The International Science Council, the InterAcademy Partnership, and the Standing Committee for Gender Equality in Science recently released a new report tracking the progress of women in professional scientific organizations around the world.
The study draws from institutional data from 136 organizations, survey responses from nearly 600 scientists, and several interviews with representatives of scientific organizations to assess women’s representation, participation, and leadership in international scientific unions and academies of science, medicine, and engineering.
In 2025, women were 19 percent of members in national academies, up from 12 percent in 2015 and 16 percent in 2020. This representation varies widely across academies, ranging from 2 percent to nearly 40 percent. Notably, the share of national academics whose membership base is less than 10 percent women has declined significantly over the past 10 years, dropping from 34 percent in 2015 to 19 percent in 2025.
Only one-fifth of national academies are led by a woman, a pattern that has not changed over the past five years. Furthermore, almost half of all academies have no women in vice-president or co-chair roles. Scientific unions have higher representation of women in leadership roles, but representation varies by discipline. In governing bodies, women hold some 40 percent of leadership positions.
Across all disciplines and organization types, women are three times more likely than their male peers to report barriers to participation, progression, or recognition within their organization. Women are also more likely to report missing opportunities for caregiving responsibilities, experience gender-based differences that impact their participation, encounter discrimination or harassment, and have lower confidence in organizational mechanisms for addressing misconduct.
“While efforts to advance gender equality in science have gained ground, progress remains uneven,” the authors write. “The barriers documented in this report are not limited to institutional procedures. They reflect deeper patterns: who is seen, supported and recognized, and whose contributions are valued.”
They continue, “In some countries, gender-related policies and research are increasingly portrayed as ideological. Diversity and inclusion programs are being challenged, or scaled back, particularly where they involve targeted support for women or underrepresented groups. These developments risk slowing, and even reversing, progress. Scientific organizations have both the mandate and the means to lead by example. In the current context, leadership matters more than ever.”