Narrow Rooms Produce Narrow Questions: Why Diversity Makes Science Advice Stronger
Professor Mangala Srinivas is Professor of Cell Biology & Immunology at Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands, and currently Deputy Chair of the European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, part of the Scientific Advice Mechanism. She is a former Chair of the Young Academy of Europe and a current member of the Wageningen Young Academy. Her research focuses on nanotechnology for imaging the immune system in vivo and in vitro, and on improving immune cell functionality. She also has experience working in industry, as well as leading a spin-off company.
Some years ago, I remember a debate in the Netherlands about whether fathers, or non-birthing partners, should receive an extension to the eligibility window for national research grants after the birth of a child. At the time, women received an extension of 18 months per child, while the non-birthing partner received an extension for the actual days taken off. I was surprised at the reception to this idea.
Some women argued, understandably, that mothers already paid a much larger career price for parenthood, and that giving men additional time could make this worse. And, sadly, not all fathers contribute as much towards child rearing. On the other hand, fathers can be disadvantaged compared with childless men, and policies that assume otherwise risk reinforcing the very norms we want to change. In additions, if institutions treat childcare as something that affects only women’s careers, they signal that childcare is women’s work. By creating space for fathers too, policy can help normalise their participation in early childcare.
The important point is not which side was ‘right’, but rather how policy change could influence future behaviour, creating the norms of the society that comes next. That is also why diversity matters in science advice.
At a recent workshop co-organised by the All European Academies (ALLEA) and Young Academies Science Advice Structure (YASAS) in Warsaw on diversity in science advice, I used the phrase “narrow rooms produce narrow questions, and narrow answers”. We often talk about diversity as though its main purpose were representation. Representation does matter, including for legitimacy and trust. But there is also a more functional reason which is to care about who is in the room, because different people notice different problems, ask different questions and recognise different consequences. For example, climate policy without social scientists can overlook the political and social realities that determine whether measures are accepted.
This is where Early and Mid-Career Researchers (EMCRs) play a key role. Their participation in science advice should never be treated merely as training for the future. EMCRs are already part of the knowledge system, and they see parts of it that more senior researchers may not. They may work more closely with emerging methods, new technologies, laboratory practice, precarious career structures, or newer forms of collaboration. Their perspective is different not because they are necessarily better informed, but because they occupy a different position in the system. That is an important value-add.
That was also part of the story behind YASAS. Less than a decade ago, Young Academies were not automatically regarded as legitimate partners in European science advice. Their inclusion within the wider ecosystem was not a given, and required active pushing from EMCRs and senior allies. And yet, some senior academics may still advise EMCRs to focus on the requirements of tenure, not on more “fluffy” topics. Today, the idea that EMCRs should have a voice in science-for-policy discussions feels far less unusual. If inclusion looks normal to you now, remember, it came because others fought for it, and it can be taken away.
More than that, getting people into the room is only half the problem. The harder question is whether everyone enters on comparable terms. Diversity measures should never mean lowering standards. They are a recognition that apparently neutral systems can impose very different hurdles on different people, particularly when academic careers were historically designed around researchers with few responsibilities outside work. As working and caring patterns change, our institutions need to change with them.
“Representation does matter, including for legitimacy and trust. But there is also a more functional reason to care about who is in the room, because different people notice different problems, ask different questions and recognise different consequences.”
In my recent Nature Careers article, Cracked, but still there: the glass ceiling persists for senior women in science, I reflected on how bias does not disappear when, or because, someone becomes successful. Women (and other minorities) can still be doubted, underestimated or judged through vague labels such as ‘leadership style’, ‘cultural mismatch’ or ‘poor fit’. The same principle applies more broadly in advisory settings. This constant undertone of needing to prove oneself is exhausting. The main point is that representation without the ability to disagree safely is purely there to improve optics.
For science advice, legitimacy depends on scientific excellence, and on whether the process appears open, transparent and credible. People want to know who is advising, whose interests are represented, whether dissent is possible, and whether the group understands the communities affected by its recommendations. Scientific and technical expertise remains essential, but it can be strengthened by perspectives grounded in different professional, social and lived experiences.
So what can science-advice systems do in practice?
They must look beyond the usual networks and institutions when selecting experts, rather than relying primarily on nominations from established circles. They must involve EMCRs as contributors, not decoration. They can use leaders and processes that actively invite dissenting views rather than waiting for less-established participants to volunteer them. And, before work begins, they must always ask: who is missing? The goal is not perfect representation, but the reduction of avoidable blind spots.
If science advice is to deserve public trust, it must be not only excellent, but open, plural and safe to participate in. The point is not to fill the room for the sake of appearances, but rather to notice the empty chairs before their absence becomes a weakness in the advice itself.