Experiences of Women in Science in 2026

February 11, 2026 PLOS ONE Editors Events

Image from Freepik.com

This blog was prepared and written by PLOS One Associate Editor Jen Edwards.

Last year, our blog celebrated the 10th anniversary of International Women and Girls in Science Day. We took time to reflect on why it is necessary to champion the role of women and girls in science, as well as some of the progress that is being made. This year, we have come a little closer to home, exploring the experiences of some of our Section Editors and their ideas for moving forward. We also spoke in depth to Professor Claire Brockett, Professor of Biomechanics at the University of Sheffield, UK on why inclusion matters to her and her research.

Women in Science: Perspectives from our Section Editors

A number of our Section Editors contributed their experiences and insights through a short online survey, exploring the barriers they had faced and how we might move forward to improve equity in science over the coming years.

The scientific fields of our respondents included biology, psychology, epidemiology and health, as well as statistical methodology. Our first question, to understand whether these scientists had considered this career from a young age. Their answers suggest that science wasn’t always the obvious choice for those working in academia.

Next came the questions related to our theme, the first of which asked whether our editors felt they had met any barriers due to being a woman in science. A high proportion of them responded ‘yes’, highlighting the struggles many of these women will have faced on their journey to become experts in their field.

Exploring these barriers in more detail, there are unfortunately a number of common themes; maternity leave, pay inequity, experiencing discriminatory attitudes, and work-life balance issues will be familiar to many of us. Not being listened to was also cited.

Perhaps more concerning was the reliance on personal resilience to overcome these challenges, rather than changes in workplace attitudes or policies. Time, experience and even emigration were listed as things that helped these women overcome the barriers they faced. While some did refer to supportive colleagues or family, and the presence of role models as being helpful, there was no mention of institutional policies or assistance programmes. Last year, we discussed some of the ways in which academic institutions are seeking to improve the retention of women in science, but it will be some time before these are able to demonstrate real impact.

The women who contributed to this blog have made their way to successful positions in their respective fields. The final elements of our questionnaire aimed to be more positive, seeking their thoughts on how we can continue to make progress towards equity in science. We asked who inspired them as children and what they would say to a girl told science isn’t for them. Promoting equity in science is key, and we also sought their thoughts on encouraging men and boys to help, as well as how their role as Section Editors may be important.

Role models and inspiring figures make a difference to so many of us, and responses included Jane Goodall, Konrad Lorenz, PhD supervisors, friends and family. The answer that stood out for me was from someone who did not have these role models.

I did not have scientists in my life as a child, and as an early career researcher, I did not have an inspiring person. I was rather inspired to take action to make science better by honing my methodologic skills.

“Science is for everyone”, “follow your heart”; two simple but effective responses to any girl told science isn’t for them. One of our respondents highlighted the recent Nobel Prize Winner in Physiology/Medicine, Dr. Katalin Karikó, declaring that she “should be a role model to all who are doubting a career in the sciences. She faced enormous barriers, including being evicted from her laboratory. […] I am certain that the next Katalin is out there, and this girl’s interest and passion for science should be cultivated to the fullest extent”. The future potential to change the world is why we need to ensure that science welcomes everyone. One final response spoke to me, encompassing the need for all of us to work with curiosity and integrity:

If someone tells you “science isn’t for you,” that says more about them than about science. There is no evidence that can justify a claim like this, and a person who tells anyone this is instantly recognizable as a person who knows nothing about science. Science is for anyone who is curious, careful, and committed to truth. What matters most isn’t whether someone thinks science is for you, but whether *you are for science*—because science needs people who will steward it with integrity, whether as a career or as a way of thinking about the world.

The discussion of how to encourage men and boys to increase equity in science raised a number of similarly excellent insights, from two simple actions anyone can take immediately (“Share credit and opportunity deliberately” and “Question exclusion when you see it”), to recognising that we might “increase equity in science by treating this objective as a scientific responsibility, not a social favor. Evidence shows that talent is universal, but access to opportunity is not”. A reference was made to a verse from Helen Reddy’s 1972 song “I Am Women”, with the insight that “men and boys need to understand that girls and women can make important contributions to science. We need to keep fighting anti-discrimination policies and fighting for pay equity on the basis that contributions are equally meritorious. We may come upon deaf ears and resistance as an individual but collectively our voices can have an impact and change hearts and minds”.

Finally, our Section Editors recognised the importance of acting as mentors to support authors, promote inclusive recruitment and reviewing policies. In an ideal world, the promotion of scientific integrity would lead us closer to equity, as in this eloquent statement:

My work as a Section Editor centers decisions on promoting the publication of scientific contributions made with integrity, rather than on who the authors are or where they are from. This approach is intended to promote meaningful scientific contributions from the widest possible range of capable scientists. Equity, I hope, follows from this stewardship stance with respect to publication in PLOS One.

In closing this part of our blog we would like to extend our sincere thanks to our Section Editors for taking part and providing us all with some things to consider over the next 10 years.

Equity means understanding that one gender is not superior to the other, including in the scientific field.

An individual perspective

It was my pleasure to speak to Claire Brockett, Professor of Biomechanics at the University of Sheffield, about her experiences, and how she is working to ensure women and girls see science as something they are a part of.

