Gender equality is a global issue. For me, achieving global gender equality is the big prize, and we shouldn't take our eyes off of it. To this end, I'm working toward the UN Women's #Planet5050 goal, to achieve gender equality by 2030, by focusing on the two groups of people I know most about: scientists and scientists in training.

A few months ago, I summarized factors that I think play a major role in gender inequality in the STEM disciplines. I shared the journey I took down a long and winding road trying to better understand the factors that affect gender equality in science. But I stayed away from commenting on possible solutions. The issues are complex and complicated, on scales ranging from an individual and her or his family to institutional, governmental, and global policies, and include spoken and unspoken rules. I can't help but feel overwhelmed by the sheer size of the problem and its scope, and I can't help but question my ability to offer a meaningful and insightful commentary.

But the recently released Global Gender Gap Report jolted me into action. Although gender equality can't be measured by economic parameters alone, what this report highlights is that it will take us another 170 years to close the worldwide economic gender gap. To put that number into perspective, that means that my great-great-great-great-great-grandchild may be born into a world of economic gender equality.

I can't wait that long, and the world can't either.

I'm not alone in feeling and thinking this way. The report itself includes infographics that will help companies develop business strategies for gender parity and directly tackle some of the barriers to hiring and promoting women. Immediately following the report's release, many took to social media and blogs to comment on the new numbers. Two examples that stood out to me are a post by Mark Weinberger, the Chairman and CEO of EY, where he shares five valuable lessons he learned while working to close gender gap at EY, and a tweet where Halla Tomasdottir, an Icelandic businessperson, talks about a recent protest that took place in Iceland—the country that ranks number one in the report for economic gender parity—during which women, who are paid an average of 14% less than men, walked out of work 14% earlier in the day.

“I don’t know if protest leads to change, but protest helps us have the conversation.” @HallaTomas on Iceland's gender pay gap protest. pic.twitter.com/5mR4hzC8T4 — TED Talks (@TEDTalks) November 1, 2016

The factors that contribute to the gender imbalance we see in science are many—cultural, institutional, and personal—and therefore we can't have a one-size-fits-all solution. But we have to start somewhere. My goal here is to draw your attention to a few good starting points that seem to be pragmatic and within our reach, or so fundamentally critical that, despite being long shots, are worth focusing on.

1. Measure up to double down

We all feel that women are underrepresented in the STEM disciplines. We have a lot of numbers to back up this feeling, but I think we need more, and we need the numbers to be more specific. Without hard numbers, vague commitments tend to replace specific actions.

As Mark Weinberger pointed out, the first step EY took was to measure their gender gap and to use that number as a benchmark to monitor progress and evaluate results. So if an institution is serious about addressing the gender gap, then I argue that as their very first step they must determine where they are in order to create a detailed map of where they want to be. Ideally, all institutions would have a standardized report card, not unlike what The Athena SWAN award has developed or what the Initiative on Women in Science and Engineering(IWISE) Working Group is proposing.

2. Taking unconscious (implicit) bias by the horns

A great deal has been said about unconscious bias and the effect it has on women in science and STEM workplaces (read here, here, here, here, and here). Yet there are far too many people who doubt the veracity of the claim that we all have unconscious biases and carry them around through our personal and professional lives.

So, in order to measure your own biases on a number of issues, including gender, you can use a series of online implicit bias tests. Getting a sense of where we are individually in terms of unconscious bias is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg, so the next big thing we can do is to bring unconscious bias awareness training to our institutions and companies as well as to build hiring, awards, recognition, and promotion systems that minimize the likelihood that unconscious bias will impact the decision-making process.

One example of an institution taking specific and effective measures is the University of Michigan's ADVANCE program and STRIDE Committee, and their site offers excellent resources and tools for faculty recruitment and retention aimed at tackling unconscious bias and, ultimately, improving faculty diversity.

