Michael Sonia Underwood, an associate professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Florida International University, is asking the chemistry community to reconsider a long-standing but often unspoken question: who gets to be considered a “real” chemist. In a recent study published in JACS Au, Underwood and graduate researcher Giselle Castaño examine how professional identity in chemistry is shaped not only by skills and training, but by social expectations that continue to favor a narrow academic ideal.
Castano, G., Dou, R., Linh, N., Mohammed, N., Lopez, A., & Underwood, S. M. (2025). Identity Development in Chemistry: The Social Functionality and Moral Significance of Being (Considered) a “Real” Chemist. JACS Au, 5(9), 4408–4426. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacsau.5c00769
The perception of a chemist has evolved from outdated caricatures, yet many assumptions remain embedded within the field. According to the study, chemistry is still commonly associated with molecular-level research carried out in academic laboratories, particularly within traditional subdisciplines such as organic or inorganic chemistry. Careers outside this frame, including industrial chemistry, chemical education research, applied chemistry, or interdisciplinary work, are often viewed as secondary despite their central role in modern society.
Michael Sonia Underwood, an associate professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Florida International University stated,
“What makes this stereotype powerful isn’t just that it exists, but that it functions as the measuring stick for legitimacy in the field. It creates a hierarchy where theoretical, bench chemistry in academic settings is seen as more rigorous and ‘real’ than applied or interdisciplinary work.”
Underwood’s research highlights why this matters now. Chemistry programs have seen a notable decline in enrollment, with majors dropping by roughly a quarter over the past five years, a rate far steeper than declines seen across other STEM disciplines. Prior reporting from the American Chemical Society has pointed to unclear career narratives and limited visibility of non-academic pathways as contributing factors. Underwood argues that broadening the definition of what counts as chemistry work is critical to both attracting new students and retaining trained professionals.
Working through FIU’s STEM Transformation Institute, Underwood and Castaño conducted qualitative research exploring how chemists across different career paths understand belonging and legitimacy within the field. Participants frequently referenced an idealized “pure chemist,” typically imagined as someone conducting theoretical or bench-based research in a university setting. This image often excluded biochemists, chemistry education researchers, industrial scientists, and those working at the interface of chemistry and engineering.
Castaño notes that the influence of this stereotype goes beyond personal perception. It operates as an informal benchmark that affects recognition, career advancement, and access to opportunities. Chemists who do not align with the academic laboratory model may question whether their work is valued, even when it contributes directly to product development, manufacturing, environmental protection, or public health.
The researchers found that this hierarchy also reinforces a divide between academia and industry. Some industry chemists reported encountering negative judgments about leaving academic research, while others described pressure to justify applied work as less rigorous or less intellectually demanding. In some cases, fitting the established mold appeared to carry more weight than the quality or impact of the work itself.
Underwood emphasizes that chemistry is foundational to everyday life, shaping everything from fertilizers and pharmaceuticals to materials, coatings, and consumer products. Excluding large segments of the profession from the dominant definition of chemistry risks undermining the field’s relevance and weakening its workforce. She points to gradual progress in some institutions, where interdisciplinary collaboration and broader career recognition are becoming more common, though cultural change remains slow.
Rather than proposing immediate policy shifts, the study encourages reflection and structured discussion within departments, professional societies, and research groups. The authors include guided questions intended to help chemists examine how value is assigned across subfields and whether those values align with the collaborative, applied nature of modern science and engineering.
By reframing chemistry as a discipline defined by problem-solving and impact rather than a single career trajectory, Underwood and Castaño argue that the field can better support diverse talent and remain resilient in the face of changing scientific and workforce demands. For engineering-adjacent disciplines that rely heavily on chemical expertise, this broader view may also help strengthen connections between research, industry, and society.
Adrian graduated with a Masters Degree (1st Class Honours) in Chemical Engineering from Chester University along with Harris. His master’s research aimed to develop a standardadised clean water oxygenation transfer procedure to test bubble diffusers that are currently used in the wastewater industry commercial market. He has also undergone placments in both US and China primarely focused within the R&D department and is an associate member of the Institute of Chemical Engineers (IChemE).
