In my late teens, I came to the United States from Europe to pursue my undergraduate degree in microbiology. During college, I was frequently labeled as a “minority scientist,” which always made me wonder: why can't I just be a scientist? Or when I received an award, I often heard, “You got that because you're a minority.”
As a person of color, I am neither smaller nor lesser than anyone else; I may be shorter, but my voice holds equal weight. I have the same rights as everyone in my community—no more, no less, but equal. The term "minority" is inherently pejorative; we do not need to justify our status or diminish ourselves to fit a label. The word "minority" implies a lesser status. Period!
Words have immense power—they can empower or disempower, especially when they are misused. The word "minority" is often used to describe a smaller, nonwhite group of people. However, when people use this term, they rarely specify which race or background they’re referring to. Many use "minority" to mean African American, Asian American, Native American, Hispanic, or Latino. The frequent use of this term minimizes historically marginalized people and perpetuates invisibility. Those labeled as part of "minority groups" are diverse and deserve the proper context.
As America’s ethnic and racial makeup evolves, so does the nation’s language and the consensus on acceptable word usage. One word that is increasingly being challenged and is likely to see significant changes in the coming years is "minority."
This shift in language is the focus of the latest publication by Dr. Christina Termini, an assistant professor in the Translational Science and Therapeutics Division. Termini and colleagues discuss the American Society for Cell Biology’s (ASCB) decision to replace the term ‘minority’ with ‘PEER:’ Persons Excluded because of their Ethnicity or Race. This change reflects a broader movement within the scientific community to promote more inclusive language and address the negative connotations associated with the word "minority."
“I have been involved with ASCB and the Minority Affairs Committee (MAC) since 2012 when I received a travel award to attend my first ASCB annual meeting,” Termini recalls. “So, when my collaborator Dr. Michelle Martínez Montemayor reached out to me to collaborate on this article, I was immediately on board,” she added.
The term ‘PEER’ was coined by Dr. David J. Asai in 2020 in his paper Race Matters, Termini explained. “The use of PEER aims to encapsulate the active process of exclusion, as opposed to minority, which is more passive. ‘Minority’ denotes a smaller group but fails to explain why these smaller groups exist,” Termini continued.
These conversations have been going on for a long time.; however, it was only recently that the ASCB and the Minority Affairs Committee officially took the step to remove the word ‘minority.’ As a first step, ASCB members renamed themselves—from the Minority Affairs Committee to Maximizing Access in Cell Biology for PEERs. “The previous name did not fully encapsulate what we wanted to convey,” Termini stated. “Everyone has been very positive about changing the MAC name without erasing its history. Maximizing Access in Cell Biology for PEERs retains the MAC acronym to honor its past, but it better reflects our mission, which goes beyond minority affairs. It’s about maximizing access for those who have been excluded,” Termini added.
This shift in language aligns with the ASCB’s broader Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Strategic Plan, which aims to create a more inclusive and supportive environment for all scientists.
Termini and colleagues highlight the contradictions inherent in using the term ‘minority’ in the context of the United States, where demographics are shifting. By 2060, non-Hispanic white individuals are projected to make up less than 45% of the U.S. population, which will make the term ‘minority’ inaccurate. Furthermore, this term fails to account for other forms of diversity, such as sexual orientation and disability, which are not always reflected in traditional demographic categories.
Additionally, the authors point out that the term ‘minority’ in STEM perpetuates a harmful narrative that diminishes the contributions of PEER scientists. Research has shown that diverse teams are more innovative and effective, yet the term ‘minority’ implies that these groups are less significant. By shifting to the term "PEER”, Termini and colleagues hope to reduce the stigmatization of underrepresented scientists and encourage a more inclusive and supportive scientific community.
By adopting more inclusive language, the scientific community can work towards a more equitable and empowered future. This article serves as a call to action for other organizations—such as Fred Hutch—to follow ASCB’s lead in replacing the term ‘minority’ with language that better reflects the realities of exclusion and the importance of diversity in STEM.
This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, an Andy Hill Cancer Research Endowment Distinguished Researchers Grant, the Puerto Rico Science, Technology and Research Trust, and a Susan G. Komen ASPIRE grant.
Fred Hutch/University of Washington/Seattle Children’s Cancer Consortium member Dr. Christina Termini contributed to this work.
Vonhoff F, Ko'omoa-Lange DL, Davis JS, Termini CM, Martínez-Montemayor MM. Maximizing Access to Cell Biology for PEERS: Retracting the term minority in favor of a more inclusive lexicon. Mol Biol Cell. 2024 Aug 1;35(8):vo1. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E24-04-0156.