While there has been significant progress in increasing the participation of women in science-related disciplines, studies have confirmed that men continue to dominate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers. Despite the gains in women’s participation in science careers in countries including South Africa, women remain underrepresented in these fields. This gender disparity is further heightened among Black women.

Although women represent the majority of young university graduates in South Africa, only 13% of STEM graduates are women, with Black women being significantly underrepresented in higher academic and research leadership positions. This can be attributed to systemic barriers such as gender bias, lack of mentorship, and limited access to resources, which continue to hinder true equality in science careers. 

At our institution, the University of the Free State (UFS), there is an increasing commitment to support emerging researchers, especially women, through mentorship and research development opportunities. This is part of our institution’s Vision 130, which aspires to foster excellence in research and increase the impact of our scholars on the broader societal context. I am privileged to be one of the selected candidates in our institution’s Transformation of the Professoriate Mentoring Programme, which aims to grow a critical mass of excellent emerging scholars at the UFS. This programme equips all its candidates with both academic and research mentorship to advance their development towards assuming senior academic and research positions. More importantly, this programme supports candidates in accessing networking and funding opportunities, contributing to their establishment as researchers with the potential to create centres of research excellence in the future. My hope is that those of us who have access to such opportunities can also use our privilege and positions to mentor more women researchers from underrepresented groups in the various fields of science.

“Although women represent the majority of young university graduates in South Africa, only 13% of STEM graduates are women, with Black women being significantly underrepresented in higher academic and research leadership positions

To improve the participation of more women in science-related careers, it is crucial to address the systemic barriers that hinder their progress. This includes creating more mentorship and networking opportunities for women, providing financial support and scholarships for female students in science career fields, and implementing national policies that promote work-life balance and support for working mothers.

Additionally, efforts should be made to raise awareness about the contributions of women in science and to challenge stereotypes that discourage girls from pursuing science careers. Encouraging more inclusive and diverse work environments where women feel valued and supported is essential for increasing their participation and retention in science careers. There is also a need for progressive policies that promote the employment of Black women academics in positions of authority in STEM fields. This will ensure the availability of a diversity of women mentors and academics to offer gender-sensitive support to students.

(As told to Dipin Damodharan)

On 25^th November, the Indian government announced a central scheme to enable public research and education institutions to access scholarly work free of charge. The “One Nation, One Subscription” was earmarked with an initial sum of Rs. 6,000 crores, to cover subscription costs for the next three years. The PIB press release states that over 6,300 government education and research institutions in India will gain access, to the over 13,000 e-journals owned by some 30 international publishers.

Reactions have been positive so far, with many welcoming the move. On X, Dibyendu Nandi, a space physicist at IISER Kolkata, termed the scheme “a step forward in the right direction.” Some top journals can be incredibly difficult to access, without paying for subscriptions, that are exorbitant to say the least. Google Scholar could often the go-to, though rarely do most relevant content be accessible for free. In these cases, research institutions pay for open access to publishing journals. 

But this isn’t the norm. Academicians – in the sciences, social sciences and humanities – are kept out of reach, thanks to paywalls that keep scholarships wanting for more liberty. Nonetheless, there are other challenges still remaining, which awaits state intervention to scientists’ call for a more inclusive budget.   

Publishing industry’s murky underbelly

India’s arguably the only country with such a relaxed subscription service in place. Usually, departments at universities across the world are hard-pressed to offer students and scholars subscriptions (if at all they do in other places) to journals of a relevant discipline. This means having to pay to view research that occurs in other disciplines, preventing open access to work in interdisciplinary fields. Research ends up in silos by design, which inhibits any substantial progress.

For-profit journals like Springer Nature, and their likes, have excessive fees in place to access their content. Admittedly, not everybody demands for this, definitely not subscription journals. But then subscription journals aren’t lucrative. Nature charges $200 for a single annual subscription, which amounts to nearly Rs. 17,000 in Indian currency (in today’s rate). Meanwhile, open access journals don’t demand authors to pay for publication, but require institutions to pay for them.

