International Women’s Day

Baroness Greenfield Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Greenfield (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for drawing attention to this timely issue. I declare an interest as founder and CEO of a biotech company, Neuro-Bio Ltd, having previously been a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University. Back in 2002, I was asked by the right honourable Patricia Hewitt to prepare for the then Department of Trade and Industry a high-level report, subsequently entitled SET Fair, outlining the difficulties of recruitment and retention of women in science. Sadly, over 20 years later, I feel that many of the difficulties that we discussed then still remain.

The question of women in science and technology is not just about fairness; it is about progress. Studies consistently show that diverse teams drive innovation. Research from McKinsey finds that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 25% more likely to outperform their competitors. In science and technology, diversity translates into better problem-solving, faster discoveries, and products that serve society more effectively. From Rosalind Franklin’s work on DNA to Sarah Gilbert’s leadership in developing the Covid vaccine, history proves that, when women thrive in STEM, humanity benefits.

However, systemic challenges remain. In UK higher education, only 31% of professors are women. In the UK’s STEM workforce overall, only 29% of employers are women, and in the private sector, the number of female founders in biotech companies remains disproportionately low, hovering at around 10%. Even more disappointing, women founders such as me receive only 2% of venture capital investment, funding that is critical in commercialising one’s innovation.

One of the greatest barriers to women in STEM is bias, both conscious and unconscious. In 2012, in a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, faculty members rated male applicants as more competent and hireable than corresponding female candidates. More recently, a 2023 report found that women in STEM are less likely to be promoted than their male peers. This is not an issue of merit; it is one of perception. Blind recruitment processes and structured promotion criteria should surely become the standard. Institutions that have implemented these measures report fairer hiring outcomes and more diverse leadership.

A second challenge is a career break due to parenting responsibilities. The years when scientists must publish their most ground-breaking work coincide with the time when many are starting families. The current system offers a discouraging range of options for women: delay parenthood, risk career stagnation or leave research altogether. Here we could take a lesson from forward-thinking companies in the private sector offering “on-ramping” fellowships for women returning to research after career breaks. Government funding bodies could introduce similar schemes in academia—for example, grants specifically designed to support those re-entering the field after maternity leave.

Such initiatives would ensure that women can get back to progressing their research without the undue and unfair hurdles that arise from contributing to the next generation. Meanwhile, in industry, tax incentives could encourage companies to offer more flexible career paths for women in STEM.

Then there is the lack of visibility and networking opportunities. Women, particularly in male-dominated fields such as biotech, often lack the mentorship and sponsorship that help to propel careers forward. Every major research institution should have a formal sponsorship programme where senior figures actively champion the careers of promising women scientists. We could introduce a “national women in STEM talent bank”—a centralised platform where women in science and technology can access mentorship, funding opportunities and leadership training, in the spirit of the Athena SWAN charter, but much wider and encompassing the private sector.

The root of all these challenges is early engagement. If young girls do not see themselves in STEM, they may never consider it as a viable path. Research shows that gender stereotypes about science start forming as early as primary school. Schools could partner with female scientists and engineers to provide visible role models. Critically, we must change the narrative by making the aforementioned solutions as prominent as we can. Rather than framing STEM as an uphill battle for women, we must present it as a field where women are thriving and driving the future.

International Women’s Day should be not just a moment of reflection but a call to action. We know what works: transparent hiring, structured return-to-work programmes, active sponsorship and early engagement. It is time to implement these solutions at scale. The talent is there. The ambition is there. It is now up to us—policymakers, industry leaders, educators and female scientists—to break down the barriers that remain. By doing so, we will not only achieve equality but unlock the full potential of science and technology to change the world for the better, and ensure that the UK continues in its role at the forefront of driving the technologies of tomorrow.

King’s Speech

Baroness Greenfield Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Greenfield (CB)]

My Lords, as a neuroscientist I welcome consideration of mental health in the gracious Speech. I declare an interest as founder and CEO of a biotech company, Neuro-Bio Ltd, where we are striving towards a novel and effective treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. I was therefore sadly disappointed that no measure was made in the gracious Speech of the urgent issues relating to such a devastating health problem.

Why must the Government make dementia a priority? Almost 1 million people are living with the condition in the UK, and we expect this to rise to 1.4 million by 2040, due to our ageing population. Dementia costs the UK £42 billion a year, rising to more than £90 billion by 2040. One in three people born today will develop dementia, and it is a leading cause of death.

As things stand, dementia presents us with three broad challenges. The first is social care, an issue that many noble Lords have already touched on as a clear omission in the gracious Speech. Seventy per cent of residents in older-age care homes in England have dementia, while only 45% of care staff are currently recorded as having any level of appropriate training, so what could be the solution? A long-term workforce strategy: social care staff should be required to undertake dementia training, mapped to the Dementia Training Standards Framework or equivalent.

Secondly, there should be a sustainable funding model for quality personalised care, which pools the risk of care costs and is centred on achieving affordable care for everyone living with dementia.

The next challenge is diagnosis. More than one in three people living with dementia in England are currently undiagnosed. There is a significant regional variation in diagnosis rates, moreover, by more than 40%. What could be the solution? A target for a more ambitious dementia diagnosis rate should be a government priority. Secondly, there should be a commitment to better training for healthcare professionals. Thirdly, there should be funding for public awareness campaigns. Fourthly, there should be increasing quality and quantity of diagnosis, data collection and publication.

The final challenge is treatment. There are drugs that, for the first time, can slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the earliest stages of diagnosis. Tens of thousands of UK citizens could potentially benefit from these drugs if they were approved. However, the healthcare system is not yet ready to deliver such treatments, due to the lack of early diagnosis and specialist diagnostics. What could be the solution? First, a satisfactory plan should be developed by NHS England and the Department for Health and Social Care to be thoroughly prepared and ready to start to deliver these new treatments for dementia. Secondly, the current drugs being assessed are just the beginning. Though welcome, they do not halt the neurodegeneration process; they only slow it down. However, there is the very real prospect—still at the research stage, admittedly—of innovative treatments that could do far more and be much more effective, perhaps even halting cell death altogether. The biggest barrier to progressing such game-changing therapy at pace is, quite simply and inevitably, inadequate funding.

To conclude, dementia is the biggest unmet clinical need of our time and, as such, it surely should have been a high priority in government plans in the gracious Speech. While diseases such as cancer are serious, often disabling and frequently terminal, you can still reminisce over old photographs and still spend meaningful and precious time with your grandchildren. These life-enhancing moments are gradually closed off for an individual with dementia, and it is a spectre that haunts us all. We need to invest funds immediately in rising to the three challenges of social care, diagnosis and, above all, innovative and effective treatment, so that we could finally offer, perhaps, the prospect of our grandchildren one day asking, as we did in the past for smallpox and polio, “Was Alzheimer’s ever a problem?”