3. Getting the buy-in

Despite individual passion, desire to change, and commitment to addressing the gender equality issue in science, for the climate to truly change and for this cultural change to take roots, we must have broad buy-in at all levels, from the bottom to the very top. In my opinion, the most effective way to get a buy-in, regardless of the level, is to make the issue real and relatable.

For example, powerful numbers that can make gender equality real for university leadership and business decision-makers come from research on whether increasing the number of women in leadership positions makes a difference to company performance and the bottom line. The answer to this question is "yes," because multiple surveys have shown a positive correlation between profitability and the percentage of women in leadership roles. See here for a more recent report from the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)—where they state that, "[for] profitable firms, a move from no female leaders to 30 percent representation is associated with a 15 percent increase in the net revenue margin"—or an earlier report from McKinsey & Company.

But getting the buy-in is not only about hard figures and bottom lines. There is also accumulating evidence that diversity makes teams smarter and seems to improve the quality of science. At the end of the day, the core argument that wins over all others is that gender equality and equity are simply the right thing to do, and many at the grassroots level can relate to that. But approaching those in leadership positions, who are mostly male, and getting them excited about being promoters, sponsors, and advocates requires speaking about the issue in a way that will prompt them to sit up and pay attention.

4. Building a rock-solid support system

In general, women experience a lack of institutional, professional, cultural, peer, and family support systems more frequently and more intensely than men. In many cases this is due to the lack of positive professional role models. At CrossTalk, we have attempted to rectify this situation by profiling a number of successful women scientists (here, here, here, here, and here). I find their stories inspiring, and I hope you find them helpful, too. Additionally, I hope these stories encourage you to identify your role models and reach out to them for mentoring and advice.

Mentoring is an essential component of the support system that we need to build. Many institutions, professional associations, and scientific societies are increasingly aware of the power of mentoring, and increasing numbers of mentoring resources are available to women in science. Women, their senior colleagues, and leadership within institutions can also greatly benefit from reverse mentoring, where a junior person helps further the professional and personal development of a more senior person. Both traditional and reverse mentoring benefit mentors and mentees and can make a real difference in workplace culture and values.

One big reason women need a stronger support system is that they remain the primary caregivers for their children and families, which extends to elder care. I wish we were able to have a conversation about achieving gender equality without talking about babies and childcare, but we are not there yet. To their credit, many institutions and funders are starting to make allowances for families with young children and recognize that this can help them retain both female and male talent.

It's tragic that the United States, a leader in science investment and performance, does not have paid maternity leave policy and that many within the university and research system are taking advantage of this by creating an atmosphere in which women feel they must return to work within few weeks of giving birth. This is inhumane to both the baby and the mother, and I argue that this is actually the main reason women in America feel discouraged to pursue careers in STEM, despite initiatives like the NIH Family-Friendly Initiatives and the NSF's Career-Life Balance Initiative.

However, even in the rest of the world, where maternity leave policies are more reasonable, childcare more affordable, and paternal leave policies on the rise, institutions and funders can make the transitions more manageable by adopting inclusive policies and values. For example, fellowships like the Judith Whitworth Fellowship for Gender Equity in Science help. What also helps are innovative approaches, like a course on combining motherhood and science offered by the Weizmann Institute of Science.

But it is not enough to have great maternity leave policies and support systems in place—we must simultaneously work to bring men on board and empower them to take paternity leave and get involved in family life to the same extent as their female partners. Evidence that parental leave policies must extend to men if we are to increase female representation in leadership positions also comes from the PIEE report and analysis. One of the more interesting insights presented is that maternity leave policies don't seem to correlate with increased numbers of women in leadership positions. But offering leave to men and encouraging them to take time off to care for their families, especially young children, makes a real difference.

I hope these thoughts will be a useful conversation starter. No matter how each of us decides to tackle the issue of gender equality in science, the road will be long, rocky, and winding. The journey will challenge our assumptions and ask us to be frank and honest about our own biases and to be brave enough to point them out in other individuals and institutions.

Regardless of whether we decide to act locally or globally, act we must.