But this includes the cream of journals. Scientists in developing countries like India has to pay a lot more to simply have access to the same piece of research. In this light, the government’s decision to waver this fee could ease burden scientists have from participating in research that’s unpopularly symbolic of corporate interference. It’s not like scientists aren’t plagued by other problems that the government isn’t answerable to. Research institutions, even the prominent ones are underfunded for their research programs, have their woes go unheeded for. However, there’s an elephant in the room that’s gone unmentioned in any government communiques.

Credit: Wikimedia

Publishing costs, databases and research in the developing world

There’s a cost accrued to publish papers that institutions have to pay for. Journals don’t publish for free, of course, and there’s cost incurred from conducting peer-reviews, proof-reading work, making illustrations and even doing a press release. It may be worth mentioning to state that an unpaid reviewer could add as much quality and dedication as any other. But scientific publishing has been under close scrutiny over the years, especially with the rise of predatory journals being caught for publishing content without any editorial review.

This isn’t the condition in every journal, but it’s as though the price tag on the journal, say Nature, which is a hybrid journal, makes them more immune from having peer-reviewers or even corporate higher-ups who’d incentivize an exclusive culture that still doesn’t have every quality paper in reach.

Academics have different ways to reach out to their peers, but then institutions pay for this too. In fact, The Hindu, says that some Rs. 30 – 50 crore rupees so far, to access online databases such as SCORPUS and Web of Science, to receive analytics and insights to track citations – building a corpus of related research work. Basically, simply mining papers costs money.

These exorbitant costs cut both ways aside from wanting to simply read papers, in that it diminishes incentives for researchers who’d be doing high-quality research but not have it published in a journal with a higher reach. Corporatization has added to this list of endless concerns on why science in developing countries don’t fare as well compared to their wealthier counterparts. The prices are seen exorbitant for most of the world – conducting research that bears unfair public bias as that being unimportant, and having researchers put away from carrying out ambitious efforts – for which they find no funders, or those who have the zeal to fund any ambitious projects in the first place.

Suffice it to say, scientists in the West do acknowledge this has been a problem, both in terms of having to access themselves personally, since research institutions only provide access for a few select journals, at the cost of viewing research done elsewhere across the globe. So far, dissent has been ineffective, and without options, scientists everywhere choose to publish in other less-known journals, to avoid having to pay off one’s pocket. In this light, the government’s incentives are the right step against limitless greed.

Wanting to be heard

By all means, the government’s action shouldn’t merely come as a savior complex. Indian science needs state support. There are woes in Indian research, that aren’t necessarily contributed purely from talent deficit, as much as it’s from a lack of public finances being used to justify research. The Anusadhan National Research Foundation, which would receive Rs. 50,000 crores in funds, maybe a viable answer, but the elephant in the room is where and how these funds will be distributed and utilized. but there’s a lot more to be addressed.

Scientists, are people, and they’re vulnerable in light of conditions that are too stressful to handle otherwise, and seems a majority of stakeholders in India’s academia has been left out from enter as decision makers in discussions on matters that will affect them, and shape the ecosystem going forward.  

Today, academia’s known to suffer from a “publishes or perish” crisis that isn’t making life easy for quality scholarship to thrive for long. And scientists need to be heard, not passively, but as active decision makers. If there’s a message to take away from recent discourse on scientific research in India, it’s that scientists and their institutions are desperate to be heard.  

President-elect Donald Trump wants the Department of Education gone. During his presidential campaign, Trump made waves by repeatedly pledging to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, calling it a symbol of federal overreach and an unnecessary drain on taxpayer money. The promise was bold: “We will ultimately eliminate the federal Department of Education,” he declared at a rally in Wisconsin back in 2016. His critics and supporters alike raised eyebrows, but what would actually happen if such a move were to be made?

