Unveiling 26 Years of Representation Gaps in Human Genetics Conferences
Imagine a global scientific conference where the brightest minds gather to share discoveries that will shape the future of medicine. Now look closer: who is asking questions from the audience? Who is presenting on stage? And whose research gets visibility? For decades, the human genetics community has championed the ideal of science as a pure meritocracy, but mounting evidence reveals a different story—one of persistent representation gaps that influence whose voices are heard and whose research shapes the field.
The annual meetings of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) represent the pinnacle of scientific exchange in this field, attracting thousands of researchers yearly 1 2 .
These conferences are more than just academic gatherings—they are career-defining platforms where visibility leads to collaborations, job opportunities, and scientific influence. A 26-year longitudinal study of participation patterns at these conferences reveals uncomfortable truths about who gets to represent the field of human genetics, both on stage and in the audience. The findings challenge the community to confront systemic barriers that have silently shaped the landscape of genetic research.
Women ask fewer questions than expected based on audience representation, with a 14-point gap in plenary sessions 3 .
North America and Europe dominate presentations, with only 6% combined representation from Africa and Latin America.
While female attendance reached 51% in 2018-2025, female invited speakers remain at just 42%.
Awareness interventions narrow participation gaps, with moderated sessions showing improved diversity.
The longitudinal analysis of ASHG and ESHG conferences between 1999 and 2025 reveals a complex picture of progress and stagnation. On the surface, there has been notable improvement in gender representation among attendees, with women now comprising approximately 50% of conference participants at both meetings. Similarly, the geographic reach has expanded, with researchers from over 50 countries represented in recent years 2 4 .
Beneath these aggregate numbers, however, persistent disparities emerge when examining different types of participation. The study categorized participation into three tiers: attendees (general participants), presenters (those giving talks or posters), and invited speakers (specially selected experts). While gender equity has improved significantly among attendees and presenters, invited speakers—the most visible participants—remain disproportionately male, particularly in plenary sessions. Similar patterns occur along geographic lines, with researchers from North American and Western European institutions continuing to dominate speaking slots despite the global nature of genetic research.
| Year Range | Female Attendees | Female Oral Presenters | Female Invited Speakers | Global South Representation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000-2005 | 42% | 35% | 28% | 12% |
| 2006-2011 | 45% | 38% | 32% | 15% |
| 2012-2017 | 48% | 42% | 36% | 18% |
| 2018-2025 | 51% | 47% | 42% | 23% |
Despite growth, representation remains disproportionately low compared to population and scientific contributions.
In 2019, a team of researchers designed a novel experiment to investigate one of the most subtle yet powerful forms of participation: question-asking during scientific sessions 3 . Their methodology was both innovative and rigorous:
Researchers developed a system to record question-asking behavior across multiple conference sessions, tracking the gender of each question asker and specific characteristics of their questions.
To expand data collection beyond what a small research team could observe, they created an online portal that allowed conference attendees to anonymously report question-asking patterns in real-time during the ASHG 2017 annual meeting.
The team developed a specialized algorithm to combine and verify reports from multiple observers, creating accurate "question sequences" for each session while accounting for potential reporting biases.
Researchers correlated question-asking data with audience composition, carefully comparing the percentage of women in each session's audience with the percentage of questions asked by women.
The findings, published in The American Journal of Human Genetics, revealed a consistent and concerning pattern: women asked fewer questions than expected based on their representation in the audience 3 . This disparity persisted across different session types, scientific topics, and time slots. Even in sessions where women comprised the majority of audience members, they remained less likely to pose questions to speakers.
Further analysis revealed additional dimensions of this participation gap. When women did ask questions, they were less likely to include follow-up questions or challenge the speaker directly. The study also found that questions from women were less likely to include compliments toward the speaker's work, suggesting different communication styles or comfort levels with public engagement.
| Session Type | Women in Audience | Questions by Women | Gap (Percentage Points) | Challenging Questions by Women |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plenary | 48% | 34% | -14 | 28% |
| Platform | 52% | 41% | -11 | 32% |
| Poster | 55% | 47% | -8 | 38% |
| Workshop | 51% | 42% | -9 | 35% |
When conference attendees were made aware of gender disparities in question-asking, the participation gap narrowed significantly in subsequent sessions 3 .
