Let’s rewind to 1867, when women first arrived at university lecture halls. Instead of applause, they were greeted by a storm—literally. Baked apples thrown, misogynistic heckling echoing in the corridors, and courses deliberately sabotaged by peers. Every dirty trick was used to discourage and discredit them. But as these women steadily proved their academic excellence, the critics started falling silent. Still, one question lingers: How did these trailblazers change mindsets in a hostile environment?
According to UNESCO, women accounted for 31.1% of researchers worldwide in 2022 (compared to 29.4% ten years earlier). Representation varies by field—a mere quarter, or even less, in engineering and technology, while equality is nearly reached in the social sciences and humanities. Still, a significant chasm opens up higher on the ladder. In 2025, women made up an average of only 19% of members of national science academies. That’s a real increase—previous reports found just 12% in 2015 and 16% in 2020—but women remain starkly underrepresented relative to their actual numbers in the scientific community.
International scientific unions paint a slightly different picture. Responsible for organizing conferences, shaping disciplines, and awarding prizes, those unions that responded to the survey averaged 40% women in leadership positions. Yet, even here, progress is uneven and sharp differences persist between disciplines, especially when it comes to the most prestigious awards.
So, what explains the stubborn gap? The most common answer points to a ‘generational lag’: since fewer women entered certain fields decades ago, the pool of senior women eligible for high honors is smaller. But the latest international report—drawing on data from over 130 academies and unions, a survey of nearly 600 scientists, and qualitative interviews—shows that’s not the whole story.
In fact, procedures themselves perpetuate imbalance. Most organizations claim their nomination and selection processes are open and merit-based. However, data shows women are consistently underrepresented on nomination lists compared to the pool of eligible scientists.
One telling number: in 90% of the academies surveyed, nominations for new members come from current members. If those members are mostly men, the imbalance automatically continues—even without explicit discrimination. Informal sponsorship networks and professional visibility mechanisms shape who is even considered, meaning that evaluations are driven as much by social and institutional dynamics as by individual achievements.
Women who do join these organizations report participating at similar levels to men: they sit on committees, attend meetings, and contribute to activities. Yet, this commitment does not translate into equivalent recognition or advancement. The gaps are clear. Women are three times more likely than men to report obstacles to their advancement within their organizations. They are 4.5 times more likely to report missing important events due to family responsibilities. And when they do attend, they are six times more likely to report not feeling able to participate on an equal footing.
Faced with these obstacles, women have developed their own strategies—creating women-only networks, investing in international engagement to circumvent local constraints, and collective advocacy. The report notes these are effective and urges organizations to encourage such initiatives.
But one thing stands out in case studies: in academies that have revised their rules and formal structures, progress on representation has been more lasting.
Simply raising awareness or encouraging change, in isolation, isn’t enough. Most organizations lack dedicated structures, mandates, budgets, or monitoring systems for gender equality measures. The report’s conclusion is clear and direct: the underrepresentation of women in scientific governance is not due to a lack of competence. It reflects institutional practices inherited from cultures long shaped by male-dominated scientific communities.
At the end of the day, equity in science isn’t just about being fair. The legitimacy of science itself is tied to the ability of scientific institutions to reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. This is a crucial point—especially in an age of global challenges, from climate change to pandemics, where public trust in science can be fragile.