Largest study of LGBTQ+ biologists finds progress but persistent gaps in belonging and inclusion

A new study led by Arizona State University researcher Katelyn Cooper offers the most comprehensive look yet at the experiences of LGBTQ+ biologists, revealing both encouraging signs of progress and continuing challenges, particularly for transgender and gender-nonconforming scientists.

Published in CBE—Life Sciences Education, the study surveyed 1,419 biologists from five major professional societies, including 486 scientists who identified as LGBTQ+. The research is the largest survey of LGBTQ+ biologists conducted to date and provides one of the clearest pictures of how scientists experience belonging, workplace climate and inclusion across the field of biology.

Cooper, an associate professor in ASU’s School of Life Sciences, said the project grew out of conversations within the American Society for Cell Biology’s LGBTQ+ committee about the need to better understand the experiences of LGBTQ+ biologists.

“We really wanted to formally assess the state of inclusion for LGBTQ+ people in our society and within the broader biology community,” Cooper said. “We wanted to identify what barriers biologists are experiencing and where there are opportunities for improvement.”

What began as a survey intended for one professional society ultimately expanded to five national biology organizations, creating an unprecedented dataset on LGBTQ+ experiences in the biological sciences.

The findings paint a nuanced picture.

Many LGBTQ+ biologists reported that their workplaces are moderately inclusive. At the same time, more than 20% of LGBTQ+ biologists surveyed reported experiencing exclusionary behavior at work. Among transgender and gender-nonconforming (TGNC) biologists, that figure climbed to nearly 40%.

For Cooper, those numbers stood out. “Even as someone who’s a member of the community, I was taken aback by those numbers,” she said. “That’s a lot of people experiencing something that is negative in their workplace. It demonstrates that even though things may be moving in the right direction, there is still a need for immediate action.”

A major strength of the study is its ability to examine differences within the LGBTQ+ community itself. Previous research has often grouped LGBTQ+ scientists together because of limited sample sizes. The size of this survey allowed researchers to separately analyze the experiences of TGNC biologists and cisgender lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer scientists, which proved to be an important distinction.

Researchers found that TGNC biologists consistently reported lower levels of belonging, morale and comfort across professional settings, including workplaces, professional societies and the biology community as a whole, compared to their cisgender, straight colleagues. They were also more likely to report uncomfortable workplace climates and exclusionary experiences. By contrast, cisgender LGBQ biologists generally reported experiences that were more similar to those of their non-LGBTQ+ peers.

The results suggest that broad conversations about LGBTQ+ inclusion can sometimes obscure the unique challenges faced by different groups within the community.

“One of the things we were really proud of was being able to parse out some of that nuance,” Cooper said. “The lived experiences across the LGBTQ+ spectrum are important to acknowledge, and this gives us additional insight into what challenges remain and where progress is being made.”

The study also asked participants what professional societies and workplaces could do to foster more inclusive environments. Respondents frequently called for clearer institutional support, stronger advocacy, mentoring opportunities, LGBTQ+ networking groups, educational programming and increased visibility of LGBTQ+ scientists. Many specifically emphasized the need for greater attention to issues affecting transgender and nonbinary individuals, including the use of correct pronouns, inclusive facilities and more flexible administrative systems.

One finding gave Cooper reason for optimism. Participants themselves recognized that transgender and gender-nonconforming biologists often face greater barriers and recommended targeted support for those communities.

“That recommendation was really meaningful to me,” Cooper said. “It shows that people recognize our experiences are not all the same and that we may be at a place where we can advocate for the specific needs of different identities within the LGBTQ+ community.”

While the study reflects data collected in 2023, Cooper noted that making continued assessment of LGBTQ+ scientists’ experiences is especially important. The research team hopes future studies will track how workplace climate and belonging evolve over time.

For the time being, Cooper hopes the research serves as both a benchmark and a call to action.

“I think the biggest takeaway is that we’re not there yet,” she said. “But there are things people can do right now. Communicating support, advocating for colleagues and creating welcoming environments can make a real difference.”

Ultimately, the researchers argue that fostering belonging is about more than improving workplace culture. Creating environments where scientists can bring their full identities to their work helps strengthen the scientific community itself.

The study concludes that understanding and addressing these challenges is essential to ensuring that all biologists, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, can fully participate in and contribute to science.