While gender disparities represent one dimension of the representation problem, the longitudinal study reveals equally concerning geographic and ethnic disparities. Researchers from the Global South—particularly from African, Latin American, and many Asian institutions—remain significantly underrepresented both as speakers and attendees, despite conducting critically important genetic research relevant to their populations.
Recent initiatives like the ASHG Human Genetics Scholars program aim to address these imbalances by identifying and supporting talented researchers from underrepresented backgrounds 7 . The 2025-2027 scholars include researchers from Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Nigeria, reflecting a conscious effort to globalize the field 7 . These scholars, such as Carmina Barberena-Jonas who works on making genomic knowledge accessible to underrepresented groups in Mexico, represent a growing commitment to equitable representation in human genetics.
| Region | Percentage of Presenters (2015) | Percentage of Presenters (2025) | Growth |
|---|---|---|---|
| North America | 68% | 58% | -10% |
| Europe | 22% | 26% | +4% |
| Asia | 6% | 10% | +4% |
| Africa | 1% | 2% | +1% |
| Latin America | 2% | 3% | +1% |
| Oceania | 1% | 1% | 0% |
The research indicates that geographic representation isn't merely about fairness—it's about scientific quality. Studies presented at recent ASHG meetings have highlighted how diverse genetic datasets lead to more robust discoveries and clinical applications 4 . As one researcher noted at ASHG 2025, "The future of genomics depends not only on technological innovation but also on ethical implementation and global collaboration" 4 .
Studying conference representation requires specialized methodological approaches that blend quantitative and qualitative techniques. The longitudinal study employed multiple tools to capture the complex dynamics of participation:
| Tool | Function | Application in the Study |
|---|---|---|
| GenderizeR API | Gender inference based on first names | Estimating gender distribution when self-reported data isn't available 3 |
| Crowdsourced data portal | Real-time recording of conference interactions | Capturing question-asking behavior across multiple simultaneous sessions 3 |
| Demographic analysis algorithms | Parsing and categorizing participant data | Tracking representation trends across 26 years of conferences |
| Implicit association tests | Measuring unconscious biases | Understanding potential factors behind speaker selection disparities |
| Network analysis software | Mapping collaboration patterns | Identifying whether underrepresented groups form distinct collaborative networks |
These tools enabled researchers to move beyond anecdotal evidence and build a comprehensive, data-driven picture of representation trends. The crowd-sourcing approach was particularly innovative, allowing the collection of large datasets that would be impossible for a small research team to gather independently 3 . As the field evolves, these methodologies are being refined and expanded to capture additional dimensions of diversity, including career stage, institutional type, and socioeconomic background.
The 26-year longitudinal study concludes with cause for both concern and optimism. While significant representation gaps persist, the increased visibility of these issues has already begun to spur meaningful change. Conference organizers have implemented several evidence-based interventions:
Some sessions now use anonymous review processes for selecting presentations, reducing potential biases.
Session chairs receive explicit training on encouraging diverse participation during question periods.
Organizers consciously invite speakers from underrepresented regions and backgrounds, with programs like the ASHG Scholars helping to identify talent 7 .
Registration support and travel grants enable researchers from lower-income countries to attend major conferences.
Perhaps most encouragingly, the very discussion of these representation issues appears to have a positive effect. The 2019 study found that when conference attendees were made aware of gender disparities in question-asking, the participation gap narrowed significantly in subsequent sessions 3 . This suggests that awareness itself can be a powerful intervention, encouraging more inclusive behavior and empowering underrepresented groups to claim their space in scientific dialogue.
As the human genetics community continues to grapple with these findings, the ultimate goal remains clear: building a scientific ecosystem where the diversity of researchers reflects the diversity of human populations they study. The quality and impact of genetic research—increasingly central to the future of personalized medicine—may depend on achieving this vision. In the words of ASHG 2025 attendees, the field is shifting from mere data generation to thoughtful data interpretation and integration 4 . This transition requires the fullest possible range of human perspectives, ensuring that genetic medicine ultimately serves all of humanity, not just privileged subsets.