Empowering women in STEM: Insights from the Paris-Saclay mentoring programme

In the ongoing effort to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within the scientific community, initiatives that support underrepresented groups are increasingly critical. As a leading global publisher, Springer Nature actively promotes women's contributions to science through various initiatives like the Sony Women in Technology Award, the Inspiring Women in Science Awards in collaboration with Estee Lauder, and the Nature Awards for Mentoring in Science. In line with these efforts, the 2023 Nature Awards for Mentoring in Science ceremony included a roundtable discussion titled "Best Practices in Research on Ethics, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," which featured valuable insights from Gwenaëlle André. 

In this interview, Gwenaëlle André and Géraldine Liot discuss their co-managed mentoring programme for female PhD students at the University of Paris-Saclay. This programme empowers young women in STEM by addressing systemic challenges and promoting personal and professional growth through mentorship. They explore the programme's inspiration, its impact on ethical research, and best practices for enhancing diversity in academia.  

What inspired you to develop and co-manage the mentoring programme for female PhD students at the University of Paris-Saclay, particularly in terms of promoting ethics and diversity within the scientific community? 

GA: The mentoring programme, established in 2018 by Marina Kvaskoff and Sylvaine Turck-Chièze from the association Femmes et Sciences, was inspired by American models and quickly addressed the critical need for support for young female scientists. In fields like physics and computer science, female PhD students are often the only women in a team of men, and in disciplines such as biology, the glass ceiling remains. This programme provides access to a "safe space" where young women can find female role models and realise that a successful career is genuinely possible. The aim is not to create a divide between male and female scientists, but to help young women deconstruct limiting beliefs and assert themselves in the scientific world. 

GL: Most mentors in the programme are motivated by their own experiences. Having had a mentor who supported them throughout their career inspires them to offer the same support to younger generations. Similarly, not having had the opportunity to have a mentor often motivates individuals to become mentors for the new generation of young female scientists. 

Can you share some best practices in research that promote ethics, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and that you believe should be widely adopted within the scientific community? 

GL: Developing "quality of work life" structures and/or "employee feedback" programmes, as well as mentoring programmes within research labs and universities, greatly helps students and employees feel better supported and able to express themselves. For example, new mentoring programmes targeting specific institutes or fields have been created, promoting diversity, and equity and inclusion (DEI), particularly for underrepresented groups such as non-native speakers or women in traditionally male-dominated hard sciences. 

GA: Educating scientists to value diversity helps promote inclusion. Achieving gender parity in evaluation bodies is crucial but should never be used as a façade of equity. The CRCN (Chargé de Recherche de Classe Normale) competition, which allows female scientists to take a year off their career evaluation for each child born, acknowledging the impact of maternity leave on their career progression. Some institutes offer budgets to support returning from maternity leave, an excellent idea that should be extended to all institutes. We also need to consider how to handle issues like ensuring publications, maintaining data security, and redistributing responsibilities such as student supervision during maternity leave, as current practices often lack ethical consideration. 

How does the mentoring programme specifically address the challenges faced by female PhD students in achieving equity and inclusion within the scientific community? 

GL: Our programme aims to support and inspire young women at the beginning of their careers in science. Through experienced mentors, it demonstrates that they too can succeed in traditionally male-dominated scientific fields. These mentees will, in turn, become role models themselves, promoting equity and inclusion within the scientific community. 

GA: The programme offers a pool of exemplary female scientists, broadening perspectives and fostering inclusion. It connects young women to an international community of mentors, showcasing the richness of careers and opportunities to break free from the "minority" label. It allows them to realise that they share similar concerns and, most importantly, the same ambition to keep science at the heart of their professional lives. This promotes equity and challenges the common but mistaken belief that female scientists must give up motherhood and become tough to succeed. Over the past five years, our programme composed of 50% of young female scientists from Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, creates an international community and network where they support each other and assert themselves. 

In your opinion, what role do publishers play in promoting DEI in scientific research, and how does your mentoring programme seek to influence this? 

GA: The publishing sector plays a key role by highlighting role-model scientists and showing that it's possible to succeed in science without sacrificing personal values, family life, or a fair salary. It’s important to publish on issues such as the mental cost of a STEM career, which can be especially hard for women of colour (doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00324-0), and maternity (doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00239-w), misogyny, etc. Reducing publication costs for authors from less developed countries represents a significant advancement in equity and inclusion. Finally, promoting the possibility for two or three authors to be co-corresponding or co-last authors is necessary. In France, the evaluation of academic researchers is based on their position in publications, rendering other contributions invisible. Making all contributions more visible could ease the pressure around authorship and create a fairer system. 

GL: Publishers are increasingly publishing articles on DEI, as well as on the working conditions of PhD students and post-docs. This helps doctoral students better understand the challenges of academic research and make informed decisions about their professional future. We are particularly sensitive to this issue and regularly update our primary communication tool, Padlet, with such articles. 

What advice would you give to other universities and institutions looking to implement mentoring programmes aimed at promoting DEI in the scientific community and the publishing sector? 

GL: We would recommend they seek support from their university or institution, with both financial and human resources, to make their programme rich in activities and events, and as beneficial as possible for students/employees. This will enable the creation of multiple mentoring programmes addressing various audiences, as needs are now emerging for master's and PhD students, as well as newly recruited young researchers. 

GA: Being supported by prestigious publishers that showcase inspiring scientists, especially women and people from minority backgrounds, is very encouraging. Organising round tables between publishers and scientists at conferences, having leading thinkers discuss DEI, or featuring interviews with modest scientists (like me) can highlight possibilities and reinforce the value of science.