Katelyn M Cooper, Carly A Busch, Alice Accorsi, Derek A Applewhite, Parth B Bhanderi, Bruno da Rocha-Azevedo, Abhijit Deb Roy, Joseph P Campanale, Fred Chang, Jerry Edward Chipuk, Lee A Ligon, GW Gant Luxton, Austin J Graham, Camila Hochman-Mendez, Imge Ozugergin, Zachory M Park, Claire M Thomas, Alex M Valm, C Jynx Weaver, Hongxian Zhu, Rebecca S Alvania
6 min
This study provides the largest comprehensive assessment to date of the climate for LGBTQ+ individuals within the biological sciences. While previous research has documented hostile environments in fields like physics, the specific experiences of biologists—who often navigate content directly related to gender and sexuality—remained under-examined. The authors surveyed 1,419 biologists across five professional societies to compare the experiences of LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ scientists, with a specific focus on disaggregating the experiences of cisgender LGBQ individuals from those of transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) individuals.
The research reveals a clear disparity in professional experiences based on gender identity. TGNC biologists consistently reported lower levels of belonging, morale, and comfort across academic and professional settings compared to cisgender, straight peers. While cisgender LGBQ biologists reported experiences more similar to their straight counterparts, they still faced unique challenges. A concerning finding is the gap between perceived general inclusivity and personal experience: despite many participants rating their workplaces as moderately inclusive, a significant portion (over 20% of all LGBTQ+ biologists and nearly 40% of TGNC biologists) personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, or hostile conduct in the past year.
Biology is uniquely positioned to lead in inclusivity because its subject matter—genetics, reproduction, and evolution—often intersects with discussions of gender and sexuality. The study highlights that current efforts to improve inclusivity are insufficient, particularly for TGNC scientists. The authors argue that biology workplaces and professional societies must move beyond an "apolitical" stance, which is often perceived as tacit support for the status quo, and instead implement active, structural interventions such as dedicated mentoring, inclusive language policies, and public advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights.
ABSTRACT While scientific environments have been described as unwelcoming to the LGBTQ+ community, and fields such as physics have systematically documented these challenges, the climate in biology workplaces has not been assessed. We conducted the largest survey to date of LGBTQ+ biologists to examine how their sense of belonging and perception of climate in the biology workplace and professional societies compare to that of their straight and cis peers. We surveyed 1419 biologists across five professional societies, with 486 identifying as LGBTQ+. Trans and gender non-conforming (TGNC) biologists reported lower belonging and morale within the workplace, professional societies, and the biology community compared to cis, straight biologists. They also reported being less comfortable with the climate of various professional biology environments. While LGBTQ+ biologists report that their workplaces are moderately inclusive, over 20% of all LGBTQ+ biologists and nearly 40% of TGNC biologists experience exclusionary behavior at work. This landmark survey provides the first comprehensive analysis of the LGBTQ+ climate in biology, revealing specific challenges faced by TGNC scientists and identifying interventions to enhance inclusivity for scientists. Significance Statement This landmark study includes the largest known sample of LGBTQ+ biologists and offers the first comprehensive description of the LGBTQ+ climate in biology, differentiating between the experiences of cisgender lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) biologists and transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) biologists. The study found that compared to non-LGBTQ+ biologists, TGNC participants report lower belonging, morale and comfort with the climate across biology workplaces, professional societies, and the biology community. While on average LGBTQ+ participants reported that their workplaces are moderately inclusive, over 20% of all LGBTQ+ biologists and nearly 40% of TGNC biologists report experiencing exclusionary behaviors at work. The study offers immediate implications for institutional policies and professional development in the biological sciences.
Alex: So the measurement tool itself is encoding the assumption that belonging is a uniform experience.
Sam: Precisely. And the authors are explicit that this is a mandate to develop better instruments—ones that specifically account for things like gender policing, facility access, and the social labor of identity management. The lack of invariance isn't a flaw to bury in a limitations section; it's a finding in its own right.
Alex: What are the load-bearing empirical results, setting the measurement issues aside for a moment?
Sam: The headline finding is that close to forty percent of TGNC respondents reported experiencing exclusionary behavior—well above the rate for cisgender LGBQ participants. The broader LGBTQ+ sample reports moderate inclusion overall, which is exactly the kind of aggregate that masks the TGNC deficit. That's the core of the paper's argument: aggregate reporting isn't just imprecise, it's actively misleading. It allows institutions to point to an acceptable mean while a specific subgroup is experiencing something categorically different.
Alex: It's a Simpson's paradox problem at the level of institutional policy.
Sam: A good way to put it. And it has direct implications for how departments interpret their own climate survey results. If you're averaging across the full LGBTQ+ population and seeing moderate scores, you may be reading a signal of structural failure as a signal of adequate progress.
Alex: What does the paper say about where the field goes from here? Documenting the gap is one thing—closing it is another.
Sam: The authors are clear that cross-sectional climate surveys, however well-designed, can only establish a baseline. The next step they call for is longitudinal work that tracks whether specific, actionable policy changes—consistent pronoun policies, gender-inclusive facilities, formal reporting structures—actually move the belonging metrics over time. Without that, the research community is in a position of repeatedly documenting the problem without ever testing the efficacy of proposed solutions.
Alex: Which is a fair critique of a lot of DEI research more broadly.
Sam: It is. And the paper's contribution is partly in establishing that baseline rigorously enough that future longitudinal work has something to measure against. The field has lacked a psychometrically grounded starting point for TGNC-specific climate assessment in biology, and this study provides one—while simultaneously flagging the limits of the instruments used to build it.
Alex: That's a notably honest framing for a paper that could have oversold its own findings.
Sam: The authors are careful to hold both things at once: here is what the data shows, and here is why the data is harder to interpret than it looks. For anyone designing inclusion interventions in a biology department, that combination of empirical baseline and methodological caution is probably the most useful thing the paper offers. The data is unambiguous that a gap exists. What requires more work is understanding the structural levers that close it—and that's the research agenda this paper is really setting up.
Alex: Thanks for walking through the mechanism behind these findings, and for being clear about what the numbers can and can't support. Thanks for listening to ResearchPod.