Why this work matters

Science has the power to improve lives, but many people with disabilities are still excluded from participating fully in scientific research. In Canada, laboratory spaces often have narrow hallways, high benches, bright lights, and loud equipment that make it difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to work safely and independently. The goal of this study was to learn how federal science laboratories can become more accessible and inclusive for everyone. It builds on the Accessible Canada Act (2019), which aims for a barrier-free country by 2040, and supports the Clerk’s Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity, and Inclusion in the federal public service. This research forms part of Natural Resources Canada’s Inclusive Science and Accessible Laboratories (ISAL) initiative. The study brings together insights from more than 60 research papers and government reports, as well as interviews with 11 employees and managers working in federal science laboratories. It identifies barriers, shares examples of good practice, and offers clear recommendations for change.

1. What we learned from the literature

1.1 The global context

Researchers and advocates around the world agree that most science labs are still not designed for accessibility. In the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, people with disabilities remain underrepresented in science. Although they make up more than 20 per cent of the general population, they account for only about three to four per cent of the scientific workforce.

Common barriers include:

• Laboratory benches and fume hoods that are fixed too high for wheelchair users.

• Poor lighting or excessive noise that overwhelms people with sensory sensitivities.

• Safety equipment that assumes one physical ability or body type.

• Long delays or complex processes for getting accommodations.

Accessibility is often treated as an afterthought, only addressed after a problem arises. Researchers call this a reactive approach. A better way is a proactive approach, using the principles of Universal Design, and planning from the start to make spaces, tools and teaching methods work for everyone.

1.2 Universal Design and inclusive education

Universal Design (UD) means creating environments that work for the widest possible range of people, without needing individual adaptations later. This approach has expanded into Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which promotes flexible teaching and learning methods. Research shows that Universal Design benefits everyone. For example: • Adjustable or movable workstations allow people of different heights and abilities to participate comfortably. • Clear instructions in multiple formats, such as written, verbal and video, help students learn at their own pace. • Accessible technology like screen readers, tactile diagrams and talking instruments improves independence. • Quiet zones and good ventilation reduce fatigue and sensory overload. Studies also show that Universal Design saves money and time. When accessibility is planned from the start, it avoids expensive retrofits and fosters inclusion as a normal part of design rather than a special feature.

1.3 Accessibility in the built environment

The Accessible Canada Act and the Accessibility Strategy for the Public Service of Canada require government departments to remove barriers in the built environment, employment and communication. However, accessibility standards for laboratories are inconsistent, and many existing facilities were built before these requirements existed. Canadian and international experts recommend improvements such as:

• Aisles at least 42 to 48 inches wide (106.8 cm to 121.9 cm).

• Adjustable benches, fume hoods and sinks.

• High-contrast colours for better visibility.

• Visual and auditory alarm systems.

• Automatic doors and lever-style handles

Design models like the “Nature-Inspired” and “Living Laboratory” (NILL 1.0) framework combine accessibility with sustainability and health. They show that when laboratories are designed to support people of all abilities, they also become safer, more efficient and more environmentally friendly.

1.4 Employment, representation and systemic ableism

Barriers in science are not only physical. Cultural and structural ableism also limit access and advancement. Studies by Castro et al. (2024) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s (CIHR)’s Anti-Ableism Action Plan (2024) show that many scientists with disabilities hesitate to disclose their disabilities for fear of losing opportunities or being judged. Processes for requesting accommodations are often slow, inconsistent and emotionally draining. A 2023 federal study conducted by Phoenix Strategic Perspectives (Phoenix SPI) contracted by The Office of Public Service Accessibility (OPSA) found that harassment and discrimination tend to occur during accommodation requests, most often between employees with disabilities and superiors, such as managers, team leaders, or supervisors, and occasionally co-workers. Representation data highlight the impact. According to the 2022 Federal Science Workforce Overview report from the Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada, only 3.5 per cent of federal scientists identify as persons with disabilities, compared to compared with 6.0 per cent of federal employees. These gaps are not only unfair; they weaken the quality of science. Research shows that diverse teams are more creative, innovative and effective at solving complex problems.

2. What we heard from federal science employees

2.1 About the consultations

To better understand how barriers appear in real workplaces, we interviewed 11 federal science employees. Participants included scientists, technicians and managers working in laboratories across departments. They discussed their experiences with accessibility, accommodations and workplace culture. Their insights show how system-level issues translate into daily challenges, but also highlight many ideas for improvement.

