4.5 Review

Tackling the lack of diversity in cancer research

期刊

DISEASE MODELS & MECHANISMS
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/dmm.050275

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lack of diversity in current academic research is mainly due to insufficient support for studying non-European populations and unequal partnerships between scientists in different income countries. Expanding research funding, increasing the participation of underrepresented scientists, and properly acknowledging the contributions of researchers from low- and middle-income countries can promote equity and lead to more impactful research with diverse samples, improving our understanding of diseases and treatment.
Despite the clear benefit of studying biological samples from diverse genetic backgrounds and geographical locations, our current knowledge of disease is mostly derived from the study of Europeandescent individuals. In the cancer field, this is reflected in the poor representation of African and Amerindian/Latino samples in most large public data repositories. This lack of diversity is due to several reasons, but here we focus on (1) the lack of support for studies on non-European populations that are performed in low- and middleincome countries (LMICs), and (2) unequal partnerships between scientists in LMICs and those in high-income countries. We argue that expanding access to research funding, increasing the participation of underrepresented scientists in editorial boards and international conferences, facilitating the publication of studies conducted in these countries, and properly acknowledging LMIC researchers' contributions in publications and grant applications will promote equity for scientists working in LMICs. We envisage that this will translate to more impactful research in these countries, which will include more samples from diverse populations. For the cancer field, this will broaden our understanding of pathomechanisms and may help to improve the treatment of patients from all backgrounds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据