LGBTQ+ realities in the biological sciences

Cooper, K. M.; Busch, C. A.; Accorsi, A.; Applewhite, D. A.; Bhanderi, P. B.; da Rocha-Azevedo, B.; Roy, A. D.; Campanale, J. P.; Chang, F.; Chipuk, J. E.; Ligon, L. A.; Luxton, G. G.; Graham, A. J.; Hochman-Mendez, C.; Ozugergin, I.; Park, Z. M.; Thomas, C. M.; Valm, A. M.; Zhu, H.; Alvania, R. S.

doi:10.1101/2025.01.24.634486

Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2025.01.24.634486

LGBTQ+ realities in the biological sciences

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

While scientific environments have been described as unwelcoming to the LGBTQ+ community, and fields such as physics have systematically documented these challenges, the climate in biology workplaces has not been assessed. We conducted the largest survey to date of LGBTQ+ biologists to examine how their sense of belonging and perception of climate in the biology workplace and professional societies compare to that of their straight and cis peers. We surveyed 1419 biologists across five professional societies, with 486 identifying as LGBTQ+. Trans and gender non-conforming (TGNC) biologists reported lower belonging and morale within the workplace, professional societies, and the biology community compared to cis, straight biologists. They also reported being less comfortable with the climate of various professional biology environments. While LGBTQ+ biologists report that their workplaces are moderately inclusive, over 20% of all LGBTQ+ biologists and nearly 40% of TGNC biologists experience exclusionary behavior at work. This landmark survey provides the first comprehensive analysis of the LGBTQ+ climate in biology, revealing specific challenges faced by TGNC scientists and identifying interventions to enhance inclusivity for scientists. Significance StatementThis landmark study includes the largest known sample of LGBTQ+ biologists and offers the first comprehensive description of the LGBTQ+ climate in biology, differentiating between the experiences of cisgender lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) biologists and transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) biologists. The study found that compared to non-LGBTQ+ biologists, TGNC participants report lower belonging, morale and comfort with the climate across biology workplaces, professional societies, and the biology community. While on average LGBTQ+ participants reported that their workplaces are moderately inclusive, over 20% of all LGBTQ+ biologists and nearly 40% of TGNC biologists report experiencing exclusionary behaviors at work. The study offers immediate implications for institutional policies and professional development in the biological sciences.

Source connections

Published article ↗

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and education Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Cooper, K. M., Busch, C. A., Accorsi, A., Applewhite, D. A., Bhanderi, P. B., da Rocha-Azevedo, B., Roy, A. D., Campanale, J. P., Chang, F., Chipuk, J. E., Ligon, L. A., Luxton, G. G., Graham, A. J., Hochman-Mendez, C., Ozugergin, I., Park, Z. M., Thomas, C. M., Valm, A. M., Zhu, H., Alvania, R. S.. 2025-01-27. LGBTQ+ realities in the biological sciences. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.01.24.634486

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It

Biomedical publishing has grown more than elevenfold since 1991, outstripping human peer review. Unblinded language models cannot audit this literature objectively because they recognize famous authors and journals from training memory. We built BARS (Blinded AI Review System), an automated referee that strips titles, author names, institutions, journal headers, and dates before grading full-text manuscripts on a 10-point scale covering methods, evidence, biology, and reproducibility. We used BARS to generate 1,874 blind reviews across 1,714 unique papers. BARS passed 100% of verified sound controls, caught 77% to 91% of internally flawed papers, eliminated a +0.35-point prestige boost, and more than doubled human referee consistency. Across 320 recent open-access articles (2020-2025) from eight fields, 54% failed on core scientific rigor (<5.0/10; 41% excluding megajournals). Revision at selective journals improved preprints more than twice as much as revision at commercial megajournals (+0.62 vs. +0.30 points; baseline-adjusted p = 0.033), and BARS recalled 98% of unresolved human referee critiques across 100 open-review papers. Across 915 date-blinded papers from 1991 to 2025, average scores fell from 7.6/10 to 5.8/10 as megajournals and template database studies expanded. Blinded self-audits of 238 papers by two senior authors -- and of this manuscript itself -- caught real statistical, control, and table errors in our own work. At four cents per paper, BARS offers a practical quality check for authors, journals, and readers (https://veg.github.io/BARS/).

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2026

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2026

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