Equity & Excellence are Mutually Conducive; A response to Ms. Wente, Globe & Mail June 10th

[p.1]: "Dear Ms Wente I read with interest your opinion piece in the June 10th issue of the G & M. The piece was, I assume, intentionally provocative. I am compelled to respond because yours is a voice of privilege, on a national platform. You suggest that academia operates within a system that is fair and equal but surely you know that, like the rest of society, this is a falsehood. But the most privileged are the last to see inequities because they have benefited the most."</p

How diversity makes science work better

[p.1]: "  Just over 25 years ago, the Canadian Journal of Physics published an article by Dr. Gordon Freeman, a chemistry professor, in which he asserts that “women who work outside the home contribute to the moral degeneration of their children.” This piece was submitted as a scientific paper (it wasn’t) and published after (alleged) rigorous peer-review by experts in the field (physics?), which is the gold standard for the reporting of science. Not surprisingly, this misogynistic opinion piece published as “science” generated considerable debate across the country. In the last half of the 20th century, some scientists in Canada were still remarkably sexist, which probably doesn’t surprise anyone — and even unethical, which should surprise everyone."</p

Change the Numbers: Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity in STEM | Imogen Coe | TEDxRyersonU

In her talk, Imogen Coe addresses the lack of female representation in STEM; science, technology, engineering and math. Using humour and real life examples, she encourages women (and their allies) to break barriers, challenge stereotypes and demand their opportunity to contribute to science. Dr. Imogen Coe has worked extensively as an academic scientist and administrator, challenging stereotypes and breaking barriers for girls and women in her field. Imogen sees the the lack of equity, diversity and inclusivity in STEM at Ryerson University in her role as professor and dean of the faculty of science.  Low confidence levels and under-representation of young women in STEM disciplines means that we are losing important skill sets and talent, limiting our ability to solve complex problems such as climate change. Imogen is an advocate for women in STEM and she uses data and evidence to demonstrate unfair practices, while providing suggestions on how to fix the system.  As someone who was raised with a strong sense of social justice, Imogen believes in the fundamental right of everyone to contribute and participate in STEM to their full potential. Imogen firmly believes that EDI in STEM is not just a woman’s rights issue, but a human rights issue.   This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx </p

#MySTEMJob (25 stories of women in various STEM careers)

Imogen Coe, Professor of Chemistry and Biology, speaks of her career in STEM.</p

Women in Science: Dr. Imogen Coe

Originally from the United Kingdom, Imogen Coe can’t remember a time when she wasn’t interested in science and how the natural world works. </p

The complex chemistry of diversity and inclusion: a 30-year synthesis

Dr. Margaret-Ann Armour’s career as a research chemist, educator, and advocate spanned more than 40 years. Much of her work took place within a disciplinary culture ignorant of the scholarship supporting organizational change towards inclusive excellence. Her contributions are extensively covered in other articles in this special issue, and her achievements are all the more remarkable given that her colleague, Dr. Gordon Freeman, held gender-biased attitudes that he shared in a peer reviewed article in a national science journal. Three decades later, another Canadian chemist, Dr. Tomáš Hudlický, published a peer reviewed essay in an international chemistry journal that included his views on the negative impacts of diversity initiatives on organic synthesis research. Both articles were retracted, but clearly a faulty and pervasively biased peer review system enabled the distribution of prejudiced opinions that were neither informed by demonstrated expertise, nor supported by data. These two events are reflective of challenges that Dr. Armour faced in her efforts to diversify chemical sciences. We need to build on her critical work to increasing awareness about inclusive excellence in chemistry, as well as educating scientists on what constitutes an informed opinion. Here, we use Freeman and Hudlický incidents as case studies to indicate how pervasive bias can be superficially perceived as scientific scholarship. Furthermore, we use analogies of analytical processes to illustrate how talent gets systemically excluded. Finally, we provide recommendations to chemistry community members for improving outcomes in terms of synthesis of new knowledge, ideas, and solutions, toward leveraging all the available human talent and creating an environment that is both excellent and inclusive.  </p

Forging Paths to Enhanced Innovation

Report of the Workshop for academia, education, business, industry, government and NGOs/not-for-profit hosted by Dr. Imogen R. Coe, Dean, Faculty of Science, Ryerson University & Dr. Mehrdad Hariri, President, CSPC. </p

Policy Change Towards Equity and Inclusion is Good for Science in Canada

[para.1.]: "In 2019, the Canadian post-secondary education (PSE) sector, and particularly the research enterprise, saw the implementation of significant initiatives relating to increasing equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in research, across all disciplines, including all scientific research supported by the three tri-councils. Overall, research culture in Canada has historically moved toward equity at a glacial pace and is behind other jurisdictions such as the US, UK and Australia in adopting policy-driven approaches to improved EDI in PSE. In 2019, there are now a number of policy changes that include (but are not limited to) the requirement for all Canadian PSE institutions to develop equity plans, increased accountability in the CRC program, expectations of applicants to integrate EDI and SGBA+ analysis in grant applications, and mandatory peer-review training on implicit bias. Canadian institutions can now also voluntarily participate in the recently launched Dimensions: EDI charter, which expected organizations to develop, implement and assess multi-year action plans which address their own institutional policies and programming initiatives towards identifying individual structural and systemic biases that limit full participation of members of the federally designated groups (women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities) and other under-represented communities (e.g., LGBTQ2S+).”</p

Researchers’ Response to Canada’s Fundamental Science Review

Report produced following summit organized by Dr. Imogen R. Coe (Ryerson University), Dr. Jim Woodgett (Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute) and Dr. Mehrdad Hariri (CSPC).</p

Organisational best practices towards gender equality in science and medicine

 In August 2018, the president of the World Bank noted that “‘Human capital’—the potential of individuals—is going to be the most important long-term investment any country can make for its people's future prosperity and quality of life”. Nevertheless, leaders and practitioners in academic science and medicine continue to be unaware of and poorly educated about the nature, extent, and impact of barriers to full participation of women and minorities in science and medicine around the world. This lack of awareness and education results in failures to fully mobilise the human capital of half the population and limits global technological and medical advancements. The chronic lack of recruitment, promotion, and retention of women in science and medicine is due to systemic, structural, organisational, institutional, cultural, and societal barriers to equity and inclusion. These barriers must be identified and removed through increased awareness of the challenges combined with evidence-based, data-driven approaches leading to measurable targets and outcomes. In this Review, we discuss these issues and highlight actions that could achieve gender equality in science and medicine. We survey approaches and insights that have helped to identify and remove systemic bias and barriers in science and medicine, and propose tools that will help organisational change toward gender equality. We describe tools that include formal legislation and mandated quotas at national or large-scale levels (eg, gender parity), techniques that increase fairness (eg, gender equity) through facilitated organisational cultural change at institutional levels, and professional development of core competencies at individual levels. This Review is not intended to be an extensive analysis of all the literature currently available on achieving gender equality in academic medicine and science, but rather, a reflection on finding multifactorial solutions. </p