Year: 2024
Type: article
Abstract: We recently completed a survey of lab access for disabled scientists (https://bit.ly/44KVifz). Our team knew it would highlight a large amount of work that needs to be done to improve lab access, but we didn’t realise the full extent of the problem. The response that summarised our findings most succinctly was “My lab broke me…. I hope others are better.” It highlighted the significant personal cost to disabled scientists of this enduring bias in the design and use of laboratories. Our survey showed that lab structural and equipment access is poor, adaptations to protocols and working practices are unusual, and conferences are rarely accessible. Interventions to improve lab culture are perceived as tokenistic and ineffective. Our survey also found that the outcome of this is that many disabled scientists leave the profession, at a time when their skills, knowledge, and experience are essential to solving problems of global significance.We lose good people because of an unwillingness to adapt working practices in a way that would make disabled scientists’ work experience equitable and accessible. This is despite the Equality Act 2010 explicitly stating that such adaptations are legal and, where reasonable, required. In our interviews with disabled scientists, we were told time after time of the mental and physical damage incurred because of the perceived “unfairness” of treating a disabled scientist differently. The need to treat everyone identically (in order to be “fair”) was given greater weight than the need for equity in the working environment. An accessible parking bay is seen as a perk of seniority rather than an essential accommodation. Rather than breach this hierarchy, it’s more acceptable for a disabled scientist to have to walk further in pain than to give them an accessible parking bay near the front door. Keeping your medication schedule working effectively when working rotating shifts is pretty much impossible. So rather than allow a disabled scientist to have the “perk” of working a fixed shift, one employer was happier to see that the employee was hospitalised rather than be seen to show “favouritism” in altering working patterns. Just 20% of the disabled scientists who needed a personal emergency evacuation plan had one. Think about this. It means that an employer who MUST know they have a staff member with substantial mobility, vision, or hearing loss, has not ensured that they have a chance of getting out safely in the case of fire. It’s almost as if disabled people are regarded as second-class citizens. That their lives and well-being are worth less.We don’t believe that this is intentional, at least in most cases. Ableism is so embedded in modern society that this is not seen as discrimination, except by those who are directly impacted by it. Katherine is a wheelchair user, and as such is often told the accessible entrance to a building is round the back, past the smelly bins. Tell me, would that be acceptable to say this to black colleagues? No? Then why is it still acceptable to be said to Katherine?Maybe. But disabled scientists are owed 29 years of budget. The Disability Discrimination Act was made law in the UK in 1995 (and incorporated into the Equality Act 2010 almost unchanged). As employers have done little to improve access in that time, i.e., acted unlawfully, we are owed that budget. Our university spends less than 0.1% of its turnover on disability access projects, and by doing this for about 10 years, we now have one of the most accessible campuses in the country. Not perfect; we’d grade it as C minus, i.e., only just not embarrassing, but still better than most. Additionally, many of the actions needed to improve accessibility are low to no cost. Training staff, changing working practices, and even repainting a wall can all have disability access built into the considerations. We need to train people on how to step up and be an ally, act when they hear discriminatory language (bystander intervention), and report that broken red alarm cord even when they personally don’t need it. We need policies that allow flexible working, consider caring responsibilities, pay for the real cost of expenses to attend conferences, etc. When that wall is repainted, we need to make sure its colour contracts with the floors so you can tell where the wall starts and floor ends; no more white box toilets where it’s difficult to even find the porcelain if you have a visual impairment.We have created some guidelines that can help (https://bit.ly/3pY5IIR). They bring together advice on disability access for labs in one place (but please note the advice is mostly applicable to other workspaces). There is very little originality in them, but they are the first that we can find that consider the entire ecosystem of a workplace. They look at structural, equipment, and protocol access. They examine dissemination (meetings, conferences, and web pages) because the results of lab work have to be shared. They consider working practices (HR stuff) because – shock horror! – people work in laboratories. Working practices need to accommodate people as individuals (with the inherent diversity and variability that go with that) who live in a society (with the roles and responsibilities that go with that).Enlightened self-interest. “There are just two types of people in the world. Those that are disabled and those that are going to be” (https://www.francescamartinez.com/). Anyone can be disabled, at any time. So do this for the future self that wants to keep doing the job they’re passionate about despite an accident or new diagnosis.An accessible workplace is a high-quality working environment for everyone. The lighting doesn’t glare and provoke headaches, the lifts let you bring in heavy supplies easily, and the acoustic baffles mean you can hear yourself speak. Mental well-being is genuinely cared about. For example, the workload is manageable and flexes around life events and responsibilities (e.g., child and elder care).A diverse workforce is profitable. Companies with greater diversity make more money, respond quicker to changing circumstances, have greater relevancy and reach in their products and research. Research funders have recognised the hazard of only producing evidence relevant to white middle-class populations and are increasingly requiring active steps to improve the inclusion of previously underserved populations. We are having conversations with funders about having minimum accessibility standards before an institution is eligible to apply for funding. These will be requirements such as having an accessible toilet in the same building as a lab, which our survey found a third of labs didn’t have. It may take a while before these are imposed, but there is recognition that sticks as well as carrots are needed to change this inequitable culture.Well now you know there is a problem. You find it offensive that disabled people are being actively harmed by the current culture. It does not reflect your values. But unless you do something about it, you will be complicit with it. We need you to step up and do something. Give our guidelines to your Estates department, your Chief Executive, and your union. Ask that they are applied to any refurbishments, new build, and staff training. Think about the accessibility of that new piece of equipment you are about to buy; ask the manufacturer what access adaptations they may have available. Report that broken powered door button. Ask us to come and speak or to consult on the best way forward ([email protected]). Make a change (https://bit.ly/44PIOn5).Fourteen years ago, our university had 14% of undergraduates declare a disability, today it is 30%. This is due to a combination of greater confidence to declare, and more disabled students coming to study with us. Change is coming. Are you ready?Thanks to all the disabled people whose genrously shared expertise and experiences have informed our work.
Source: The Biochemist
DOI: 10.1042/bio_2024_138
Authors: Katherine Deane, Brendan Burrill
Institution: University of East Anglia
Language: English
Subfield: Safety Research
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
SDG: Reduced inequalities
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W4402993935