Going beyond eloquent words.

As the United States steadies itself, recovering from COVID-19 and preparing for future crises, it must draw upon what Eric Lander, the nominee for director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), called “America's greatest asset…our unrivaled diversity.” To achieve this goal, OSTP must have the resources and authority to go beyond eloquent words and deliver solid accomplishments for the nation and world. Diversity is a double-edged sword. When complementary talents and perspectives come together, leaps in understanding are more likely and disruptive technologies are born. But there is also a vulnerability. When seized upon to divide (with talk of quotas in a zero-sum game), diversity can be used to generate fear and stoke division in ways that increase inequities and stifle substantive debate. In the scientific enterprise, explicit acts of racism and sexism still exist and cause harm. However, it is often the less obvious factors—divisive rhetoric, obsolete policies (such as overreliance on standardized tests), and willful blindness to inequitable treatment (such as smaller startup budgets for female academics)—that cement many of the injustices that have sprung from the nation's segregated history. These opaque forces are so ingrained that we scarcely realize their implications for minorities and women in science. Over the past year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (of which I am the chief executive officer; AAAS is the publisher of Science ) has held a mirror up to its own functions. We have listened carefully to scientists, consulted with experts, and analyzed existing data. Chief among what we have discovered are stark demographic contrasts between programs and awards that are applicant-based and those that are nomination- based. We fall short when it comes to recognizing the contributions of underrepresented members of the scientific community. Transparently sharing these data enables accountability. AAAS and other institutions must be held responsible by the community for meaningful change. Insisting on inclusion of underrepresented groups neither sacrifices scientific excellence nor diminishes the accomplishments of those who have historically dominated the sciences. Highlighting the previously ignored does not invalidate the already admired. But this change requires that the scientific community increase attention and support for those who have been disadvantaged. I have received letters from scientists attacking AAAS's focus on diversity, stating that race has no scientific basis and scientists should ignore it. But race and patriarchy are powerful social constructs with societal consequences that cannot be overlooked. Alondra Nelson, OSTP deputy director for science and society and former AAAS Board member, stated that “science at its core is a social phenomenon. When we provide inputs to the algorithm; when we program the device; when we design, test and research; we are making human choices…It matters who makes those choices, it matters who they're thinking about when they do.” Avoiding these conversations amounts to advocating the status quo—and the United States would be weaker for it. Institutions also must push for policies that enable diversity across the enterprise. Often, these policies do not seem directly related to diversity, equity, or inclusion. But increasing pay for graduate students and postdocs and providing them with employee-like benefits and protections; achieving open access publishing policies that do not place the financial burden of publishing on authors; improving training and standards for mentorship, and providing safe and supportive workplace cultures—these policies do affect the retention of diverse scientists without sacrificing scientific excellence. The reasons for ensuring the diversity of science transcend the obvious moral imperative. Diversity of thought derived from diversity of experience gives America a critical advantage in the global competitive landscape. This is key to making the discoveries that will improve everyone's health, inventing the technologies that will grow the economy, and meeting the formidable challenges of this era. Without the innovative boost from a diverse population, the United States will be hard-pressed to compete on sheer numbers of scientists and engineers. The new OSTP leadership will need the resources and clout to go beyond symbolic gestures. Dr. Lander and Dr. Nelson must receive bipartisan support, funding, and authority to create a national science and technology strategy that ensures a scientific workforce capable of building on the exceptional diversity that is the country's greatest asset.