The racial inequalities observed in societies across the globe are mirrored in the scientific community in the UK, especially at more senior levels, where there continues to be a lack of Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority scientists in leadership positions (Arday, 2018). In the UK, for example, although Black students are overrepresented in the undergraduate population, they are underrepresented among postgraduates and junior research staff (Gibney, 2022; RSC, 2023). Across academia, of the 22,855 professors in the UK, just 160 are Black, and the representation of other minority groups also declines with seniority. This lack of role models in senior positions discourages younger Black scientists from pursuing careers in research.

As well as being inherently unjust, underrepresentation also hinders scientific progress because it means that the scientific enterprise is not taking full advantage of the diversity of skills and lived-experiences available to it (Urbina-Blanco et al., 2020). Furthermore, there is evidence for a “diversity-innovation” paradox whereby historically marginalised groups have less successful careers despite displaying higher rates of innovation (Hofstra et al., 2020). Despite these negative effects, there have been few targeted interventions to drive meaningful change in academia; the resulting frustration and disenfranchisement of marginalised communities is illustrated by clinical psychologist Sanah Ahsan’s redefinition of EDI as ‘Endless Distraction and Inaction’ (Ahsan, 2022).

Here, we describe a scheme to address Black underrepresentation among early-career researchers at the Wellcome Sanger Institute in the UK. The recipients of the first three Sanger Excellence Fellowships were announced in October 2022 (Figure 1), three were awarded in 2023, and the third round of applications opened in February 2024 (see Box 1). Our scheme is one of a small number of schemes aiming to tackle underrepresentation in science in the UK (see Table 1 for other examples). Of note, the Royal Society is also running a pilot scheme that offers four-year Career Development Fellowships to Black postdoctoral researchers (applications now closed), while Wellcome has just announced a scheme to fund researchers of Black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani heritage in the UK.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

We recognize that our programme is a work in progress, and there is still a great deal to do to improve representation at the Sanger, and in the scientific community in the UK more widely. But by developing a programme that centres the voices of Black academics, and is continually guided by feedback, we hope we can enthuse and inspire other organisations to consider how they can take practical steps to reduce inequalities in scientific research and wider academia.

The Wellcome Sanger Institute is a world-leading research centre that conducts research in many areas of genetics and genomics. It is based at the Wellcome Genome Campus just south of Cambridge in the UK, and employs over 1,200 staff. The institute aims to foster an inclusive culture where everyone can thrive and diversity is celebrated, and as part of our overall strategy for equity, diversity and inclusion, we have been developing a race equity strategy in collaboration with our community (Figure 2). This strategy relies on quantitative and qualitative insights, bolstered by self-assessment processes. For instance, we are committed to the Advance HE Race Equality Charter which aims to help higher education institutions work towards improving the representation, progression and success of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic staff and students.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Our race equity strategy aims to support underrepresented groups entering the Sanger at any level and in any capacity, in a number of ways: by building competency and literacy around discussing race equity (for instance by hosting campus-wide events and workshops); by using data to inform strategic planning; and by embedding anti-racist approaches in the way we work.

As part of this strategy, we initiated a series of discussions about how we could support underrepresented researchers as they progressed from undergraduate to postgraduate to postdoc to established researcher. Deciding which stage of this academic career ‘pipeline’ to target would be a very important decision. We also wanted to disrupt the traditional academic notion of ‘research excellence’ and its associated measures of success, conscious that the odds of succeeding in science are influenced by a number of factors other than a talent for research, such as biases related to gender, race, socioeconomic status and other characteristics (Liu, 2020). Our efforts were greatly helped by our Advisory Group, which included Principal Investigators (PIs) from the Sanger, Black leaders from various UK institutions, representatives from charities and funders, and specialists with experience in promoting inclusivity in science. This group also included three of the authors (SA, DJA and MAA). Following extensive discussions, we eventually coalesced around three specific aims.

First, we decided to focus on Black underrepresentation, rather than underrepresentation more broadly. We made this decision by following the data – people from Black-heritage backgrounds are the most underrepresented group at the Sanger among both staff and students, and the same is true for the wider scientific community in the UK (Gibney, 2022; Arday et al., 2022).