Claire joined the Department of Mechanical Engineering as Professor of Biomechanics in 2022. Her first degree was in Medical Engineering, with a PhD in Biotribology from the University of Leeds. Her postdoctoral research covered pre-clinical wear testing of hip and knee replacements, before a university fellowship enabled her transition to independence. Claire developed a new research area focused on bioengineering of the foot and ankle, supported by new industrial and clinical collaborations. Her work encompasses tribological studies of natural tissue and total ankle replacement, mechanical studies of ligaments and repair materials. Her research also brings in biomechanical studies of patients with ankle replacement and fusion, supported by an EPSRC discipline hopping grant in 2019 which allowed Claire to spend time with clinicians and patients.

Claire is a Chartered Mechanical Engineer, a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and has been involved in public engagement activities throughout her career, also gaining a PGCert in Practical Science Communication.

Why does inclusion of women and girls in science matter to your research?

It matters in a few ways. Firstly, in terms of including people in research as participants, there are lots of examples in medicine and biomechanics where things have been tested on or modelled on men, and scaled or adjusted to suit women. This doesn’t work that well – take a look at crash test dummies, or in sport where shoes have been shrunk to women’s sizes, but haven’t actually been designed for women specifically. Women and girls are not just smaller men, we have different anatomy and physiology and there are so many examples of when this is an issue.

In terms of being IN research, I think a key element of diversity within research is just the perspectives different people bring; that’s beyond just sex or gender. And for me, having a research environment that isn’t at all representative of the general population means that there are voices and ideas missing.

And for me, having a research environment that isn’t at all representative of the general population means that there are voices and ideas missing.

What challenges have you faced, either in your career or as a young person, which you feel were because of your gender?

I think the key one is I never had careers advice to consider engineering as a girl. Some of that isn’t necessarily about my gender – I think engineering is still poorly understood as a discipline – but there were a lot of other professional careers discussed and engineering was not one suggested. Another interesting experience was when I went to a school as Dr Brockett, and the students (aged about 13) had been asked to draw me before I turned up. In a group of 50+ students there were no drawings of women. I think that’s really sad.

Can you think of a time when someone (or a group of people) really made a difference by recognizing that women and girls face different challenges in science and engineering?

I wasn’t actually a fan of girls only or womens only groups when I was at school and during my degree, it made me feel really aware of being different. But I think it can be really helpful when you can identify with other people like you, or even see role models – I think not being able to see people like you in a particular profession or even a particular role, can dissuade you from getting involved or trying something out. I had a couple of great role models at earlier stages of my career, and just seeing them succeed, whilst being themselves was really important. I’ve been to a few events aimed at women that could be summed up as ‘be more man’ – that’s such a bad approach – we need women succeeding as women to progress!

How has your role as postgraduate tutor allowed you to make a difference? Why is it important to you?

PhDs are difficult – not always technically, but they can take a lot of resilience. There’s no one-size fits all – which means that people progress at different stages and need different support. If you’re the type of person who compares themselves with others (and lots of us are) – this can be really tough. As a postgraduate tutor, I get to talk to students that are finding it hard, and often just provide some support – it’s not always about doing anything practical to help – it is sometimes saying ‘yes, this is rubbish’. I love supporting our PhD students as it took me a long time to realise that there were a multitude of ways, and a whole range of personalities that could succeed.

You have done a wide range of public engagement, including engaging with schools and schoolchildren. Aside from giving girls a role model for someone in science, are there other ways you think this can influence things.

I think this comes back to the concept of being able to see people like you in roles – this can be achieved in so many ways. But you’re right, school and science fairs can only do so much – the influencers at home – parents, carers and family have so much ability to support girls moving into STEM. We had a stall at the Big Bang Fair once, and there was a parent steering their daughter past our stall essentially saying ‘not for girls’ we stopped them and had a really positive chat. I think there are some fears that as STEM has a male-bias, that means the girls are going to have a hard time and need to be tough – I think inherently there’s some aspects of protecting their daughters from a hard time in there.

Do you see a role for the publishing industry in making science more equitable?

I do think so… in two ways really. One is looking at the research where studies involve sex/gender – have the authors taken a reasonable approach to representation in their study (recognising this isn’t always appropriate)? The second is thinking about authorship – there’s evidence that sex has an influence on citation count (amongst other things). I can’t begin to suggest how to address that – but it’s certainly an issue.

How do we encourage men and boys to help increase equity in science?

I think one of the aspects is sharing knowledge and experience. When I speak candidly about my own experiences as a girl, student and in my career in academia, male colleagues and friends can be quite surprised about some of the reactions and experiences I’ve had. It is easy to overlook things if you don’t experience them yourself (and I am sure I have done this myself) – so I think we can support men in being our allies by sharing our experiences so that they’re more aware of what happens.

As we close this discussion, I’d like to thank those involved for the insightful and thoughtful comments they have provided in exploring our experiences as women in science. More than that, I would like to thank all those who advocate for equity in science and understand that variety in our researchers makes our research more robust. We still have some way to go, but progress is happening. I’d like to end with one final quote from our survey, to any women and girls struggling to find their place:

Science needs women, and women need science. It is you who can shape your future career, trust your own choices, set your goals, and reach the sky