- Sarah Hyder Iqbal
Science Engagement Practitioner and Researcher
When we talk about women in science, numbers still matter. Representation continues to be important. But we are also increasingly asking what it takes for women and other minority communities to not just to enter scientific spaces, but to thrive in them. This requires us to critically examine, and where necessary redesign, research systems that were historically built around a fairly narrow vision of what science is, who gets to do it, whose knowledge counts, and what a scientific career should look like.
We have also established, at least on paper, that diversity matters because “Science does not happen in a vacuum.” The kind of questions we ask, the problems we prioritise, the assumptions we challenge, and as a result the solutions we develop, are shaped by the people involved. At a time when we face complex and interconnected challenges, from climate change to public health, science is better equipped to address them when it draws on a broader range of perspectives, expertise, and lived experiences. Science communication plays an important role here by ensuring that diverse voices are heard, different forms of knowledge are valued, and science remains accountable to the people it seeks to engage and serve.
While there is no formal data, it would be fair to say that science communication in India has more women than men, reflecting a broader global trend. Many of the women I have worked with see science communication as much more than a professional obligation. They see it as a social and ethical responsibility: a way to listen, build trust, create dialogue, and ensure that science remains connected to the needs and realities of society.
Ironically, these ways of working have not always been highly valued within the scientific ecosystem. As science communication scholar Bruce V. Lewenstein has argued, communication and engagement work within science has, in some ways, become “feminized” – often viewed as lower status, lower paid, and less secure than research-focused roles.
But if science is to become more inclusive, responsive, and relevant, then the relationship between science and society cannot be an afterthought, nor can it be left to a narrow set of voices. So, as we reimagine and rebuild research systems, we should also think about who gets to shape that relationship, and whose perspectives are still missing from it. Perhaps that is one of the most important contributions science communications can make.