A 2026 global study of more than 130 academies and scientific unions finds women present but lacking power in science governance.
Despite women comprising nearly a third of researchers, they average only 19% of academy members, with sharp national disparities.
Structural nomination practices, informal networks and weak equality mechanisms sustain underrepresentation, undermining fairness, legitimacy and public trust in science.
Academia isn’t strong on gender equality. Women are under-represented throughout, in the research workforce and even more so as leaders in scientific organisations. This is true for science academies (prestigious bodies within national science systems) and scientific unions (international organisations representing disciplinary communities).
Women today make up nearly a third of the global research workforce. According to Unesco, they accounted for 31.1 per cent of researchers worldwide in 2022 — up from 29.4 per cent in 2012. Women are particularly underrepresented in engineering and technology (one quarter or less), while gender balance is largely achieved in the social sciences and humanities.
But workforce representation does not automatically translate into senior or leadership positions. A recent global study shows that women remain underrepresented in organisations that influence scientific agendas and norms, recognise scientific excellence and advise governments.
This 2026 report is based on data from more than 130 scientific academies and international scientific unions, alongside a survey of nearly 600 scientists. It was produced by the International Science Council, the InterAcademy Partnership and the Standing Committee for Gender Equality in Science, and follows studies in 2015 and 2020. I was one of the authors of the 2026 report, with Léa Nacache and Catherine Jami.
National science academies illustrate the scale of the gender gap. In 2025, women represented on average 19 per cent of members of these bodies. That is an improvement from the results of the two previous studies — 12 per cent in 2015 and 16 per cent in 2020. But it still falls well below their presence in the wider research community. And the global average masks sharp disparities: in some academies, women account for fewer than 5 per cent of members; in others, they approach 40 per cent.
The task of international scientific unions is to help develop and structure their discipline, organise global congresses and award prizes. These unions show a somewhat different pattern from academies. On average, women now hold 40 per cent of leadership positions in the international unions that were surveyed. But here, too, progress is uneven. Long-standing disciplinary inequalities remain, particularly for the most prestigious scientific awards.
Our report looks at the reasons for these patterns, how institutions operate in practice, and how change could be achieved.
The findings matter because scientific academies and unions play a significant role in the governance of science. Persistent gender imbalances in these bodies, therefore, raise questions not only of fairness, but of legitimacy and effectiveness. The legitimacy of science depends in part on whether its institutions reflect the diversity of the scientific community. And legitimacy is important in a context of global challenges — from climate change to pandemics — where public trust in science is fragile.
Gender disparities in scientific leadership are often explained as a lagging effect: if fewer women entered certain fields decades ago, fewer will now be in senior positions or eligible for nominations in academies or for scientific prizes. Pipeline dynamics do play a role, as do traditional disciplinary gaps. But they do not explain the full picture.
Most scientific organisations report formally open and merit-based nomination, election and awarding procedures. Yet, the data show that women are consistently underrepresented in nomination pools relative to their presence among eligible scientists.
Our analysis points to the importance of institutional processes. Who is eligible to nominate? How are suitable candidates identified? How transparent are the nomination criteria? How much weight is given to informal reputation and networks?
In 90 per cent of the academies surveyed, nomination relies on existing members. In contexts where membership is already predominantly male, such procedures seem to perpetuate existing imbalances. Even in the absence of explicit discrimination, informal sponsorship networks and patterns of professional visibility influence who is put forward. Evaluation of who would make a good nominee is therefore shaped by social and institutional dynamics, and not solely by individual achievement and merit.
Our survey of the gender equality initiatives in place showed that encouragement and awareness-raising practices alone have had limited impact. They need to be accompanied by structural reforms. In most organisations, gender equality measures lack dedicated structures, formal mandates, budgets or monitoring mechanisms.
The quantitative findings were complemented by survey responses from individual scientists active in scientific organisations. These provided insight into how the structural patterns operate in practice.
Women who join scientific organisations report participating at levels comparable to men. They serve on committees, attend meetings and contribute to activities. But we found that this engagement does not translate into equivalent progression or recognition.
Women are three times more likely than men to report barriers to advancement within their scientific organisation. Women are 4.5 times more likely than men to report missing important events due to care responsibilities. And when they are able to attend, they are six times more likely to report not feeling they can participate to the levels of men.
Women are 2.5 times more likely than men to report experiences of harassment or microaggressions in their activities within scientific organisations. They also express lower levels of trust in the transparency of selection processes and in mechanisms to report and address misconduct.
Qualitative interviews documented strategies that women develop to navigate these environments. They include building women-only networks, investing in international engagement to escape restrictive local cultures, or collectively advocating for change. These strategies appear to be effective and organisations should encourage them.
The report does not argue for a single model or fixed targets applicable everywhere. Scientific organisations vary widely. However, the evidence and case studies featured in the report point to a set of key institutional levers that can make a difference.
To take an example, in academies where formal rules and structures have been revised, improvements in women’s representation have been more sustained. Such good practices need to be systematically identified and generalised.
The central conclusion is straightforward: the underrepresentation of women in scientific governance is not a question of insufficient talent. It reflects institutional practices based on cultures that developed within male-dominated scientific communities.
If science aims to serve society as a whole, the bodies that define and represent it must be willing to examine how they operate — and who they include.
Many colleagues made contributions that helped shape and improve the report on which this article, prepared with Peter McGrath (InterAcademy Partnership) and Léa Nacache (International Science Council), is based.
Marie-Francoise Roy, emerita professor in mathematics
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.