2.2 Theme 1: Knowledge and training

Many participants were unsure of where to find guidance on accessible laboratory design or policies. Some were not aware of any federal standards specific to labs. As a result, managers often relied on informal judgment instead of consistent criteria. Several people said they lacked confidence in planning or purchasing accessible equipment. They wanted practical examples and step-by-step checklists instead of generic awareness sessions. Managers also wanted better tools for inclusive hiring and training.

2.3 Theme 2: Policy and process gaps

Most interviewees said that where accessibility policies exist, they are not always followed. Committees often lack representation from laboratory staff with disabilities, and consultations usually happen late in the design or renovation process. Procurement decisions rarely include accessibility criteria, which leads to repeated purchases of non-adjustable equipment or inaccessible furniture. Employees also said that centralized tools like the Workplace Accessibility Passport do not fully address laboratory-specific needs. One participant summarized this clearly: “We retrofit after complaints instead of planning ahead.”

2.4 Theme 3: Physical and environmental barriers

Participants shared many examples of barriers that affect daily work:

• Automatic doors that do not work consistently.

• Narrow aisles that block wheelchair movement.

• Poor lighting, strong cleaning chemicals and high noise levels that cause discomfort or health issues.

• Inaccessible signage and wayfinding.

• Emergency alarms without visual signals for Deaf employees.

Some employees brought their own accessibility aids, like air filters or yoga mats, to cope with sensory challenges. Others had to leave workspaces during certain conditions, such as when heating or cooling systems failed. These situations create unequal participation and safety risks.

2.5 Theme 4: Accommodation practices

Accommodation systems were described as slow and stressful. Employees sometimes waited months or even years for requests to be processed. Temporary or contract workers were less likely to receive support, creating unequal access between staff categories.

When official processes failed, employees and supervisors often created their own fixes. While these efforts showed initiative, they also meant that accessibility depended on individual goodwill rather than a reliable system.

Participants said that disclosure was emotionally difficult. They had to repeatedly explain and justify their needs to keep working, which created fear, fatigue and frustration.

2.6 Theme 5: Collaboration and communication

Communication about accessibility varied between departments. Some laboratories held regular meetings and shared updates, while others worked in isolation. External collaboration with accessibility experts or advocacy organizations was rare.

When people with disabilities were left out of decision-making, poor outcomes followed. In one example, managers consulted an outside group about hearing accommodations, but did not include their own Deaf colleague in the discussion. This caused mistrust and eventually led that employee to leave the organization.

2.7 Theme 6: Cultural and attitudinal barriers

Many participants described accessibility as something added later, rather than built into planning. Some managers expressed discomfort or disbelief when employees requested supports. In a few cases, employees were told they should not be working in the office at all.

Such attitudes discourage people from speaking up, limit promotion opportunities, and contribute to attrition. A few participants said they no longer expected to be promoted because they were seen as “less capable.” This shows how physical barriers and cultural bias reinforce each other.

2.8 Theme 7: Recommendations from participants

Employees had many ideas for improvement. They suggested departments could:

• Create an accessibility scorecard for federal laboratories.

• Establish a central capital fund for accessibility projects.

• Develop a lending library for adaptive tools and equipment.

• Require co-design with persons with disabilities for new spaces.

• Prioritize quick, low-cost “wins” while planning larger renovations.

• Provide plain-language policies and hands-on training for managers.

These suggestions reflect a shared desire for both immediate action and long-term, system-level change.

3. Integrated recommendations

3.1 Build accessibility into every step

Accessibility should be integrated into all planning, design and procurement decisions. The federal government should:

• Require Universal Design as a standard for all new laboratories.

• Develop accessibility standards that go beyond minimum codes and review them regularly.

• Include people with disabilities as co-designers and compensate them for their expertise.

• Embed accessibility criteria in all procurement templates and vendor contracts.

This approach ensures that accessibility becomes part of everyday practice rather than a special project.

3.2 Fund accessibility fairly

Funding for accessibility upgrades is inconsistent and often left to individual departments. A centralized accessibility capital fund would make it easier to upgrade old buildings and share costs.

A tiered approach can include:

• Micro-grants for immediate needs like ergonomic tools or accessible software.

• Medium-term funds for retrofits and equipment upgrades.

• Long-term investments tied to national infrastructure renewal.

This strategy ensures that progress continues even when budgets are tight.

3.3 Redefine essential work requirements

Job descriptions should focus on what needs to be achieved, not only how tasks have traditionally been done.

Departments should:

• Clearly justify which physical tasks are truly essential.

• Explore flexible ways to meet job outcomes, such as remote tools or redesigned roles.

• Regularly review job templates to include inclusive options.

