Skip to main content
mSystems logoLink to mSystems
. 2021 Oct 12;6(5):e01151-21. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.01151-21

Advancing Equity and Inclusion in Microbiome Research and Training

Alicia J Foxx a,, Karla P Franco Meléndez a,#, Janani Hariharan b,#, Ariangela J Kozik c,#, Cassandra J Wattenburger b,#, Filipa Godoy-Vitorino d, Adam R Rivers a,
Editor: Benjamin E Wolfee
PMCID: PMC8510545  PMID: 34636663

ABSTRACT

This article proposes ways to improve inclusion and training in microbiome science and advocates for resource expansion to improve scientific capacity across institutions and countries. Specifically, we urge mentors, collaborators, and decision-makers to commit to inclusive and accessible research and training that improves the quality of microbiome science and begins to rectify long-standing inequities imposed by wealth disparities and racism that stall scientific progress.

KEYWORDS: collaboration, equity, inclusion, international, mentoring, microbiome, training

MAKING THE CASE FOR EQUITY IN MICROBIOME SCIENCE

Microbiome research is being applied to important global challenges like pandemic preparedness, infectious disease prevention, climate change, and food security. This research is currently concentrated in a few resource-rich countries (1) which limits the field in several ways. The best solutions to these global challenges come from the work of scientists who understand the cultural and logistical needs of implementing solutions in their communities. The microbiomes of natural, host-associated, and built environments vary geographically, so undersampling large regions of the world limits our understanding of microbial communities (2, 3). This leaves a valuable subset of the microbial biosphere uncharacterized and a valuable subset of researchers excluded. Changes to microbiome science that increase scientific opportunities for persons historically excluded due to ethnicity and people from low- and middle-income countries will improve the quality of research in the field as well as being the right thing to do.

UNIQUE AND SHARED CHALLENGES FOR PEER AND LMIC MICROBIOME SCIENTISTS

Persons who identify as Black or African American, Latinx or Hispanic, and peoples indigenous to land comprising the United States and its territories (henceforth called PEERs for persons excluded due to ethnicity or race) (4, 5) have been excluded from, and therefore underrepresented in microbial science, and the sciences more broadly. Scientists from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are similarly underrepresented in contemporary science. To make microbiome science global, equitable, and inclusive, and thus serve everyone, we explicitly focus on support for PEER and LMIC scientists and trainees. These groups differ in the challenges they face for different socio-political reasons, but we identify common needs and advocate for changes and resources aimed at improving inclusion and access to microbiome research. This article is intended to start a conversation within the microbiome community, and we provide resources for persons in decision-making positions (e.g., principal investigators, mentors, collaborators, funders, administrators, professional societies) to implement and invest in equity in science and health (Fig. 1).

FIG 1.

FIG 1

Decision-makers, key areas of change within the microbiome sciences, and actions that will foster inclusion for PEER and LMIC scientists in microbiome sciences.

PEER scientists.

The systematic exclusion of PEERs from academic and scientific pursuits contributes to the persistent underrepresentation of PEER individuals in the microbial sciences (4, 6). Decades of efforts have failed to lead to major, sustained increases in representation of PEER scientists, especially in leadership roles and other positions of influence; this is especially acute in microbiology (7). Recent critiques have highlighted the need to shift narratives (and therefore solutions) away from a deficit framework and toward making changes to institutions themselves. A deficit framework focuses only on diversity and emphasizes a perceived lack of ability or “fit” of PEER individuals. However, improvements can be made by prioritizing the transformation of teaching, training, and research environments to better serve PEER individuals and an organization as a whole (8). This transformation requires a commitment to equity and inclusion that includes stakeholders at all levels and a willingness to identify and address structural and systemic barriers (9). Challenges exist at every step from recruitment into undergraduate and graduate training through promotion and tenure (1012), mentoring (13, 14), appointment to leadership positions (7, 15), career development for nonacademic pursuits (16, 17), publishing (1821), and acquisition of funding (2225). However, PEERs in the microbial sciences are expected to persist despite cultures that devalue them and their talents. The institutions that have historically served PEER scientists like American community colleges, tribal colleges, and historically black colleges and universities often contend with reduced access to resources and infrastructure needed to train students in computing and communication skills (2628). There is a need for bold, resourced, and strategic programs that support the careers and training of PEERs in microbiome sciences, their matriculation to leadership positions, and the transformation of programs, departments, and organizations to ensure inclusive cultures where everyone can thrive.

