Å·ÃÀAV

Chemistry thrives when it draws on the full breadth of expertise within our community, yet we are failing to live up to our collective potential. If we continue to marginalise disabled scientists and their contributions because we don’t provide workplaces in which they can flourish, we risk missing out on future generations of talent and ground-breaking advances in our sector.

Our new report, Disability-Inclusive Laboratories in the Chemical Sciences, sets out clear evidence that accessibility and inclusion cannot remain peripheral considerations if we expect our discipline to meet the scientific, economic and societal demands placed upon it. As well as those pragmatic arguments though, there is a clear moral one: inclusion demonstrably improves outcomes, but it is also the right thing to do.

In the current political and economic climate, where uncertainty and volatility can complicate organisational priorities, it may be tempting for some to scale back inclusion efforts. Doing so would be a strategic mistake. Research repeatedly demonstrates that diverse, inclusive environments support creativity, innovation and scientific excellence. Meeting global challenges in energy, climate, health and materials will require every available talent. Excluding capable scientists because laboratories are difficult to navigate or cultures remain outdated is neither rational nor acceptable.

We at the Å·ÃÀAV remain committed to championing inclusion and diversity, regardless of external pressures. Our responsibility is to ensure that chemistry retains and attracts talent, that future chemists see a place for themselves in our laboratories, and that scientific excellence is not hindered by avoidable barriers. This report offers a practical, evidence-led blueprint for progress.

Through extensive quantitative and qualitative research, we have heard from disabled scientists about the barriers they face. More than 400 members of our community shared their feedback through our survey, and a series of interviews gave us a more revealing – and in some cases concerning – insight into life in the lab. Armed with this, we have a clearer sense of understanding as to what the problems are and what can and must be done to address them.

Physical barriers remain widespread: fixed-height benches, narrow walkways, heavy doors and inaccessible instrumentation continue to exclude individuals whose mobility or dexterity needs differ from those of the designers. Sensory environments are often overwhelming, with constant noise from machinery and bright, inflexible lighting posing challenges for many neurodivergent chemists. Even fundamental tasks such as reading labels, navigating software or accessing digital systems can be unnecessarily difficult without thoughtful design.

Taken with the findings of our Pay and Reward Survey, which has already shown that disabled colleagues face lower salaries, fewer promotion prospects and are less likely to feel secure in their roles, it’s clear that the issues affecting disabled scientists are systemic and require solutions. Without doing so, we can expect talented individuals to use their knowledge and passion elsewhere, which is a lose-lose situation for those affected and our community as a whole.

As a starting point in addressing the barriers captured in the report, we have developed a set of five core principles that should shape the way we approach the concept of laboratory inclusivity. Building on those, our 15-strong list of recommendations covers five key stakeholder groups and lays out a clear, actionable path to more accessible and inclusive workspaces in our sector.

The findings also underline the importance of an enabling mindset across the chemical sciences community. Progress depends on cultivating a culture that starts from the question of how participation can be facilitated. When laboratory leaders, colleagues and institutions adopt an approach centred on possibility and adaptation, the conversation changes. Instead of questioning whether someone can take part, the focus becomes identifying what design choices or adjustments will allow them to contribute fully and safely.

The report is deliberately forward-looking, and one of its most important outputs is the creation of a living library of case studies. This resource brings together practical examples of inclusive design, creative adjustments and organisational learning from across the sector. It is intended as a dynamic hub for good practice, to which the community can contribute additional ideas, experiences and case studies. As the evidence base grows, the library will be updated periodically, ensuring that everyone in our community has ongoing access to the latest insights. This approach reflects the reality that inclusion is not a finite project but an evolving endeavour, strengthened by shared knowledge and collective problem-solving.

Case studies already demonstrate what is possible: height-adjustable fume hoods, clear colour contrast, quieter equipment, accessible digital systems and alternative modes of laboratory participation all emerge as impactful and achievable interventions. Many benefit all laboratory users. As the report notes, accessible design often functions like a dropped kerb: created to meet a specific need, yet ultimately advantageous to everyone. This is important as misconceptions about the cost of change and the amount of work required to make spaces more accessible still exist, when the reality is that this is not necessarily the case.

A central message of the report is the need for chemistry to focus far more consciously on people’s abilities rather than their disabilities. Disabled chemists already contribute exceptional insight, creativity and technical expertise, yet those strengths are often overshadowed by assumptions about what they might find difficult. When environments, systems and organisational cultures are designed inclusively, those abilities can flourish.

This shift in emphasis – from perceived limitations to actual capabilities – strengthens all of chemistry by placing value on the skills and perspectives that disabled scientists bring, rather than allowing inaccessible structures to define them.

We welcome engagement from across our community, and now is the time to turn commitment into action. To help drive meaningful change across the chemical sciences, we encourage you to:

• Visit our dedicated webpage that gives a summary of our work at a glance. 
• Download the full report and familiarise yourself with the evidence, principles and priorities it sets out.
• Apply the recommendations to your own organisation or laboratory, using them to inform planning, design and day-to-day practice.
• Explore case studies in our living library so others can learn from practical examples, creative adjustments and effective approaches already making a difference.
• to help the rest of our community build on your experiences and make workspaces more accessible.

By taking these steps, you can join us on the journey to a more inclusive and accessible chemistry community. Let's create laboratories where every chemist can work, contribute and progress on equal terms.