The Department of Education, created in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, has long played a pivotal role in shaping America’s education system. If Trump’s plan were to move forward, it could mean sweeping changes to how K-12 schools are funded and how federal education policies are implemented.

The Core Functions of the Department

The Department of Education performs several essential roles in the American education system. For one, it funnels billions of federal dollars to states and schools. Its two major funding programs—Title I and IDEA—help support schools serving low-income students and children with disabilities. These programs provide nearly $28 billion annually to K-12 schools, although they represent only a small fraction of overall school funding. The bulk of K-12 school budgets comes from state and local taxes. The Department of Education also manages federal student loans and financial aid programs, including Pell grants, which distribute about $30 billion annually to help low-income college students.

Without these programs, how would schools and students fare? The answer isn’t clear-cut, but one thing is certain: federal funding has become a significant tool in ensuring access to education, especially for marginalized groups.

The Bureaucratic Web: Oversight and Regulations

In addition to distributing funding, the Department of Education plays an oversight role, ensuring that schools meet federal standards and investigating issues of discrimination. Through its Office of Civil Rights, the department enforces rules aimed at preventing discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and disability in schools. Over the years, the department has also been a key player in regulating hot-button issues—such as protections for transgender students and regulations on student loan forgiveness programs.

But what happens if this regulatory body no longer exists? One potential scenario could involve the transfer of these responsibilities to other federal agencies or a decentralization of decision-making power to state and local governments.

Federal Funds: The Strings Attached

Federal money doesn’t come without conditions. For instance, schools that receive funding through programs like Title I must adhere to certain rules and regulations. These guidelines can sometimes create what many consider “red tape.” For years, critics of the Department have argued that the bureaucracy tied to federal funding slows down school improvement efforts and imposes undue burdens on local administrators.

According to experts, the funding programs might survive, albeit in a different structure

Some policy experts suggest that even if the Department of Education were dissolved, the funding itself could continue—possibly in the form of block grants that offer more flexibility to local districts. But others warn that dismantling the department could result in a loss of essential oversight and services, especially for students with special needs.

What Happens to Federal Education Programs?

Interestingly, many of the funding programs the Department of Education oversees—particularly Title I and IDEA—were in place before the agency itself existed. This raises the question: Would these programs disappear if the department were abolished?

According to experts, the funding programs might survive, albeit in a different structure. Congress, which ultimately controls federal spending, has historically resisted efforts to cut education funding, even during budget negotiations when past presidents proposed cuts. Many believe that, even if the Department were to close its doors, the political and public support for these funding streams would likely push them into different agencies or programs.

Can Congress Actually Abolish the Department of Education?

While Trump’s rhetoric may have made abolition sound simple, shutting down a federal agency is no small feat. It would require an act of Congress—a challenge that previous efforts have failed to overcome. Even President Ronald Reagan, shortly after the department’s creation in 1980, proposed its elimination but eventually backed down due to lack of congressional support. The Trump administration also tried to merge the Education and Labor Departments, but that effort stalled in Congress.

Even if the GOP gains unified control of Washington in the coming years, it remains uncertain whether there will be enough support to completely dismantle the Department of Education.

The Road Ahead

So, what would an America without the Department of Education look like? In reality, it’s likely that some form of federal oversight and funding would continue, but the shape of it could change significantly. If Congress and the president were to act, the most likely outcome would be a shift in how federal funds are distributed—potentially with fewer strings attached—and a reorganization of some of the department’s key functions.

While Trump’s rhetoric may have made abolition sound simple, shutting down a federal agency is no small feat. It would require an act of Congress

Ultimately, the debate about whether to abolish the Department of Education touches on much larger issues: how to balance federal power with state autonomy, how to fund public schools fairly, and how to ensure that all students, regardless of background, have access to a high-quality education.

As the conversation continues, one thing is clear: any significant change to the Department of Education would have profound implications for the future of education in America, particularly for its most vulnerable students. Whether that future is shaped by a more decentralised approach or by a reformed federal agency remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure—the stakes are high.