LMIC scientists.

Like PEER scientists, LMIC scientists bring a wealth of talent, ideas, and perspectives that would enrich the scientific process and culture, and yet, researchers from both groups often lack opportunities to acquire the training, funds, and support to make significant contributions to their fields. Countries holding economic and technological wealth must cooperate synergistically with LMICs to promote their participation and leadership in research for a more globally inclusive microbiome training agenda (2932). In Table 1, the “Guidelines for equitable collaboration and mentoring practices with LMIC and PEER scientists” detail resources that have been successfully used toward developing guidelines that promote equitable research collaborations between well-funded research institutions and LMIC scientists. When establishing global partnerships for microbiome research, consider following the guidelines and successful examples detailed in Table 1. Existing international programs in microbiome surveying (Table 1, “Microbiome-focused equitable partnerships”) show that equitable partnerships in this field are not only possible but are successful through sharing of resources, project responsibilities, and funding. Their contributions to the field include significant microbiome curation efforts, including the design of standard protocols for sample collection and processing, data analysis, and data sharing (39). We propose that these and other international working groups, already at the forefront of microbiome research, serve as exemplars in the creation of guidelines for inclusive and equitable collaborations with LMIC scientists.

TABLE 1.

Organizational resources and examples of equitable research and mentoring practices with LMIC and PEER scientists and trainees

Theme Resources
Guidelines for equitable collaboration and mentoring practices with LMIC and PEER scientists Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations (33): guidance on agreements and responsibilities when engaging in cross-national, -institutional, and -disciplinary research
The Swiss Commission for Research Partnership with Developing Countries (34) and The Research Fairness Initiative (35, 36): organization and program for equitable collaboration with LMIC scientists
The Nagoya Protocol (37): equitable access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources
National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine mentoring report (38): guidance on inclusive mentoring practices
IDEA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE): support for research, mentoring, collaboration. and faculty training in Puerto Rico (http://inbre.hpcf.upr.edu/bioinformatics-resource-core/)
Microbiome-focused equitable partnerships The Earth Microbiome Project (39): a global initiative focused on the development of standard operating procedures for the characterization of the earth microbiome
The international Human Microbiome Standards (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/261376): a global initiative focused on the development of standard operating procedures for the characterization of the human microbiome
The Benioff Center for Microbiome Medicine (https://microbiome.ucsf.edu/commitment-diversity-equity-and-inclusion): example of PEER support and in microbiome sciences
Team building and communication resources Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Leadership in Bioscience Workshop (https://meetings.cshl.edu/courses.aspx?course=c-leader&year=19): workshop on effective leadership and mentoring in science
EMBO Laboratory Leadership course (https://lab-management.embo.org/): leadership courses with an emphasis on research and research dissemination
Springer Nature Effective Collaboration course (https://masterclasses.nature.com/online-course-effective-collaboration-in-research/17078834): course on effective collaboration in science
UCSF The Scientific Leadership and Management Skills course (https://postdocs.ucsf.edu/slms): example of a leadership program for postdoctoral researchers in sciences
Microbiome training and conference-based support for LMIC and PEER scientists International Society for Microbial Ecology (https://www.isme-microbes.org/ambassadors): Ambassador program with global organizations for workshops and activities
The Microbiota Vault (https://www.microbiotavault.org) and MV-Global Microbiome Network (GloMiNe) symposia: example of global symposium with the goal of education to promote preservation of microbial ecosystems in nature and in collections
Codes of ethics at conferences to support underrepresented scientists (40)
Guidelines for organizing an intentional bioinformatics training in LMIC (41)

