direct the course of many aspects of society.

We have a responsibility to confront both our own biases and those present in the scientific literature in order to ensure that the data and guidance we produce are not perpetuating or enabling inequality.

Sources: Clark, U.S., Hurd, Y.L. Addressing racism and disparities in the biomedical sciences. Nat Hum Behav 4, 774–777 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0917-7 Gosztyla ML, Kwong L, Murray NA, Williams CE, Behnke N, Curry P, et al. (2021) Responses to 10 common criticisms of anti-racism action in STEMM. PLoS Comput Biol 17(7): e1009141. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009141

Fact This phrase suggests that access to education is sufficient to remove the effects of inequities between groups of people, such as barriers due to race or socioeconomic status. In other words, oppressed groups need only prioritize their education in order to pull themselves onto equal footing with more privileged demographics.

#2 “Myth” Front: “ Educational spaces are the “Great Equalizer” where everyone is treated the same, but there are also less BIPOC interested in STEMM.”

Access to STEMM education is not equal. For example, a large survey of US public schools found that 81% of Asian American students and 71% of white students have access to a full range of math and science courses during high school.

In contrast, less than half of American Indian/Native American or Native-Alaskan students have the same access, along with 57% of Black students and 67% of Latinx students.

Only 14% of Black scientists and 18% of Hispanic scientists believe that a lack of interest is a major reason for the underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals in STEMM [14]. However, the majority of Black and Hispanic scientists believe that a lack of educational access, discrimination in recruitment and promotions, and/or not being encouraged to pursue STEMM from an early age are the main reasons for the disparity. Some studies even report greater STEMM interest among BIPOC. Sources: Clark, U.S., Hurd, Y.L. Addressing racism and disparities in the biomedical sciences. Nat Hum Behav 4, 774–777 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0917-7 Gibbs Jr, K. D., Basson, J., Xierali, I. M., & Broniatowski, D. A. (2016). Decoupling of the minority PhD talent pool and assistant professor hiring in medical school basic science departments in the US. Elife, 5, e21393.

Gosztyla ML, Kwong L, Murray NA, Williams CE, Behnke N, Curry P, et al. (2021) Responses to 10 common criticisms of anti-racism action in STEMM. PLoS Comput Biol 17(7): e1009141. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009141 Horner, R., Roberts, M., & Warner, J. (2018). The impact of diversity on group performance: what they don’t tell you.

BMJ Open Quality, 7(4), e000553.

Nagata, J. M., Dominguez, K., Kharbanda, E. O., Streed Jr, C. G., & Boehmer, U. (2020). Health and healthcare disparities among US women and men at the intersection of sexual orientation and race/ethnicity: a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 866.

Fact Beyond being a moral obligation, promoting diversity and inclusion directly benefits all of STEMM. Diversity fosters novel ideas, effective problem-solving, and creative solutions. Given a set of problems to solve, groups that are diverse in their demographic characteristics, ethnicities, and cultural identities outperform groups that are demographically homogeneous.

#3 “Myth” Front: “Improving diversity and inclusion does not benefit STEMM as a whole.”

A study of more than 1 million US doctoral recipients found that students from underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty. Another study of more than 9 million scientific papers found that the ethnic diversity of the authors strongly correlated with the impact of their scientific work.

Greater diversity is associated with greater patient participation in care, higher patient satisfaction, greater patient adherence to treatment, and greater reach into BIPOC and medically underserved communities Teams with greater diversity have been shown to develop more effective solutions and publish higher impact papers than non-diverse teams Sources: Clark, U.S., Hurd, Y.L. Addressing racism and disparities in the biomedical sciences. Nat Hum Behav 4, 774–777 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0917-7 Gosztyla ML, Kwong L, Murray NA, Williams CE, Behnke N, Curry P, et al. (2021) Responses to 10 common criticisms of anti-racism action in STEMM. PLoS Comput Biol 17(7): e1009141. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009141

Fact This argument relies on the assumption that academia is a meritocracy, wherein factors such as grades, awards, and publications depend solely on talent and effort, and therefore, we can use these metrics to objectively select the best candidate.

More broadly, the criteria that defines “merit” also possess inherent bias.

#4 “Myth” Front: “I only hire, or award based on merit - race doesn’t need to be a factor.”

The stress of everyday racism contributes to a heavier cognitive load for BIPOC, which is associated with both mental and physical illnesses, as well as reduced academic productivity The wealth gap contributes to unequal access to STEMM education during K-12 education. It can also limit the ability of students of color to pursue undergraduate research, internships, and other unpaid opportunities in STEMM, or to accept low-paying positions as graduate students or postdocs. The wealth gap is also closely linked to why BIPOC tend to score lower on standardized tests, including the GRE and SAT: Individuals who identify as BIPOC may have fewer opportunities to enroll in expensive preparatory classes or to take required entrance exams multiple times.

Race-conscious decision-making does not compromise our ability to select the best candidate for a position—in fact, it is quite the opposite. If our goal is to select the most talented and hard-working candidate, then we must account for the external factors that could impair an individual’s efforts from translating into standardized measures of success.

Individuals who claim they are “color-blind” or “don’t see race” for the sake of upholding a nonexistent meritocracy are perpetuating the discriminatory status quo by failing to acknowledge the systemic inequities facing BIPOC. Sources: Clark, U.S., Hurd, Y.L. Addressing racism and disparities in the biomedical sciences. Nat Hum Behav 4, 774–777 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0917-7 Gosztyla ML, Kwong L, Murray NA, Williams CE, Behnke N, Curry P, et al. (2021) Responses to 10 common criticisms of anti-racism action in STEMM. PLoS Comput Biol 17(7): e1009141. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009141

Fact Representation is only one part of addressing the issue of racism, bias, and inequity in STEMM. If BIPOC researchers, students, staff, etc. are not in an environment where they feel a sense of safety and belonging, racial harm and retention will continue to be an issue in STEMM. When BIPOC folks in STEMM at GSBS and beyond were asked about their experiences, they shared the below:

#5 “Myth” Front: “We’re already focusing on diversity in STEMM, we don’t need to do more.”

My colleague told me that “Blacks have lower IQs than whites.”

My colleagues often mistake me for one of the other Black persons in our department. We are of different heights, hues, and builds.

Throughout all of my education, it was not until graduate school that I had an underrepresented minority (URM) teacher/professor, and even here there were only two faculty of colour. I sometimes wonder how the absence of URM faculty impacts my colleagues’ abilities to see minorities as experts.

My colleague said to me, out of the blue, “We used to sell your people.”

My colleague, in the presence of our shared mentor, told me I didn’t belong in our lab, implying that I was hired only due to the lack of diversity in our department. My mentor did not challenge this narrative.

Numerous white colleagues have asked why I didn’t apply for the “minority money” since in their view this is easier to get than grants from the general NIH K01 funding pool. They assume that African American scientists are less qualified and thus can only compete for funding designated for underrepresented populations.

Sources: Clark, U.S., Hurd, Y.L. Addressing racism and disparities in the biomedical sciences. Nat Hum Behav 4, 774–777 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0917-7

Our collective effort, engaging students, administrators, staff, post-docs, and faculty, is crucial for the success of our transformational change. Through initiatives like the GSBS Racism and Bias Initiative (gRBI), we can create an anti-racist future characterized by increased representation, equitable access, educational approaches and curricula that support and sustain a diverse biomedical workforce, scientific advancement, and a sense of restored community and mutual care.

Together, we can eliminate barriers and drive progress in research and beyond.

changenow.icahn.mssm.edu