From vision to impact: What closing the gender gap in STEM really means for Africa
Every year, we reaffirm our commitment to women and girls in science. We host panels, share statistics, and celebrate role models. These efforts matter, but in Africa today, they are no longer enough.
- gender and food security
Every year, we reaffirm our commitment to women and girls in science. We host panels, share statistics, and celebrate role models. These efforts matter, but in Africa today, they are no longer enough.
The 2026 International Day of Women and Girls in Science theme, “From vision to impact: Redefining STEM by closing the gender gap,” challenges us to move beyond awareness and intent. It asks whether our scientific systems are actually delivering better outcomes, and for whom. For policymakers across Africa, this is not an abstract concern. It goes to the heart of development effectiveness because the gender gap in STEM is not only a fairness issue, but it is also a scientific quality and development effectiveness issue.
I work at the intersection of agriculture, nutrition, and health, across diverse African contexts. In this space, one lesson is clear: who designs the science determines what the science delivers. If women are missing from the design stage, the consequences ripple outward. Consider emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI) and data science. Across Africa, these tools are increasingly used to guide decisions on crop breeding, food systems, climate resilience, and diet priorities. Models now influence which traits are prioritized, which regions receive investment, and which risks are deemed acceptable. But models are not neutral; they reflect the assumptions of their creators. When women are absent from these processes, systems tend to optimize for what is easiest to measure—yield, disease resistance, or profitability. Nutrition, dietary diversity, caregiving realities, and long-term resilience are often sidelined as secondary. The result is technology that looks impressive on paper but fails to improve diets, reduce vulnerability, or protect the most at-risk populations.