We also highlight more specific pathways toward training and research practices that enrich the experiences of both LMIC and PEER scientists that scientists from high-income countries (HIC) can take up. For mentoring and collaboration, HIC scientists can create mentoring communities with more than one mentor to provide various perspectives for PEER and LMIC mentees (38) and understand and dismantle power dynamics associated with privilege within PEER mentorship. Mentors and collaborators from positions of privilege should counteract factors that negatively affect mentees’ experiences (e.g., combating institutional racism) and should employ culturally responsive mentoring and collaboration which embraces questions asked by PEER and LMIC scientists that are important to their cultural identities but may differ from norms set by Western or white scientists (38, 4246). These scientists should engage in mentor and collaborator training such as team-building courses to communicate roles and responsibilities effectively and improve team productivity (Table 1, “Team building and communication resources”) and should model expectations for an inclusive environment and practice transparent and impartial conflict resolution (38, 4246). However, all team members, regardless of identity, should understand their own cultural identities and biases and how they impact the team.

Towards equitable research practices, scientists from HIC should actively apply for international grant funding opportunities which foster microbiome studies with LMIC scientists (e.g., the NIH Fogarty International Center) and while doing so, should discuss ownership of data and authorship of publications with trainees and collaborators, support the active participation of LMIC scientists in designing microbiome studies and avoid “helicopter research” in which HIC scientists travel to conduct research in an LMIC with little or no involvement of local scientists. This is a practice that has become worryingly common as global collaborations increase (47). Collaborating with, rather than extracting from, communities or regions under study helps to decolonize science (48). This means including LMIC and PEER scientists as coauthors and not just mentioning them in the acknowledgments and avoiding exploitation of their knowledge and labor, identifying research needs for these communities, or taking local specimens with limited engagement.

ADDRESSING LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION BARRIERS

Scientists from different fields, cultures, and languages must be able to clearly communicate with each other to discover connections between ideas and develop sustainable collaborations to advance the microbiome sciences. We urge support for virtual training programs that include efforts to create resources in multiple languages like translation of programming tutorials of The Carpentries training organization into Spanish. Current technology translates virtual resources and provides closed captioning in real time which accommodates scientists with disabilities and nonnative speakers. We also urge funding agencies and professional societies to allocate resources for translating conference materials and to host multilingual workshops, particularly to highlight research performed by LMIC scientists (Table 1, “Microbiome training and conference-based support for LMIC and PEER scientists”). Virtual conferences have increased access for scientists who cannot easily travel due to accessibility issues, family commitments (49), visa requirements, and funding limitations that disproportionately limit LMIC scientist’s participation in training, symposia, and conferences. One notable success has been the National Summer Undergraduate Research Program (NSURP), a paid virtual research program that has successfully recruited microbiologists to mentor PEER students from the United States, providing a completely online microbial training experience and professional development opportunities (10). Since this program currently reaches a limited number of mentees, we call for funding to expand such initiatives and their scope to serve trainees across geographical boundaries; increased funding would increase the program’s reach as well as allowing for international trainees to participate. For all trainees, including PEER microbiome scientists, science outreach at community venues like schools, science centers, and museums, helps build communication skills. Science outreach also positively impacts the communities by enhancing interest and engagement in science and offering role models representative of students’ social identities (50, 51), which can lead to higher recruitment of PEER scientists in STEM (science, technology, education, and mathematics) (52). We also recommend that academic programs incentivize students with credits, certification, or awards to participate in outreach events and science communication classes as part of their training (for examples, see Table S1 in the supplemental material).

TABLE S1

Free and low-cost training and sequencing cost reduction resources for mentors and trainees in microbiome science. These resources help to train and engage researchers with less access to funds in communicating science and practice of message delivery as well as access to free and low-cost training in coding, genomic, and statistical principles helpful for microbiome research. Download Table S1, DOCX file, 0.01 MB (14.2KB, docx) .

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.