Second, we decided to focus our efforts on postdoctoral researchers. The academic career pipeline in science begins in schools (where diversity is highest) and ends with positions of leadership (where diversity is lowest). Postdoctoral research sits halfway along the pipeline, and is a crucial career stage that precedes a researcher becoming independent and running their own research group (or progressing to other careers in or outside universities). By focussing on this career stage, we aimed to ensure Black scientists who have completed PhDs have an opportunity to remain in scientific research and fully realise their potential.

Third, while the Sanger Institute already offered three-year fellowships for postdoctoral researchers that included financial support for research and travel, we decided that the new scheme should also include non-financial support. Therefore, in addition to receiving all the benefits of a regular fellowship at the Sanger, holders of the new fellowships receive additional mentorship, sponsorship and targeted training.

By linking with external organisations, we aim to foster connections between our fellows and funders. For instance, we arranged for the fellows to present their work at the Wellcome headquarters in London, and to meet with grant managers there in order to learn more about funding opportunities, and our Sanger–Cancer Research UK fellow has access to a bespoke mentorship programme. We facilitate links to grass-roots communities such as Black in Cancer and the Black Women in Science Network to promote networking. We provide sponsorship, in terms of putting our fellows forward for career development opportunities, and arranging additional training opportunities. We have also formed connections with more formal groups such as the MRC’s Black in Biomedical Research Advisory Group that the fellows can utilize for mentorship and support, and we are currently in discussions with other organisations to promote networking opportunities.

Throughout the development process, we kept in mind that the scheme was not just about the new fellowships. What we really wanted to do was break apart the usual ways of working and thinking, to challenge ourselves in terms of how science should be run. For example, while we were developing the programme, we ran a workshop of facilitated discussions with Leading Routes, an organisation aiming to prepare the next generation of Black academics, to help PIs at the Sanger explore topics of racial equity. We wanted to deconstruct the notion of research excellence and to really think about potential versus access to opportunity. Central to our approach was moving out of our comfort zone and embracing that discomfort through safe and supported dialogue and conversation.

Once we had decided what shape the fellowship should take, a key challenge was to attract applications. To do this, we created a bespoke application process that was centred on outreach and connecting with communities.

We built partnerships with grassroots communities such as Black in Cancer and the Black Women in Science Network, who helped us to promote the fellowships to their members. We also worked with recruiters who specialise in reaching to diverse candidate pools (for example, https://wearediverse.io/). An extended social media campaign helped raise awareness of the scheme, and we also ran a series of live webinars and live Q&As for potential applicants to demystify academic pathways – for instance, exploring what it means to do a postdoctoral fellowship at Sanger – and all steps of the application process.

We also had to completely rethink the rest of recruitment process. At the core of all applications was the project, designed by the applicants with guidance and mentorship from potential supervisors. This process itself was part of the “sponsorship” of the candidates, as the supervisors connected them into their research networks.

This process involved a series of one-to-one discussions between supervisors and candidates to develop the research proposal, allowing candidates to learn about the design of successful research plans from world-leading scientists. Many candidates will not have been offered this kind of bespoke support before, and other postdocs do not typically develop their own research proposals in a similar way.

A novel aspect of the application process was a move to narrative CVs, which are based on the Resume for Researchers developed by the Royal Society (see Fritch et al., 2021 for a report on how narrative CVs can reduce biases and advice on how to design such CVs). In their narrative CVs, we ask candidates to highlight their contributions to various aspects of research: the generation of knowledge, including all the outputs of their work, not just research papers; the development of individuals, including mentorship, collaboration and education; contributions to the wider research community (such as reviewing, organising events or committee work); and contributions to broader society (such as engaging with the public, public bodies or the private sector). We also provide candidates with space to detail any personal challenges they had to overcome to get to where they are today. At the heart of the process is trying to unpick potential versus access to opportunity.

Together, we strongly believe this approach provides a broader view of research achievements and potential than standard CVs. We hoped to use it mitigate our own biases in terms of what constitutes research excellence, and thus identify those with the highest potential to succeed in the research environment.

Looking forward, we are keen to expand the scheme, and to explore new ways to make the Sanger Institute more inclusive, so that all talent can genuinely thrive. One idea we are considering is reverse mentorship with the Excellence Fellows, ensuring that the new fellows can provide feedback directly to the institute leadership.

