This letter is a composite created from multiple lived experiences, stories, and data shared by community members and leaders. It represents recurring themes and realities, not a single individual.

Content Note: Decision Making, Power, Participation

On innovation, decision-making, and who is absent

I keep hearing that STEM is how we solve the world’s biggest problems.

I believe that. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t.

But I’m starting to understand that the biggest barriers aren’t always at the entry point. They’re upstream, in planning meetings, funding decisions, research priorities, and who gets to be seen as “expert” before a single youth ever walks into a room.

I’ve sat in rooms where the future is being designed. Where timelines are tight and innovation is the goal. And I’ve noticed something: the people most impacted by the outcomes are often not there.

Not disabled people. Not racialized communities. Not people who need access built in from the beginning, not added later as a fix.

When someone raises a concern, it’s labelled “scope creep.” When access is mentioned, it’s framed as a risk. When equity shows up, it’s on a PowerPoint slide rarely as a decision-maker.

I don’t think this is intentional harm. I think it’s habit, I think it’s comfort, I think it’s an assumption that innovation is neutral. But innovation is shaped by who’s at the table and who never gets invited.

If STEM is truly about solving the world’s biggest challenges, then we have to ask harder questions:

Who defines the problem? Who benefits from the solution? Who is expected to adapt and who is protected from discomfort?

Inclusion isn’t just about who can access your programs. It’s about who shapes your strategy, your research, your next phase of growth.

If we want different outcomes, we need different voices not as advisors, not as testimonials, but with real power and real risk shared.

That’s what it means to innovate responsibly.