Applying Scientific Rigor to Lab Culture: 5 Steps to Building Genuine Belonging in STEM

In the high-stakes world of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), inclusion sometimes gets treated as a checkbox or just something nice to have. It becomes a required paragraph in a grant application or a mandatory training to attend.  Or, in the current climate, as something to be weary of and completely move away from so as not to risk losing funding.  But during my three years (2021-2024) of supporting NASA scientists in crafting rigorous Inclusion Plans, I saw firsthand that the most successful teams take steps to build a more positive work environment not as a bureaucratic requirement, but as a critical component of their technical infrastructure. And guess what? We don't need to use the words diversity, equity, or inclusion to get to the heart of building a working group, a lab, or a collaboration that values both the science and the wellbeing of the people working together. 

Scientists who are designing for a mission to MarsΩ don't leave the life-support systems to chance. They map every failure point, define every role, and build in assessment mechanisms. Yet, when it comes to the "human system" of the lab, we often rely on assumptions, hope, and good intentions.

Without a rigorous plan, I’ve seen scientists feel paralyzed by authority, group members who don’t feel safe to integrate parenthood with productivity. These and many similar experiences often quietly erode brilliance and talent due to a lack of belonging.

If we want to move from a culture of hoping it all goes well to creating a culture of genuine belonging, we need to apply the same rigor to our people plans that we apply to payloads. 

Based on the frameworks I’ve worked with scientific labs to implement ways to start transforming the culture of your working group, lab, or collaboration. 

1. Identify the Specific Barriers. General statements like "we value everyone" are words on a page until there are actions in place that can show us what we are doing to ensure everyone feels and is valued on our team. Creating an environment where everyone can feel a sense of belonging means taking stock of what is currently happening. 

The Shift: Instead of asking "Are we inclusive?", ask "What specific barriers exist for our team/group/collaboration?"  

Here are a few examples of questions to ask and answer:

• Is it a teammate who stifles divergent ideas? 

• Is it a lack of flexibility for those with caregiving responsibilities?

• Is it a space where postdocs aren't viewed as peers?

• Does the group always meet at the same time leaving one group of collaborators meeting after hours for years?

• How does the group navigate deadlines aligned with holidays that people need time away for?

List the potential barriers for your group. Ask questions that will surface additional barriers you haven’t considered. If there is enough psychological safety, asking your group to reflect on and share the challenges they are facing interpersonally or as a group you can ascertain a more clear picture

Then look into what steps would we need to take to help bridge the gaps or address these challenges. 

2. Design for the Areas of Concern. Identification is only the first step. The second is creating a tactical plan to reduce those barriers.

The Shift: Move from "passive support" to "active attention." 

If a barrier identified is a fear of authority, the solution isn't "be more open." The solution is a structural change such as implementing an anonymous way to offer suggestions. (And making sure suggestions are taken into consideration and changes are made - don’t ask for feedback in areas that you aren’t willing to make changes.) This might also look like making project shifts or scheduling "non-hierarchical" brainstorm sessions where the PI speaks last. There is no one way to respond to this but there are many options to choose from to take steps towards building a group that doesn’t experience authority as associated with fear, it may take more than one try of different methods and your group culture can be changed. 

3. Define Roles and Responsibilities. Inclusion is not the sole responsibility of the most marginalized person in the room. It is a work effort that must be distributed across the entire team.

The Shift: Make onboarding new members into the lab's cultural norms a shared responsibility.

Determine the steps to make sure everyone clearly understands how credit will distributed equitably (not always equally) in publications.  Hint - you don’t have to know the perfect answer to how this is done, check out multiple labs websites and see that many already have ideas of how to do this clearly shared - then you can ask everyone to bring ideas to the table and use ideas gathered as a jumping off point for how your group in specific wants to negotiate how paper authorship will be determined. 

These are steps a group can take to share the responsibility of helping new members understand the culture and feel valued. 

4. Establish a Timeline for Evolution. Culture doesn't change in a vacuum; it changes through a series of intentional steps, learning and adapting to the changes over time.

The Shift: Treat each new action as you would for the scientific project. You don't just "try to be better." You create timelines, you create fallback ideas, you change course when one thing doesn’t work, and you remember it’s okay to try something else. 

And you don’t try 50 new things all at once. You look at the year ahead and plan out the timing. Quarter 1: Define role clarity for all collaborators. Quarter 2: Implement flexible-work agreements that will better support parents and caregivers. A timeline transforms a vague, nice to have into a real professional commitment. Then you can check back on this quarterly, semesterly, monthly, etc. 

5. Build Assessment Mechanisms. In science, if you can't measure it, you can't improve it. The same is true for lab culture.

The Shift: Create a feedback loop that doesn't rely on "feeling." 

Use anonymous ways to receive feedback, implement exit interviews, or find ways to check in more often and evaluate progress. (Remember, this can be conversational. It doesn't always have to be a survey). Are the barriers identified in step one actually decreasing? Are individuals more able to complete their work and take care of themselves?

When we apply this level of intentionality to our teams, inclusion isn't a distraction from the science but rather a catalyst for people to thrive in their scientific environments. By reducing the emotional tax of navigating a fractured environment, we free up the cognitive bandwidth of our scientists to do what they do best: innovate, discover, and explore.

This blog post draws from real lived experiences from Erin-Kate Escobar Consulting working with STEM organizations for 10 years and utilized Duck AI’s Claude Haiku to help organize ideas.