The Unseen Prism: How Androcentric Bias Shapes Forest Genetics

Imagine a world where the tools we use to understand nature—the very questions we ask, the methods we employ, and the solutions we prioritize—are unconsciously filtered through a single gendered lens. This is the central concern of androcentric bias in science: a male-centered perspective that can subtly influence how research is designed, interpreted, and applied.

While often discussed in fields like medicine or psychology, its presence in disciplines like forest genetics is more insidious and less explored. Forest genetics, the science of understanding and improving the genetic makeup of trees for resilience, productivity, and ecosystem health, stands at the crossroads of critical global challenges like climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. When bias influences this field, it doesn't just affect scientific papers; it can shape the very forests of our future.

This article explores how androcentric bias manifests in forest genetics, the consequences for science and society, and how the field is beginning to cultivate a more inclusive and robust future.

Androcentrism, simply put, is a worldview where the male experience is treated as the universal human norm, while the female experience is seen as a deviation or a specialized subset. This bias can seep into scientific practice in various ways, from the language used to describe natural phenomena to the prioritization of certain research questions over others.

A related concept is anthropocentrism, or human-centered bias. As discussed in scientific literature, this perspective positions humans, and specifically male humans, at the apex of a hierarchy of life, influencing how we describe biological processes across species ¹ . For instance, using human-specific terms like "Fallopian tube" instead of the more universal "oviduct" when describing animal anatomy is one manifestation of this bias.

In reproductive biology, which shares conceptual ground with genetics, these biases have a long history. One analysis notes that "the language of reproductive biology is not exempt from this cultural bias," with metaphors of violence and marriage historically influencing the description of cellular processes like conception ¹ . This legacy of biased terminology can obscure scientific objectivity and create a less welcoming environment for diverse perspectives.

The field of forestry, and the genetics research within it, has traditionally been a male-dominated domain. This is not merely a matter of workforce demographics but influences the culture, priorities, and outcomes of the science itself.

Forest research and professional workforces continue to be dominated by men, particularly at senior and management levels. This gender disparity has been documented globally. For example, in Sweden, a country known for its extensive forests, only about 17% of the forestry workforce were women as of 2014, and only about 20% of forest engineering students were women in 2019, despite gender equity policies ² . This imbalance is perpetuated by a "masculine culture of forestry" and traditional perceptions that women are not well-suited to physically demanding field work ² .

The underrepresentation is particularly pronounced in leadership and gatekeeping roles. An analysis of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) Global Congresses found that male scientists from the Global North dominated the conferences, especially in organizing and leadership roles, with women contributing less than a third of conference roles ² . Similarly, a review of editorial boards in environmental sciences found only 16% of subject editors were women ² . This lack of representation at decision-making levels creates a cycle where the perspectives and research interests of the majority continue to set the agenda.

The gender disparities in the forestry workforce are not just a human resources issue; they have tangible effects on the rigor, relevance, and application of scientific knowledge. A homogeneous group of researchers is more likely to have blind spots, potentially overlooking questions or interpretations that would be obvious from a different vantage point.

When half the population is underrepresented in research, critical areas of study can be neglected. As one analysis put it, "concerns around women in the forest sector are largely absent or inadequately addressed in forestry research journals" ² . When gender is included, studies are often restricted to "gender-awareness" rather than being truly "gender-transformative" work that challenges underlying social dynamics ² . This means research might note differences between men and women but fail to analyze the power structures that created those differences.

The impact of this exclusion is particularly acute in the context of community forestry and conservation. Rural women are often excluded from decentralized forest governance structures, leading to an unequal distribution of the benefits from forest resources ² . If the research guiding these policies is itself androcentric, it risks reinforcing these inequities. For instance, if studies on non-timber forest products only interview male community members, they will miss the crucial knowledge and reliance that women often have on these resources. This results in "reduced scientific rigor and inequitable, ineffective, and less efficient policies, programs, and interventions" ³ .

To understand how researchers empirically measure gender bias in a field like forestry, we can look to a landmark type of study that examines gender roles in forest governance. The following experiment is synthesized from methodologies used in real-world forestry research.

Methodology: A Step-by-Step Approach

Results: Gendered Knowledge of Tree Species