The term “dysbiosis” is often used (albeit somewhat controversially) to describe the disordered ecology observed in microbial communities associated with disease states. In such systems proliferation of certain taxa occurs at the expense of others, leading to niche domination through competitive exclusion at the detriment of the host. Despite being a well-recognised hallmark of highly functional microbiomes, the importance of diversity is all too often ignored from a professional perspective. I find it intriguing and frustrating that many microbiologists fail to see the irony in continuing to perpetuate gender inequity, when it has been shown that diversity promotes innovative thinking.

From a global perspective, Australia can be a challenging place to be a scientist. Although we punch above our weight in terms of research output, our geographical isolation limits opportunities to attend international meetings, particularly when funding is tight. I often find myself in a position where I need to weigh up the benefits of networking and professional development against the cost to my budget and time spent away from my core research. Imagine my excitement when I came across something being held almost on my doorstep – the Nature Conference on Environmental and Human Microbiomes (#EHMicrobiome2017) in Singapore. This could be great! The flight between Adelaide to Singapore takes less than 8 hours (a short trip from down under) and there’s only a two hour time difference between the two cities. I could be there and back in a week with no jet lag and less financial damage compared to travelling to the US or Europe. I started to get ahead of myself, thinking about how I could make the most of the trip by visiting a couple of people I know at Nanyang Technological University. As I perused the program and invited speaker list for more information, my heart sank. It was a YAMMM, Yet Another Mostly Male Meeting.

Sadly YAMMMs have become all too common in my field, to the point where I am going to start adding another M for Microbiome. In a gastrointestinal context, where I have been focused for most of my post-PhD career, the Yet Another Mostly Male Microbiome Meeting concept would be analogous to trying to promote host health by selectively supporting proliferation of Firmicutes and inhibiting growth of Bacteroidetes. A reduced diversity scenario such as this would be suboptimal in terms of ecosystem function. I became despondent, thinking about all the amazing women microbiologists I know who could have contributed to the outcomes of the #EHMicrobiome2017 conference. Invited speakers were asked to participate in a closed brainstorming session around each of the themes on the final day so it didn’t make sense to me that diversity wasn’t considered important. Disappointed, I decided that I wasn’t going to spend my travel funds on attending this meeting.

Women can experience further marginalisation at conferences where gender imbalances exist. You might be interested to see what you can observe for yourself. Next time you’re at a meeting, pay attention to the diversity of chairs, speakers and attendees. Does this impact on how often women actively participate in discussions? Does the limited diversity make it harder for women to be included in social interactions? Elisabeth Bik, Science Writer at uBiome and founder of Microbiome Digest (IMHO the best summary of microbiome science available anywhere on the web!) wrote an honest personal account of the Keystone Symposium on Microbiome in Health and Disease, February 5-10 in Colorado. The report is available on the NPJ Biofilms and Microbiomes site here. She observed that despite almost achieving gender parity for the short talks (selected from abstract submissions), less than a third of the keynote speakers and less than a quarter of the moderators were women. In case this wasn’t disappointing enough, she (and others) were actively ignored by some of the invited speakers who appear to have been more interested in chatting amongst themselves. Such experiences may contribute to those insidious feelings of self-doubt that cripple many women in STEM. I have heard similar anecdotes before but many would not be willing to share them publicly, so I want to thank Elisabeth for calling it out and giving me the motivation to write this piece.

Improving gender representation on invited speaker panels at scientific conferences is not difficult. The most effective method is to use guidelines that specify a minimum target threshold, most preferably for each session but at least across the whole event. In the microbiome field there are no reasons why this is impractical since there is no shortage of highly qualified women who would be delighted to be asked! Additional consideration may be required in order to provide extra support (financial or otherwise) to those who have caring responsibilities. If diversity is also present amongst the organising committee these needs will be more readily identified. In the absence of formal guidelines, those responsible for selecting speakers must be able to accept and address criticisms whenever problems occur. The most disappointing aspect for me about #EHMicrobiome2017 was the unwillingness of the (all male) organising committee to do anything about it, even though it was brought to their attention on Twitter more than a month in advance. Elisabeth offered to point them towards her directory of Women in Microbiome Research. It currently consists of more than 450 names and even includes a handy form which makes it easy to add new suggestions. Do the field a favour – add your name, add the names of your friends and colleagues, and most importantly, use it! Provide it to people who come up with great lines such as “ We couldn’t find any women to speak ” or “We asked someone and she said no” or in this particular case “ We did improve our ratio but then had several last minute cancellations so we’re back where we started …. and now it’s a bit too late to ask someone to fly out to Singapore ”. Ugh! It’s unacceptable to make this statement without attempting to make things right. I have no doubt that the situation could have been improved. The end result – YAMMMM proceeds and the patriarchal reality of my career choice comes sharply into focus.

After the conference had finished I obtained a copy of the final program and was even more concerned by what I found. In the figure below I’ve highlighted the names of women in green and men in yellow. Of the thirty individuals listed in any capacity, only five were women (17%). The roles of session chairman (yes, this was the term used), introductory speaker, discussion leader and summary session speaker were exclusively performed by men. There were six keynote talks delivered by five women and 20 keynote talks delivered by 19 men (5/24 = 21% or 6/26 = 23%). No matter how you look at it, the numbers are incriminating. Taken together with the conversations on Twitter, I have no choice but to conclude that gender equity was not considered to be an important component of #EHMicrobiome2017.

Unfortunately my observations are not unique and this scenario occurs frequently at scientific meetings worldwide. Like me, many women in STEM will continue to enjoy a heady mix of frustration and disillusion until something changes. As individuals we have the power of choice over our actions. I am trying to make a difference by highlighting the consequences of gender inequity on a personal level. I can use social media to persuade conference organisers that addressing gender imbalance on speaker panels is the way forward. When that fails, I can vote with my feet and decide that my limited travel budget would be better spent elsewhere. As an early career researcher without much standing in the wider scientific community this may seem tokenistic, but I wonder what would happen if others did the same. Could we reach a point where such events fail to attract a crowd? I hope this post will motivate you to look at more than just the topic and location when considering attending a conference. If you’re in the enviable position that invited speaker invitations arrive regularly in your inbox, it’s not difficult to ask if the event has an equity policy and indicate that your attendance is contingent on a minimum standard being met. Better still, so-called “male champions of change” who openly refuse to participate in YAMMMs and use their professional networks to question others about their involvement are powerful allies for women in STEM. In the microbiome arena Jonathan Eisen is one individual who is leading by example – credit goes to him for coining the term YAMMM and for working to end gender inequity at meetings for at least the last five years.

I’d like to be able to look back on this post in another five years from now and write an update on how things have changed for the better, but one thing is for certain. In the words of George Bernard Shaw “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything”. It’s up to those of us who care enough to convince those in positions of influence that achieving equity and inclusion at conferences is a necessary and important step forward. In response to criticisms about #EHMicrobiome2017, a tweet from @NatureConf on January 10 stated “Yes we guide organizers towards gender & other diversity on programs. Written policies are currently under discussion”. It’s time to revisit that conversation. I am calling on Nature Conferences to take leadership in this space by acting as a champion for diversity. By implementing a policy for future events the Nature Research Group will provide a strong and irrefutable demonstration of their willingness to lead by example on this issue. The benefits from such a simple action will be immediately tangible. By proudly declaring no more YAMMMs we can move together towards the ultimate goal of curing conference dysbiosis, not just in terms of gender but for diversity in the broadest sense.