INCREASING ACCESS TO MICROBIOME TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING

Microbiome data sets are large, and their analysis requires expertise in molecular biology, microbiology, and computational biology. The extraction of nucleic acids from samples can be done with standard molecular biology equipment, but the generation and interpretation of these data typically require access to expensive reagents, sequencing services, and computer clusters which is often a barrier for scientists from LMICs. We present resources that could reduce financial and technological barriers to sequencing and provide free resources to high-performance computing for microbiome research in Table S1. These resources are primarily published modifications to standard protocols for sample preservation, DNA extraction, library preparation, and multiplexing that reduce costs at each step in the process. Sequencing itself remains a financial barrier, but a few programs like the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute’s Community Science Program provides access to sequencing and advanced microbiome methods to scientists anywhere in the world through a grant-based, user facility model. Free, cluster-based metagenomics computing resources are available through Kbase, Xcede, Cyverse, MGnify, and MG-Rast (5356). In the longer term, work should be publicly funded to develop and nonexclusively license a suite of low-cost, validated, open-source protocols for preservation, extraction, and library preparation. This could radically lower costs of sample preparation and thereby increase access and equity, create new products, and open new lines of microbiome research, especially if supported by public sector investment and technology transfer.

Microbiome data sets are large and multivariate, and analyzing these data effectively requires specialized training. Data analysis training should be made accessible to LMICs so that in silico experiments are supported alongside training of bioinformaticians who are comfortable using and developing projects with sequence data. We also recommend the creation of online “code clubs” (57) or cross-institutional working groups who learn to code and analyze data together. Such clubs enable peer learning, foster opportunities for research collaborations, and provide resource and skill-sharing between institutions with unequal economic access.

In addition to lack of access to technology, the high cost of publication in science can be a barrier to LMIC scientists in particular (58). Some microbiome research journals offer free publication, or fee waivers or cost reductions for scientists from LMICs (for a list of journals, see Table S2). Publishing in high-impact open-access journals constitutes approximately 6 months’ salary of African scientists, and government and universities do not cover these fees (59). While fee waivers exist, the processes are veiled and need transparency, and other journals, including society journals, must consider providing free publishing mechanisms. Sharing research as preprints is now standard practice in fields like physics, and microbiome research would benefit from a similar adoption. Preprints offer the opportunity to make research rapid and more transparent, though they may require careful evaluation prior to being peer reviewed.

TABLE S2

Nonexhaustive list of free and low-cost journals in microbiome and microbiome adjacent fields. APC indicates the article processing charge. This is a vetted list, but details are subject to change. APC information is based on interpretation of available information and should be checked prior to submission. Download Table S2, DOCX file, 0.02 MB (19.6KB, docx) .

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.

Open science will allow PEER and LMIC trainees to learn key data analysis skills, contribute new research, and further their careers through the meta-analysis of previously published microbiome data in the absence of funding to produce new data. However, this requires both freely available data sets and high-quality metadata. Some federal agencies are addressing issues associated with data accessibility by recommending data sharing upon request (60). Transparency can also be reinforced by making sure that accepted manuscripts provide accessible, high-quality, accessioned raw data and provide metadata spreadsheets compatible with microbiome data management software (e.g., for Qiita and European Bioinformatics Institute [EBI]). Funding agencies, journals, and repositories should require and provide incentives to enforce high-quality submission standards, allow data sets to be cited, and provide better tutorials and consistent submission expectations across databases to normalize open-science practices for microbiome data (61).

CALL TO ACTION

Shifting the research culture in microbiome science by making research and training more inclusive will improve retention of underserved scientists and contribute to the field’s intellectual growth. Such endeavors are opportunities to broaden our perspectives of how the environment, social identity, biopsychosocial factors, and cultural practices affect microbiome science around the world but are also imperative to restore equity and social justice in the field. We urge collaborators, mentors, funders, and decision-makers in resource-rich countries to take concrete actions to improve the inclusiveness of microbiome science (Fig. 1). Changing cultural norms can take time, but implementing even small improvements can create a considerable difference for a trainee or collaborator. As microbiome scientists, we call on other members of the community to set an example of inclusivity and accessibility for the broader scientific community.

TEXT S1

Improving microbiome access by lowering sequencing and analysis costs. Download Text S1, DOCX file, 0.02 MB (20.5KB, docx) .

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.

TABLE S3

List of global scientific societies of microbiology and mycology and other related fields. Download Table S3, DOCX file, 0.02 MB (20.3KB, docx) .

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Ana Maldonado-Contreras, Monika Oli, and Maria Gloria Domínguez-Bello for discussion and ideas for this article. We thank Ben Wolfe, Emily Delorean, and Ashley Schoon for feedback for reviewing drafts of this paper.