This approach balances safety and inclusion while expanding opportunities for qualified scientists with disabilities.

3.4 Improve communication and accessibility information

Policies are only useful if employees can understand and use them. Departments should:

• Publish plain-language guides on how to request accommodations.

• Include accessibility information in onboarding for all employees.

• Integrate accessibility into hazard assessments and safety policies.

Clear and accessible communication builds trust and consistency across the public service.

3.5 Support and Strengthen Community of Practice

A national Community of Practice (CoP) on Accessibility in Federal Science Laboratories can continue to connect departments and share innovations.

This network should:

• Host regular knowledge-sharing meetings.

• Maintain a shared repository of accessibility audits and design examples.

• Coordinate training and mentorship programs.

• Align with existing initiatives like Laboratories Canada and Natural Resources Canada’s Accessibility Action Plan.

Collaboration prevents duplication and speeds up progress.

3.6 Use audits and maximize quick wins

Regular accessibility audits, done with participation from people with disabilities, help identify and prioritize barriers. These audits should feed into a national database that tracks what works.

A three-tiered improvement plan can deliver results quickly:

• Tier 1: Immediate low-cost actions such as portable ramps, clear signage and ergonomic chairs.

• Tier 2: Medium-term upgrades including lighting, acoustics and accessible IT systems.

• Tier 3: Major renovations linked to long-term capital renewal.

This flexible approach balances quick improvements with sustainable planning.

3.7 Address sensory and environmental needs

Lighting, sound and air quality have major effects on comfort and concentration.

Laboratories should:

• Use adjustable and non-glare lighting.

• Install sound-absorbing materials and offer quiet zones.

• Implement scent-free and low-emission cleaning practices.

• Design accessible personal protective equipment (PPE) and gowning areas. Managing sensory environments improves safety and supports the well-being of all workers.

3.8 Support innovation through technology

Technology can remove barriers when physical access is limited.

Federal departments should:

• Pilot remote-controlled lab instruments and robotic systems.

• Develop 3D virtual models of labs for planning, training and remote collaboration.

• Use digital dashboards to track accessibility performance.

These innovations allow more people to participate safely and effectively in scientific work.

3.9 Strengthen training and workplace culture

Training should focus on real situations and practical problem-solving.

Departments should:

• Provide case-based learning for managers and supervisors.

• Establish accessibility working groups with real decision-making authority.

• Involve employees with disabilities early in design projects.

• Offer compensation and feedback for lived-experience contributions.

Ongoing education helps move organizations from awareness to action.

3.10 Make accessibility measurable and accountable

Progress requires transparency and tracking.

Federal departments should:

• Require accessibility impact statements for all laboratory projects.

• Publish annual reports and accessibility scorecards.

• Include accessibility goals in departmental performance frameworks.

• Conduct both internal and external evaluations.

• Gather continuous feedback from employees and partners.

Public reporting keeps accessibility commitments visible and ensures accountability.

4. The bigger picture

Accessibility strengthens science itself. Inclusive laboratories are safer, more efficient and more creative. When people of all abilities can contribute, Canada benefits from a wider range of knowledge and innovation.

Accessible science also supports broader government goals, including:

• The Accessible Canada Act and the work of Accessibility Standards Canada.

• The Accessibility Strategy for the Public Service of Canada and its goal of a barrier-free public service by 2040.

• The Laboratories Canada modernization initiative.

• Natural Resources Canada’s 2022–2025 Accessibility Action Plan.

Accessibility is not an add-on or a compliance exercise. It is a foundation for scientific excellence and equity.

5. Next steps

To move forward, federal science departments should:

1. Adopt Universal Design as a standard requirement in all new and renovated laboratories.

2. Create a centralized capital fund and micro-grant system to support accessibility upgrades.

3. Require co-design with people with disabilities in all projects and programs.

4. Support the Interdepartmental Community of Practice (CoP) on Accessibility in Federal Science Laboratories to coordinate standards, audits and knowledge sharing.

5. Integrate accessibility into procurement, hazard assessment and job design processes.

6. Publish annual progress reports with clear performance indicators.

7. Pilot technological and sensory accessibility innovations.

8. Ensure equitable promotion and career advancement for scientists with disabilities.

6. Conclusion

Accessible science is not only the right thing to do—it is essential for excellence, safety and innovation. By embedding accessibility into every aspect of laboratory design, policy and culture, Canada can lead the world in creating inclusive scientific environments. When people with disabilities can work, learn, and lead in science without barriers, the entire community benefits. A barrier-free laboratory is not just a better workplace. It is a model of what a truly inclusive society can achieve.