17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      NIH funding longevity by gender

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          Diversity of the biomedical workforce is essential to the scientific enterprise, yet women remain underrepresented in academic positions in biomedical sciences and compose less than one-third of National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grantees. We explored NIH grant support as a proxy for participation in academic research. We found that women had similar funding longevity as men after they received their first major NIH grants, contradicting the common assumption that across all career stages, women experience accelerated attrition compared with men. Despite longevity similarities, women composed only 31% of grantees in our analysis. This discrepancy in grantee demographics suggests that efforts may be best directed toward encouraging women to enter academia and supporting their continued grant submissions.

          Abstract

          Women have achieved parity with men among biomedical science degree holders but remain underrepresented in academic positions. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)—the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research—receives less than one-third of its new grant applications from women. Correspondingly, women compose less than one-third of NIH research grantees, even though they are as successful as men in obtaining first-time grants. Our study examined women’s and men’s NIH funding trajectories over time ( n = 34,770), exploring whether women remain funded at the same rate as men after receiving their first major research grants. A survival analysis demonstrated a slightly lower funding longevity for women. We next examined gender differences in application, review, and funding outcomes. Women individually held fewer grants, submitted fewer applications, and were less successful in renewing grants—factors that could lead to gender differences in funding longevity. Finally, two adjusted survival models that account for initial investigator characteristics or subsequent application behavior showed no gender differences, suggesting that the small observed longevity differences are affected by both sets of factors. Overall, given men’s and women’s generally comparable funding longevities, the data contradict the common assumption that women experience accelerated attrition compared with men across all career stages. Women’s likelihood of sustaining NIH funding may be better than commonly perceived. This suggests a need to explore women’s underrepresentation among initial NIH grantees, as well as their lower rates of new and renewal application submissions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

            Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              High-Dimensional Variable Selection for Survival Data

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A
                pnas
                pnas
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                31 July 2018
                16 July 2018
                16 July 2018
                : 115
                : 31
                : 7943-7948
                Affiliations
                [1] aNational Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, MD 20892
                Author notes
                2To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: Greenbej@ 123456nigms.NIH.gov .

                Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved June 12, 2018 (received for review January 16, 2018)

                Author contributions: L.A.H., N.P.M., C.E.S., A.C.M., A.M.C., R.A., and J.H.G. designed research; L.A.H., N.P.M., C.E.S., and A.C.M. performed research; L.A.H., N.P.M., C.E.S., and A.C.M. analyzed data; and L.A.H., N.P.M., C.E.S., A.C.M., A.M.C., R.A., and J.H.G. wrote the paper.

                1L.A.H. and N.P.M. contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9658-9961
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5505-9304
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1600-3102
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1918-8352
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0804-2753
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9598-2048
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3086-6596
                Article
                201800615
                10.1073/pnas.1800615115
                6077749
                30012615
                4ad26a26-781f-4178-be2b-2dd02d289f60
                Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Categories
                Social Sciences
                Social Sciences
                Biological Sciences
                Applied Biological Sciences

                nih funding,gender disparities,national institutes of health,biomedical workforce,academia

                Comments

                Comment on this article