ArticlePloS one2025
Ethnic diversity in UK bioscience: Structural biases and recommendations for action.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific research is more innovative and impactful when scientists are drawn from diverse backgrounds. However, the scientific community does not reflect the demographics of wider society. Global Majority communities remain underrepresented within science, particularly within senior leadership roles. Here we explore ethnic diversity within UK academic biosciences, using publicly available staff and student demographic data from the UK Higher Education Statistics Authority. We use the Simpson index as a quantitative measure of diversity within the biosciences and construct linear mixed effect models to identify significant predictors of both student and staff ethnic diversity. For staff, there were significant negative effects on diversity for those in teaching-only roles, and lower diversity amongst higher paid and professorial or senior management staff. For students there are significant negative effects on diversity for part-time students and for postgraduate research students, with PhD students significantly less diverse than undergraduates. There was also considerable variation in diversity by biology subdiscipline, with higher ethnic diversity amongst biomedical sciences and biomolecular subdisciplines, while very low ethnic diversity was found within zoology, plant science and ecology. A correlation was found between the ethnic diversity of bioscience subdisciplines and the diversity of institutions offering those subdisciplines. Based on these findings, we provide evidence-based recommendations for action at various levels, including teaching teams, research groups, bioscience departments and professional bodies. We call upon the sector to take decisive steps to enhance outcomes and experiences for Global Majority staff and students, ultimately diversifying the academic pipeline to the direct benefit of UK bioscience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.