Abstract
As social media emerged, it was often perceived as something meant for children and young people, or even a mechanism for getting attention, but social media has had at least one very positive impact on society. It has evolved into an immensely effective mechanism for raising awareness on a global level in a matter of hours. We have known for many years that science has historically been a male-dominated field, and many scientists and institutions have been aware of this and have been trying to change it. Unfortunately, there are still more men than women on faculty, and more men in senior leadership positions, at most universities, and on average, female faculty members and administrators have lower salaries than their male counterparts. However, this is now changing faster than it had been before, in part because of the Me Too movement.
The top thing on most people's minds in 2020 has obviously been the global viral pandemic and the impact it has had on our lives, but in light of the recent unfortunate events in the United States, racism is also in the forefront of thought for many of us. The promotion of the Black Lives Matter movement, again in part through social media, has raised racism awareness to an all-time high. Historically, we have seen spikes in awareness around this issue, usually sparked by an isolated horrific act of racism, but this year we have seen a major shift in the response to racism whereby “retweeting” and clicking “Like” to show support are now perceived as not enough. The individuals, groups, and organizations who feel strongly about the Black Lives Matter movement are rightfully demanding more; they are asking for actual action.
Even as I write this editorial, I am asking myself whether our readers will feel that a scientific journal is not the place for such discussion, and perhaps I should focus only on the science, but is that not the problem? It is the “this doesn't really affect me” attitude, which I too have been guilty of, that breeds inaction. Science is not immune to these issues. We too have systemic racism and sexual bias, and each of us needs to actually do something more than click “Like” to effect change. On the ground level, many researchers are already monitoring the level of diversity within their laboratories, so in time, as current faculty members retire, spaces should get filled by a more diverse cohort, but this will only happen if there is active effort at all levels. Given the heightened awareness of racism that is apparent today, it is also time to take stronger action around equity, diversity, and inclusion in science, academic institutions, and at scientific journals.
The publisher of Viral Immunology, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., recently asked editors of all their journals to take a look at the level of diversity within their editorial boards. As editor-in-chief for Viral Immunology, I already had this on my to do list, so I was very pleased to see the issue being addressed at upper levels. When we examined the composition of our own editorial board, the data showed a very clear pattern. Our editorial board is 90% white, 73% male, and 75% late-career researchers. This was no one's fault or intent, rather, it was just how things used to be done, and unconsciously accepted by everyone except those who it actually affected. By the end of my term as editor-in-chief, I will ensure that all of these numbers are lower, and that Viral Immunology has broader diversity in gender, race, geographical origin, and career stage within its editorial board, and I am excited to have the opportunity to spearhead this initiative for our journal.