Ten simple rules for building an anti-racist lab

9 Demographics of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) workforce 10 and student body in the U.S. and Europe continue to show severe underrepresentation of 11 Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). Among the documented causes of the 12 persistent lack of diversity in STEM include bias, discrimination, and harassment of members of 13 underrepresented minority groups (URMs). These issues persist due to continued 14 marginalization, power imbalances, and lack of adequate policies against misconduct in 15 academic and other scientific institutions. All scientists can play important roles in reversing this 16 trend by shifting the culture of academic workplaces to intentionally implement equitable and 17 inclusive policies, set norms for acceptable workplace conduct, and provide opportunities for 18 mentorship and networking. As scientists are increasingly acknowledging the lack of racial and 19 ethnic diversity in science, there is a need for clear direction on how to take anti-racist action. 20 Here we present 10 rules to help labs develop anti-racists policies and action in an effort to 21 promote racial and ethnic diversity, equity, and inclusion in science. 22

there are swift actions that research group leaders or primary investigators (PIs) can take to 42 build a lab environment that fosters a racially inclusive environment and ultimately promotes 43 DEI across scientific fields.

44
Scientists who are beginners to discussions of race, lacking guidance or background 45 knowledge, may adopt unevolved viewpoints or weak policies that unintentionally harm BIPOC

46
[11] or contribute to an erosion of trust among people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds 47 in a lab group. Harmful approaches include engaging in objectifying thought experiments that 48 question the instrumental value of BIPOC in science; confusing race as a biological entity as 49 indicated by human genetic variation instead of a socially constructed concept [12]; arguing 50 that the unbiased nature of science and scientists precludes racial biases in scientific 51 workplaces; and hijacking discussions of race with anecdotes from other types of discrimination 52 (e.g. gender-based, class-based) without employing an intersectional framework [13]. As 53 scientists of color who actively engage in work to promote racial and ethnic DEI, we have 54 encountered all of these harmful scenarios and more.

55
Building a lab that is anti-racist is very different from building a lab that simply avoids 56 racism. Avoiding racism or stating that one's lab is "not racist" adopts a neutral stance in a 57 struggle that inherently has no neutrality [14]. As the scholar Ibram X. Kendi writes, "One either 58 allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist.

59
There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.'" [15]. We support recent calls to promote the 60 health and well-being of lab members [16] and supportive lab groups that are resilient to 61 outside stressors [17]. But building an anti-racist lab goes beyond being kind, treating people 62 equally, or taking a color-blind approach. Being anti-racist means developing and supporting 63 anti-racist policies through intentional introspection and subsequent action.

64
Many current and future PIs are looking for clear advice on how to move beyond 65 statements of solidarity and toward concrete achievable anti-racist action in their labs. We 66 share these 10 rules (Figures 1 & 2) to contribute to anti-racist STEM discourse and help 67 springboard scientists toward immediate achievable action in realms under their control. It is 68 our hope that partaking in such actions will help lead to improved racial and ethnic diversity 69 and inclusion in the lab and successful scientific lives for all.  The most important metrics of success in the academy are papers and grants.

103
Publications and grants are also key to tenure, promotion, and career longevity in the academic 104 and other STEM professions. More and more, the most impactful science is done in teams [21], 105 but collaboration networks can be insular. Supportive peer networks in STEM that involve 106 diverse voices produce better quality and highly cited publications [22]. Hence, the most 107 important thing anyone can do to improve the success and retention of BIPOC folx in STEM is to 108 provide opportunities for collaborations that lead to publications and grants. For scientists that 109 work with minoritized communities, it is particularly important to ensure BIPOC are involved in 110 not just manual work and/or data entry, but are also provided opportunities to make 111 intellectual contributions that lead to publications and further funding. When organizing 112 workshops or symposia, invite BIPOC scientists to co-lead and not just participate.  After working to foster an inclusive, anti-racist lab environment, PIs can begin to 155 evaluate their lab hiring practices for racial or ethnic biases. This rule focusing on increasing lab 156 diversity is purposefully placed after the above rules, which prioritize efforts towards inclusion 157 and retention that should be addressed first. Developing programs for support and retention 158 first helps ensure that BIPOC are not recruited into toxic environments. In recruitment efforts, 159 do not assume racial or ethnic identity from appearances or names; information should be The goal of cultivating an anti-racist lab group is to improve a broader system with 191 known racial inequities. Recognize that white scientists are frequently lauded for DEI work 192 while BIPOC are punished for it [31]. Recognize the difference between performative action and 193 action that doesn't bring personal glory. We should educate ourselves on effective bystander 194 intervention techniques for addressing issues of inequity, harassment, and discrimination. We 195 should also be able to use accountability mechanisms in our own institutions (if we don't have 196 them, work to set them up) and hold our colleagues and ourselves accountable for creating 197 healthy workplace climates. Academics are noted for holding those who mishandle text or data 198 (plagiarize or fabricate data) accountable as we consider these acts to be scientific misconduct.

199
Well, if these constitute misconduct, then mistreating people who do the research should 200 definitely rise to the same level of concern and be considered scientific misconduct too [32].