DEIA and meritocracy: Partners in scientific progress

Your Turn

André O. Hudson

Guest columnist

In recent weeks, discussions around diversity, equity, inclusion, and access have intensified.

One question regarding the importance of DEIA in science is this: Does DEIA undermine scientific progress and excellence?

The answer is no.

DEIA is not at odds with meritocracy; rather, it is a catalyst for it. Science thrives on creativity, collaboration and innovation. The engine powers progress, helping us tackle the most complex and pressing challenges of our time, from climate change and antibiotic resistance to the looming threat of future pandemics. But solving these problems requires more than just intelligence and technical expertise; it demands a diversity of perspectives, lived experiences and approaches.

The idea that DEIA initiatives somehow dilute scientific standards is a misconception and is wrong. Diversity, equity, inclusion and access enhance meritocracy by expanding the talent pool, ensuring that scientific excellence is not limited by systemic barriers and fostering an environment where the best ideas can emerge.

Meritocracy, at its core, is about ensuring that the most rigorous research, innovative thinking and capable individuals can rise to the top. However, merit cannot be truly assessed in an environment where access to resources and opportunities is unevenly distributed. DEIA does not lower the bar; it ensures that everyone has the chance to reach it.

The idea that all individuals start from the same position and compete on an equal playing field is simply not reflected in history and reality. Without equitable access to education, mentorship, funding and professional networks, many brilliant minds are left out of the scientific conversation before they even have a chance to contribute.

Diversity in science is not simply about phenotypic representation. It is about the richness of perspectives, disciplines and lived experiences that fuel innovation and transformative discoveries. A biologist who grew up in a rural farming community might have insights into plant resilience that an urban researcher lacks. A mathematician from an under-resourced school might have developed unconventional problem-solving skills that bring fresh approaches to complex equations.

These differences matter. Science benefits when we bring together people who see the world differently, challenge assumptions and push the boundaries of knowledge.

Equity ensures that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, race, gender, disability, or other factors, has the resources, mentorship, and opportunities necessary to contribute fully to the scientific enterprise. It is about recognizing and addressing systemic barriers that have historically excluded talent.

Without equity, we are not truly measuring merit; we are measuring privilege. Providing access to the tools and support necessary for success does not compromise excellence; it strengthens it.

Inclusion, meanwhile, creates the conditions in which diverse talent can thrive. A diverse research team is only as strong as the environment in which it operates. True inclusion means fostering a culture where every voice is valued, where collaboration is encouraged, and where individuals feel empowered to contribute ideas without fear of dismissal or bias. The challenges we face today demand bold, unconventional thinking that flourishes in inclusive spaces where all perspectives are given due consideration.

Finally, access is an essential pillar of this framework. Without access to quality education, funding, research opportunities, and professional networks, many talented individuals remain shut out of scientific progress. Access ensures that potential is not limited by circumstances of birth or an unexpected life event, geography, or economic background. It is about making sure that anyone with the interests, ability, and passion to contribute to science has a clear pathway to do so.

Mentorship is one of the most powerful tools in scientific development. A strong mentor provides guidance, fosters curiosity, and encourages resilience in the face of challenges. However, without diversity in mentorship, many scholars, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds, may struggle to see themselves as part of the scientific community. Representation matters. When scholars see mentors who share their backgrounds, struggles, or experiences, they are more likely to believe they belong in the field and persist despite obstacles. DEIA ensures that mentorship is not limited to a select few but is accessible and meaningful for all.

DEIA is not a checkbox. It is a strategy for maximizing innovation, strengthening science, and ensuring that the most capable minds, regardless of background, are leading the way forward. Great minds do not think alike; they think differently.

André O. Hudson is dean of the College of Science and professor of biochemistry at Rochester Institute of Technology.