Winston Morgan

This paper investigates the persistent underrepresentation of Black heritage researchers and academics at UK Higher Education Institutions in Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths, and Medicine (STEMM), with a focus on Biomedical Research where possible. Despite decades of policy development, research, and advocacy, 0.6% of STEMM professors are Black, falling to zero in certain disciplines. Are the structural barriers that exclude Black researchers at every stage of the STEMM pipeline? Research culture influences how research is conducted, communicated, and how researchers are supported. Academic progression depends on research, funding, publications, teaching, and leadership, and the criteria are often unequally applied. Evidence highlights Black researchers’ experiences of exclusion, racial harassment, and opaque advancement processes; moreover, funding disparities further entrench inequality. Data reveal that Black researchers account for less than 1% of fellowship holders and Principal Investigators. Additionally, without institutional support, Black researchers and academics are routinely excluded from the research culture and economy. Black professors’ underrepresentation is not simply a pipeline issue but a result of intersecting failures in recruitment, funding, and academic culture. Grassroots initiatives offer community support but come at a cost, the “Minority Tax”, which is unpaid labour that diverts time from career-building activities. Representation matters for students, knowledge production, and institutional legitimacy. Therefore, systemic reforms are urgently required. Research funders and institutions must implement transparent, equitable policies that enable Black researchers to not only enter but also thrive and lead within the UK research ecosystem.

Despite increasing reports of tick-borne diseases in Africa, remarkably, reports of tick-borne relapsing fever (TBRF) in Nigeria are lacking. Ornithodoros savignyi from Nigeria have been reported with the relapsing fever Candidatus Borrelia kalaharica. Conversely, in Ethiopia, the agent of relapsing fever is the louse-borne relapsing fever (LBRF) spirochaete Borrelia recurrentis with no TBRF reported to occur. A total of 389 Ornithodoros ticks, Ethiopia (N = 312) and Nigeria (N = 77), were sampled, together with 350 cattle, and 200 goat sera were collected from Nigeria. Samples were screened for Borrelia spp. by RT-PCR. Reactive samples were confirmed, then sequenced using flagellin B, 16S rRNA, and 16S–23S intergenic spacer region. The prevalence of Borrelia spp. in livestock was 3.8% (21/550) and 14% (3/21) after final molecular confirmation. Of 312 ticks from Ethiopia, 3.5% (11/312) were positive for Borrelia, with 36% (4/11) by conventional PCR. Sequencing revealed that the borreliae in soft ticks was C. B. kalaharica, whilst that found in animals was Borrelia theileri. Soft ticks were confirmed by sequencing 7% (22/312) and 12% (9/77) of the Ethiopian and Nigerian ticks, respectively. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that these were Ornithodoros savignyi. This is the first evidence of C. B. kalaharica in Ethiopia and demonstrates the co-existence of TBRF in a country endemic to LBRF. Important, this might cause a diagnostic challenge given that LBRF is predominantly diagnosed by microscopy, which cannot differentiate these two spirochaetes. Furthermore, we report B. theileri in ruminants in Nigeria, which may also be of veterinary and economic importance.