While it is still too early to assess the overall success of the scheme with our first fellows still in the early stages of their time at Sanger, we will track their careers going forward and seek direct feedback on how the scheme could be improved. Additionally, we commissioned an external evaluation of the scheme that engaged both successful and unsuccessful applicants (Nexus Evaluation, 2023). We were heartened that the fellowship was seen as uniquely designed positive action, and have taken in the comments for how it could be improved as we go forward.

We also want to be looking further along the academic career pipeline – how can we innovate to ensure that talented minoritized postdoctoral researchers who wish to run their own labs are retained to independence? This is a vital challenge.

Our blueprint for change is just one scheme within a complex landscape of UK academia, and poses a question for funders: how can we work together to guarantee the sustainability of current and future initiatives in a way that supports historically marginalized researchers at all stages of their careers? The ultimate aim is to ensure UK science flourishes, and that cannot happen unless all voices are empowered to participate in driving our science.

1. Website

   1. Ahsan S

   (2022) EDI: Endless Distraction and Inaction

   Accessed December 18, 2023.

   https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/edi-endless-distraction-and-inaction
2. 1. Arday J

   (2018) Understanding race and educational leadership in higher education: Exploring the Black and ethnic minority (BME) experience

   Management in Education 32:192–200.

   https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618791002

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Arday J
   2. Branchu C
   3. Boliver V

   (2022) What do we know about Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) participation in UK higher education?

   Social Policy and Society 21:12–25.

   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746421000579

   • Google Scholar
4. Software

   1. Fritch R
   2. Hatch A
   3. Hazlett H
   4. Vinkenburg C

   (2021) Using narrative CVs: Process optimization and bias mitigation, version Version v1

   Zenodo.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5799413
5. 1. Gibney E

   (2022) How UK science is failing Black researchers — in nine stark charts

   Nature 612:390–395.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04386-w

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Hofstra B
   2. Kulkarni VV
   3. Munoz-Najar Galvez S
   4. He B
   5. Jurafsky D
   6. McFarland DA

   (2020) The diversity-innovation paradox in science

   PNAS 117:9284–9291.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915378117

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. Website

   1. Liu SS

   (2020) Academic meritocracy is not academic fairness

   Accessed December 15, 2023.

   https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/academic-meritocracy-not-academic-fairness
8. Website

   1. Nexus Evaluation

   (2023) Sanger Excellence Fellowship Review

   Accessed February 8, 2024.

   https://www.sanger.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Excellence-Fellowship-summary-report-Feb-2023-final.pdf
9. Website

   1. RSC

   (2023) Black representation in UK academic chemistry

   Accessed December 15, 2023.

   https://www.rsc.org/policy-evidence-campaigns/inclusion-diversity/surveys-reports-campaigns/black-representation-in-uk-academic-chemistry/
10. 1. Urbina-Blanco CA
    2. Jilani SZ
    3. Speight IR
    4. Bojdys MJ
    5. Friščić T
    6. Stoddart JF
    7. Nelson TL
    8. Mack J
    9. Robinson RAS
    10. Waddell EA
    11. Lutkenhaus JL
    12. Godfrey M
    13. Abboud MI
    14. Aderinto SO
    15. Aderohunmu D
    16. Bibič L
    17. Borges J
    18. Dong VM
    19. Ferrins L
    20. Fung FM
    21. John T
    22. Lim FPL
    23. Masters SL
    24. Mambwe D
    25. Thordarson P
    26. Titirici M-M
    27. Tormet-González GD
    28. Unterlass MM
    29. Wadle A
    30. Yam VW-W
    31. Yang Y-W

    (2020) A diverse view of science to catalyse change

    Nature Chemistry 12:773–776.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-020-0529-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Saher Ahmed

   Saher Ahmed is at the Wellcome Sanger Institute and Genome Research Limited, Hinxton, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   saher.ahmed@sanger.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0009-0007-7808-0257

2. David J Adams

   David J Adams is at the Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Muzlifah Haniffa

   Muzlifah Haniffa is at the Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, and Newcastle University and Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, both Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Aidan Maartens

   Aidan Maartens is at the Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7112-819X

5. Maria Augusta Arruda

   Maria Augusta Arruda is at the Brazilian Biosciences National Laboratory, National Center for Research in Energy and Materials (LNBIO-CNPEM), São Paulo, Brazil

   Contribution

   Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0828-9430

• 992

  views

• 46

  downloads

• 0

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.