To the Editor: Last year, I had the great honour of receiving the Minkowski Prize from the EASD. This prize is awarded each year to an outstanding researcher with no more than 10 years’ full-time experience as an independent investigator in recognition of their contribution to the advancement of knowledge concerning diabetes.

While preparing my lecture for presentation at the 2021 Annual Meeting, one issue particularly troubled me: did I deserve this prize any more than all the other excellent female scientists before me who had not received it previously? I thought about my grandmother, Marie-Louise, who grew up in the French Alps in the 1930s. She was not allowed an education or to read books at home, unlike her brother; she was expected only to work in the kitchen and in the fields, looking after the cows, and, later, to take care of her three children. It was only when her husband died prematurely that she was taught the necessary financial skills to run her farm. It was a long journey from her history to mine and I began to wonder whether my family history was an exception or a rule.

Looking at the prestigious list of recipients of the Minkowski Prize since its introduction in1966, I realised that it was 27 years before the prize was first awarded to a woman (Hannele Yki-Järvinen for her work on insulin action in heart, muscle and liver). Since then, only six other women, including me, have received the prize. This represents less than 15% of the recipients. Furthermore, Anna Gloyn, the last female recipient before me, was awarded the prize in 2014, 8 years ago. Similarly, up to 2020, women have represented only 6% of the recipients of the ADA Banting Medal for highly meritorious career achievement in the field of diabetes research, and 6% of the recipients of the ADA Outstanding Scientific Achievement Award for leading-edge diabetes research conducted by investigators younger than 50 years of age, with no change in distribution over time [1]. Furthermore, only 11% of ADA Presidents of Medicine and Science have been women [2]. This is in spite of the fact that, according to the Pew Research Center, in the 2017–2018 school year in the USA, women earned 77% of the research doctorate degrees in the health sciences, with no change recorded since 2014 [3]. Therefore, it is nonsense that there are so few female recipients of the Minkowski prize or the ADA prizes highlighted above, especially in the last decade.

I was in Dublin just before my Minkowski lecture for a meeting on childhood obesity. I found myself at a dinner party attended only by women, who were mostly in team leader positions. I started a debate on this issue and asked them why they thought women are generally less recognised by prestigious international prizes. The unanimous answer was that women generally do not put themselves forward for such prizes. Indeed, to be considered for the Minkowski Prize, researchers must first submit an application, including sponsorship from one or more leaders in the field of diabetes.

This same lack of female candidates is unfortunately also true when it comes to major grants, such as those awarded by the European Research Council (ERC). From 2009 to 2018, far fewer women than men applied for ERC grants (including starting [2–7 years’ post-PhD experience], consolidator [7–12 years’ post-PhD experience] and advanced grants); on average, 26% of grant applications were from women [4]. In spite of this, in overall terms, the success rates for men and women are almost the same (approximately 13% for both). However, it is noteworthy that the ERC takes equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), including gender equality, very seriously, in contrast to many scientific organisations, and the figures are improving year on year [4, 5]. The objectives of the ERC Scientific Council gender equality plan 2021–2027 include to (1) improve the gender balance among researchers submitting ERC proposals in all research fields; (2) raise awareness about the benefits of gender balance; (3) continue identifying and removing any potential gender bias in the ERC evaluation procedure; and (4) strive for gender balance among the ERC peer reviewers and other relevant decision-making bodies [5].

Furthermore, some journal editors have also recently stated their desire to improve the EDI of their journals [6]. In this regard, a recent study showed that 73% of editorial board members from 54 medical journals were men and 27% were women [7]. The editorial position occupied was also significantly higher for men, with women filling only 16% of the editor-in-chief positions [7]. To improve the gender balance and address other EDI issues in academia, a recent study has proposed a number of approaches that journals could follow, including (1) promoting the use of inclusive and bias-free language; (2) appointing a journal EDI director; (3) establishing an EDI mentoring approach; and (4) publishing reports on EDI actions and achievements [6].

The reasons why women do not put themselves forward for awards or apply for major grants in our field have been debated [1]. These reasons may include the fact that women prioritise their private lives or that they have higher levels of humility or lower self-esteem than their male peers, knowing the difficult history of women. We must continuously encourage talented female scientists to apply for awards and grants, and help them to do so. This must be done by all protagonists in the field, starting with the senior male scientists in the diabetes field and including scientific journals, medical societies and funding bodies. By doing so we will pay tribute to our mothers and grandmothers, including mine, who did not have the opportunity to demonstrate their skills or be recognised as they deserved.