A.J.K. is supported in part by KL2TR002241 and UL1TR002240. A.J.F. is supported in part by an appointment to the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ORISE is managed by ORAU under DOE contract number DE-SC0014664.

The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official determination or policy of the USDA, U.S. Government, or any of the entities which contributed funding.

Contributor Information

Alicia J. Foxx, Email: alicia.foxx@usda.gov.

Adam R. Rivers, Email: adam.rivers@usda.gov.

Benjamin E. Wolfe, Tufts University

REFERENCES

  • 1.Porras AM, Brito IL. 2019. The internationalization of human microbiome research. Curr Opin Microbiol 50:50–55. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2019.09.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vargas-Robles D, Morales N, Rodríguez I, Nieves T, Godoy-Vitorino F, Alcaraz LD, Pérez M-E, Ravel J, Forney LJ, Domínguez-Bello MG. 2020. Changes in the vaginal microbiota across a gradient of urbanization. Sci Rep 10:12487. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69111-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.McCall L-I, Callewaert C, Zhu Q, Song SJ, Bouslimani A, Minich JJ, Ernst M, Ruiz-Calderon JF, Cavallin H, Pereira HS, Novoselac A, Hernandez J, Rios R, Branch OH, Blaser MJ, Paulino LC, Dorrestein PC, Knight R, Dominguez-Bello MG. 2020. Home chemical and microbial transitions across urbanization. Nat Microbiol 5:108–115. doi: 10.1038/s41564-019-0593-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Asai D. 2020. Excluded. J Microbiol Biol Educ 21:10. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.2071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Asai DJ. 2020. Race matters. Cell 181:754–757. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.McGee EO. 2020. Interrogating structural racism in STEM higher education. Educ Res 49:633–644. doi: 10.3102/0013189X20972718. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.ASM Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) Task Force. 2020. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force Report. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Montgomery BL. 2020. Lessons from microbes: what can we learn about equity from unculturable bacteria? mSphere 5:e01046-20. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.01046-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Montgomery BL. 2021. Make equity essential to expedite change in academia. Nat Microbiol 6:7–8. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-00845-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Johnson MDL, Baltrus DA, Gardy J. 2020. Crowdsourcing virtual summer research opportunities to support minorities in microbiology. Nat Microbiol 5:1311–1313. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-00807-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Johnson MDL. 2019. mSphere of Influence: hiring of underrepresented minority assistant professors in medical school basic science departments has a long way to go. mSphere 4:e00599-19. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00599-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hagan AK, Pollet RM, Libertucci J. 2020. Suggestions for improving invited speaker diversity to reflect trainee diversity. J Microbiol Biol Educ 21:15. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.2105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hinton AO, Vue Z, Termini CM, Taylor BL, Shuler HD, McReynolds MR. 2020. Mentoring minority trainees: minorities in academia face specific challenges that mentors should address to instill confidence. EMBO Rep 21:e51269. doi: 10.15252/embr.202051269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Montgomery BL. 2017. Mapping a mentoring roadmap and developing a supportive network for strategic career advancement. SAGE Open 7:215824401771028. doi: 10.1177/2158244017710288. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bonetta L. 24 April 2009. The road to diversity: are we there yet? Science https://www.science.org/features/2009/04/road-diversity-are-we-there-yet.
