It's not often you see not one but two physicists (Brian Cox and Jim Al-Khalili) popping up on Harry Hill's TV Burp, and it's even more unusual for one of them (Jim) to be wearing a wig while playing a Beatles track.

It's one more piece of evidence that science is enjoying a cultural renaissance, and that science presenters are shining on television as never before. Brian, Jim, Iain Stewart, Marcus du Sautoy ... I could go on. But the party-pooping question some people have posed, including Alom Shaha in a thought-provoking post last year on this blog, is where are all the FEMALE science presenters?

Over the years we've had some very strong women on science television – Kathy Sykes and Lesley Regan to name just two. But it seems fair to say they've been fewer in number and maybe also less high profile than the men. Across television and radio, few landmark science series are presented by women; female scientists have been at the helm of only a handful of BBC Horizon documentaries; when you tune into Radio 4's Material World as a casual listener, you don't always encounter female voices; not enough of our scientific interviewees, let alone presenters, are women. Why is this?

Working as the BBC's commissioner for science and natural history, I've talked to a lot of people about this over the past year. A few take issue with Alom's belief that "same sex role models are ... important" and feel we just go for the best (guy!) for the job. Others point out that there are fewer women than men working in science, certainly at the most senior levels: if this is the pool you're fishing in for your presenters, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are fewer women on screen.

I've heard it suggested that women scientists feel they need to be more focused on their careers, are less interested in showing the degree of "personality" that TV requires, that audiences regard them as "less expert", or that women scientists haven't commanded the same level of support for extracurricular work from their universities or the research councils as some of our male presenters.

There may be some uncomfortable truths here. But – as someone who's been making science programmes for a long time – I've got to confess that there could be another reason: perhaps we programme makers just haven't tried hard enough.

Finding (or becoming) a TV presenter is a strange business. It requires a peculiar cocktail of things to come together. Do they make you want to lean towards the telly? Are they good, but somehow unmemorable? Are they too similar to someone we're already working with? Is there something slightly dodgy about their eyes? Can they actually tell a story? Have we got a programme idea in our sights they'd be right for? What have they done already? Can they get the time off?

There's no one recipe: the precise mix of these ingredients varies all the time. In 20 years of programme making I've been amazed by natural talent – but I've also struggled. A compelling voice, a lot of curiosity, a natural instinct for the question in the viewer's mind, warmth, succinctness, that weird ability to walk and talk without looking like an idiot: you'd be surprised how rare these qualities are.

So finding the right people at the right time matched to the right idea is often a very sweaty business. Frankly, you're often so damn pleased to have got this delicate equilibrium even vaguely right, gender is the last thing on your mind. But I think Alom's right – it really matters, and while it isn't the BBC's responsibility alone, we have to recognise that we play a big part.

So over the next year I hope you'll start to notice a stronger female presence on your screens. New faces for us include Helen Czerski, a physicist (and bubbles expert) soon coming to BBC2 with a series about the science of weather, Gabrielle Walker with a film about Ice, and Gabriel Weston, author of the disturbing and beautiful Direct Red: A Surgeon's Story, who we hope will make a Horizon. Maggie Aderin Pocock, who has just battled through breastfeeding to make Do We Need the Moon for BBC2, will next turn her expertise and irreverence to What's the Point of Satellites?

They will be joining people like the brilliant Alice Roberts (back in September with a series on how our bodies tell the story of human evolution, as well as a special on mammoths and a programme on dinosaurs); Liz Bonnin going from strength to strength with the upcoming Animal Einsteins and Eygpt: What Lies Beneath, on top of Bang Goes the Theory and Stargazing Live; and others including Kate Humble, making a welcome return after leaving her Rough Science days behind to focus on natural history, and Laverne Antrobus.

And just in case the boys are starting to feel left out (that'd be the day!) rest assured there are some promising names emerging there too – people like Mark Miodownik, Kevin Fong and Adam Rutherford.

Male or female, the annoying truth is that it usually takes a long time for presenters to establish a rapport with the audience. Brian Cox had been broadcasting for years before he won the nation's hearts and minds with Wonders. Iain Stewart started as a contributor to Horizon, then graduated to presenting on BBC4 before bringing millions of delighted viewers to The Power of the Planet and How Earth Made Us. Alice Roberts worked her way through Coast and Don't Die Young before becoming one of the rare women so far to front a beautiful landmark series, The Incredible Human Journey, and a Horizon.

TV is an unforgiving business, and it's frustrating that there aren't more places where we can allow people to grow, or even try them out – it's one reason that science on BBC4 is so important to us, and also why it's so important to have an in-house science department.

I don't know which of the women we're working with will turn out to be OK, which good, and which brilliant, but the important thing is that we're trying to work with more.

Even today, science – not just on TV – can give off a pretty blokey whiff. The figures vary depending on who's doing the counting, but according to the UKRC only 9% of professors in science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) subjects and 18% of senior lecturers in the UK are women. That's completely unacceptable.

Away from the higher echelons of academia there are some slightly more positive stirrings. The increase in younger scientists, both male and female, who are decent communicators – not just in labs and lecture halls, but blogging, tweeting, even doing comedy tours – is a big plus for us. There are more women climbing the ladder: around a third of Stem researchers and a quarter of lecturers are female. However lame the record to date, science is (slowly) changing.

Science on TV has to move with this trend, and as we get better at developing women presenters and interviewees, maybe TV can even encourage a bit of change itself. I welcome and look forward to your thoughts.

Kim Shillinglaw is the BBC's commissioning editor for science and natural history