Recently in the United States, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies have been put into the spotlight via a number of Executive Orders that challenge their value to society. However, science has established the importance of diversity time and time again.

There are numerous examples of how diversity improves the practice of science itself. For instance, a 2020 study that assessed the publishing habits and faculty positions of approximately 1.2 million US doctoral recipients found that underrepresented groups produced higher rates of scientific novelty, but that unfortunately their contributions were often discounted, leading to lower adoption by others1. This devaluation was echoed last year by Christine Yifeng Chen2, where she highlighted data showing that minorities were funded at below-average rates, while white applicants received funding at above-average rates. More recent work has also shown that gender-diverse teams produced more novel and impactful scientific works3, and countless others have echoed similar findings4,5,6,7.

The positive impact of diversity extends into other sectors as well. For example, a 2023 report from McKinsey & Company showed that companies with more than 30% women were substantially more likely to outperform those with less or equal than 30%, and those with higher ethnic diversity were 27% more likely to financially outperform less-diverse companies. Overall, companies with more gender diversity on executive teams were 39% more likely to outperform their competitors in the bottom quartile. Harvard Business Review also found that companies with higher diversity in leadership roles were 70% more likely to capture a new market8. Another study showed that racial and gender diversity improved sales revenue and resulted in greater relative profits9.

Similar results can be found in the healthcare industry, where diversity is essential for broadening healthcare access for underserved populations10,11,12. In response to the executive order, and to comply with a memorandum that followed, health agencies have purged large amounts of data related to race and gender13, despite research establishing that improved diversity in clinical data is critical for providing adequate and equitable care14. Resources related to race, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) web page on Efforts to Address Racism as a Fundamental Driver of Health Disparities, have gone dark — and have not been restored at the time of writing. HIV- and LGBTQ+-related resources have also been taken down, such as the CDC’s AtlasPlus tool — which has since been brought back — and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Data Dashboard. Unfortunately, these actions dovetail with the censorship and erasure of LGBTQ+ people from AI training data15, which was discussed in our recent Focus.

The evidence is clear: diversity is one of our greatest strengths and has a substantial positive impact across different areas. We are proud to have such a diverse community of authors, reviewers and readers. We recognize that it is our responsibility to work towards overcoming inequities and to foster a culture of diversity and inclusion in our communities. As such, we will continue to engage with researchers at all stages of their career to understand their needs and support authors in doing and publishing the best science, as well as in ensuring we tackle the pressing problems of our world.