  • 16.Lambert WM, Wells MT, Cipriano MF, Sneva JN, Morris JA, Golightly LM. 2020. Career choices of underrepresented and female postdocs in the biomedical sciences. Elife 9:e48774. doi: 10.7554/eLife.48774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Martinez LR, Boucaud DW, Casadevall A, August A. 2018. Factors contributing to the success of NIH-designated underrepresented minorities in academic and nonacademic research positions. CBE Life Sci Educ 17:ar32. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-09-0287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D, McFarland DA. 2020. The diversity–innovation paradox in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:9284–9291. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1915378117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ginther DK, Basner J, Jensen U, Schnell J, Kington R, Schaffer WT. 2018. Publications as predictors of racial and ethnic differences in NIH research awards. PLoS One 13:e0205929. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Powell D. 2017. Minority grad students less likely to submit work for publication. Science doi: 10.1126/science.caredit.a1700030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Schloss PD, Junior M, Alvania R, Arias CA, Baumler A, Casadevall A, Detweiler C, Drake H, Gilbert J, Imperiale MJ, Lovett S, Maloy S, McAdam AJ, Newton ILG, Sadowsky MJ, Sandri-Goldin RM, Silhavy TJ, Tontonoz P, Young J-AH, Cameron CE, Cann I, Fuller AO, Kozik AJ. 2020. The ASM Journals Committee values the contributions of Black microbiologists. mBio 11:e01998-20. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01998-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Barber PH, Hayes TB, Johnson TL, Márquez-Magaña L, 10,234 signatories. 2020. Systemic racism in higher education. Science 369:1440–1441. doi: 10.1126/science.abd7140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Erosheva EA, Grant S, Chen M-C, Lindner MD, Nakamura RK, Lee CJ. 2020. NIH peer review: criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores. Sci Adv 6:eaaz4868. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz4868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Stevens KR, Masters KS, Imoukhuede PI, Haynes KA, Setton LA, Cosgriff-Hernandez E, Lediju Bell MA, Rangamani P, Sakiyama-Elbert SE, Finley SD, Willits RK, Koppes AN, Chesler NC, Christman KL, Allen JB, Wong JY, El-Samad H, Desai TA, Eniola-Adefeso O. 2021. Fund Black scientists. Cell 184:561–565. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ginther DK, Schaffer WT, Schnell J, Masimore B, Liu F, Haak LL, Kington R. 2011. Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science 333:1015–1019. doi: 10.1126/science.1196783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cunningham A, Park E, Engle J. 2014. Minority-serving institutions: doing more with less. Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Minority serving institutions: America’s underutilized resource for strengthening the STEM workforce. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ras V, Carvajal-López P, Gopalasingam P, Matimba A, Chauke PA, Mulder N, Guerfali F, Del Angel VD, Reyes A, Oliveira G, De Las Rivas J, Cristancho M. 2021. Challenges and considerations for delivering bioinformatics training in LMICs: perspectives from Pan-African and Latin American Bioinformatics Networks. Front Educ 6:278. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.710971. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Morrison K, Tomsons S, Gomez A, Forde M. 2018. Network of ethical relationships model for global North–South population health research. Glob Public Health 13:819–842. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2016.1276948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Airhihenbuwa CO, Shisana O, Zungu N, BeLue R, Makofani DM, Shefer T, Smith E, Simbayi L. 2011. Research capacity building: a US-South African partnership. Glob Health Promot 18:27–35. doi: 10.1177/1757975911404745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gomo E, Kalilani L, Mwapasa V, Trigu C, Phiri K, Schmidt J, van Hensbroek MB. 2011. Towards sustainable research capacity development and research ownership for academic institutes in developing countries: the Malawian Research Support Centre Model. J Res Admin 42:38–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bradley M. 2007. North-South research partnerships: challenges, responses and trends; a literature review and annotated bibliography. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Anderson M, Kleinert S. 2013. Montreal Statement on research integrity in cross-boundary research collaborations. 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, Montreal, Canada. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Maselli D, Lys JA, Schmid J. 2006. Swiss Commission for research partnerships with developing countries (KFPE), 2nd ed. Swiss Academy of Sciences, Bern, Switzerland. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lavery JV, IJsselmuiden C. 2018. The Research Fairness Initiative: filling a critical gap in global research ethics. Gates Open Res 2:58. doi: 10.12688/gatesopenres.12884.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Council on Health Research for Development. 2020. Research fairness initiative reporting guide. Council on Health Research for Development, Geneva, Switzerland. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Buck M, Hamilton C. 2011. The Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the convention on biological diversity. Rev Eur Commun Int Environ Law 20:47–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9388.2011.00703.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.National Academies of Sciences. 2019. The science of effective mentorship in STEMM. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Thompson LR, Sanders JG, McDonald D, Amir A, Ladau J, Locey KJ, Prill RJ, Tripathi A, Gibbons SM, Ackermann G, Navas-Molina JA, Janssen S, Kopylova E, Vázquez-Baeza Y, González A, Morton JT, Mirarab S, Zech Xu Z, Jiang L, Haroon MF, Kanbar J, Zhu Q, Jin Song S, Kosciolek T, Bokulich NA, Lefler J, Brislawn CJ, Humphrey G, Owens SM, Hampton-Marcell J, Berg-Lyons D, McKenzie V, Fierer N, Fuhrman JA, Clauset A, Stevens RL, Shade A, Pollard KS, Goodwin KD, Jansson JK, Gilbert JA, Knight R, The Earth Microbiome Project Consortium. 2017. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551:457–463. doi: 10.1038/nature24621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Foxx AJ, Barak RS, Lichtenberger TM, Richardson LK, Rodgers AJ, Williams EW. 2019. Evaluating the prevalence and quality of conference codes of conduct. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:14931–14936. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1819409116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Moore B, Carvajal-López P, Chauke PA, Cristancho M, Angel VDD, Fernandez-Valverde SL, Ghouila A, Gopalasingam P, Guerfali FZ, Matimba A, Morgan SL, Oliveira G, Ras V, Reyes A, Rivas JDL, Mulder N. 2021. Ten simple rules for organizing a bioinformatics training course in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Comput Biol 17:e1009218. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Packard BW-L. 2015. Successful STEM mentoring initiatives for underrepresented students: a research-based guide for faculty and administrators. Stylus Publishing, LLC, Sterling, VA. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hund AK, Churchill AC, Faist AM, Havrilla CA, Stowell SML, McCreery HF, Ng J, Pinzone CA, Scordato ESC. 2018. Transforming mentorship in STEM by training scientists to be better leaders. Ecol Evol 8:9962–9974. doi: 10.1002/ece3.4527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Stelter RL, Kupersmidt JB, Stump KN. 2021. Establishing effective STEM mentoring relationships through mentor training. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1483:224–243. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Mentoring could improve diversity and inclusion in STEMM but needs more attention in colleges and universities, says new report, which identifies effective mentoring practices. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Atkins K, Dougan BM, Dromgold-Sermen MS, Potter H, Sathy V, Panter AT. 2020. “Looking at Myself in the Future”: how mentoring shapes scientific identity for STEM students from underrepresented groups. Int J STEM Educ 7:42. doi: 10.1186/s40594-020-00242-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Minasny B, Fiantis D, Mulyanto B, Sulaeman Y, Widyatmanti W. 2020. Global soil science research collaboration in the 21st century: time to end helicopter research. Geoderma 373:114299. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114299. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Nordling L. 2018. How decolonization could reshape South African science. Nature 554:159–163. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-01696-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Sarabipour S. 2020. Virtual conferences raise standards for accessibility and interactions. Elife 9:e62668. doi: 10.7554/eLife.62668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.O’Brien LT, Hitti A, Shaffer E, Camp ARV, Henry D, Gilbert PN. 2017. Improving girls’ sense of fit in science: increasing the impact of role models. Soc Psych Person Sci 8:301–309. doi: 10.1177/1948550616671997. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Laursen S, Liston C, Thiry H, Graf J. 2007. What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K–12 classrooms. CBE Life Sci Educ 6:49–64. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-05-0165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rodriguez JL, Jones EB, Pang VO, Park CD. 2004. Promoting academic achievement and identity development among diverse high school students. High School J 87:44–53. doi: 10.1353/hsj.2004.0002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Arkin AP, Cottingham RW, Henry CS, Harris NL, Stevens RL, Maslov S, Dehal P, Ware D, Perez F, Canon S, Sneddon MW, Henderson ML, Riehl WJ, Murphy-Olson D, Chan SY, Kamimura RT, Kumari S, Drake MM, Brettin TS, Glass EM, Chivian D, Gunter D, Weston DJ, Allen BH, Baumohl J, Best AA, Bowen B, Brenner SE, Bun CC, Chandonia J-M, Chia J-M, Colasanti R, Conrad N, Davis JJ, Davison BH, DeJongh M, Devoid S, Dietrich E, Dubchak I, Edirisinghe JN, Fang G, Faria JP, Frybarger PM, Gerlach W, Gerstein M, Greiner A, Gurtowski J, Haun HL, He F, Jain R, Joachimiak MP, et al. 2018. KBase: the United States Department of Energy Systems Biology Knowledgebase. Nat Biotechnol 36:566–569. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gadde S, Aucoin N, Grethe JS, Keator DB, Marcus DS, Pieper S, FBIRN, MBIRN, BIRN-CC. 2012. XCEDE: an extensible schema for biomedical data. Neuroinformatics 10:19–32. doi: 10.1007/s12021-011-9119-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mitchell AL, Almeida A, Beracochea M, Boland M, Burgin J, Cochrane G, Crusoe MR, Kale V, Potter SC, Richardson LJ, Sakharova E, Scheremetjew M, Korobeynikov A, Shlemov A, Kunyavskaya O, Lapidus A, Finn RD. 2020. MGnify: the microbiome analysis resource in 2020. Nucleic Acids Res 48:D570–D578. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz1035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Keegan KP, Glass EM, Meyer F. 2016. MG-RAST, a metagenomics service for analysis of microbial community structure and function, p 207–233. In Martin F, Uroz S (ed), Microbial environmental genomics (MEG). Springer, New York, NY. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hagan AK, Lesniak NA, Balunas MJ, Bishop L, Close WL, Doherty MD, Elmore AG, Flynn KJ, Hannigan GD, Koumpouras CC, Jenior ML, Kozik AJ, McBride K, Rifkin SB, Stough JMA, Sovacool KL, Sze MA, Tomkovich S, Topcuoglu BD, Schloss PD. 2020. Ten simple rules to increase computational skills among biologists with Code Clubs. PLoS Comput Biol 16:e1008119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Alwine JC, Enquist LW, Dermody TS, Goodrum F. 2021. What is the price of science? mBio 12:e00117-21. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00117-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Mekonnen A, Downs C, Effiom EO, Razafindratsima O, Stenseth NC, Chapman CA. 2021. What costs half a year’s pay for African scholars? Open access. Nature 596:189. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-02173-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.National Science Foundation. 2021. Dissemination and sharing of research results - NSF data management plan requirements. National Science Foundation, Alexandria, VA. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Vangay P, Burgin J, Johnston A, Beck KL, Berrios DC, Blumberg K, Canon S, Chain P, Chandonia J-M, Christianson D, Costes SV, Damerow J, Duncan WD, Dundore-Arias JP, Fagnan K, Galazka JM, Gibbons SM, Hays D, Hervey J, Hu B, Hurwitz BL, Jaiswal P, Joachimiak MP, Kinkel L, Ladau J, Martin SL, McCue LA, Miller K, Mouncey N, Mungall C, Pafilis E, Reddy TBK, Richardson L, Roux S, Schriml LM, Shaffer JP, Sundaramurthi JC, Thompson LR, Timme RE, Zheng J, Wood-Charlson EM, Eloe-Fadrosh EA. 2021. Microbiome metadata standards: report of the National Microbiome Data Collaborative’s Workshop and follow-on activities. mSystems 6:e01194-20. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00273-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

TABLE S1

Free and low-cost training and sequencing cost reduction resources for mentors and trainees in microbiome science. These resources help to train and engage researchers with less access to funds in communicating science and practice of message delivery as well as access to free and low-cost training in coding, genomic, and statistical principles helpful for microbiome research. Download Table S1, DOCX file, 0.01 MB (14.2KB, docx) .

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.

TABLE S2

Nonexhaustive list of free and low-cost journals in microbiome and microbiome adjacent fields. APC indicates the article processing charge. This is a vetted list, but details are subject to change. APC information is based on interpretation of available information and should be checked prior to submission. Download Table S2, DOCX file, 0.02 MB (19.6KB, docx) .

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.

TEXT S1

Improving microbiome access by lowering sequencing and analysis costs. Download Text S1, DOCX file, 0.02 MB (20.5KB, docx) .

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.

TABLE S3

List of global scientific societies of microbiology and mycology and other related fields. Download Table S3, DOCX file, 0.02 MB (20.3KB, docx) .

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.


Articles from mSystems are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES