Publications as predictors of racial and ethnic differences in NIH research awards.

This research expands efforts to understand differences in NIH funding associated with the self-identified race and ethnicity of applicants. We collected data from 2,397 NIH Biographical Sketches submitted between FY 2003 and 2006 as part of new NIH R01 Type 1 applications to obtain detailed information on the applicants' training and scholarly activities, including publications. Using these data, we examined the association between an NIH R01 applicant's race or ethnicity and the probability of receiving an R01 award. The applicant's publication history as reported in the NIH biographical sketch and the associated bibliometrics narrowed the black/white funding gap for new and experienced investigators in explanatory models. We found that black applicants reported fewer papers on their Biosketches, had fewer citations, and those that were reported appeared in journals with lower impact factors. Incorporating these measures in our models explained a substantial portion of the black/white funding gap. Although these predictors influence the funding gap, they do not fully address race/ethnicity differences in receiving a priority score.

Policy Implications of Aging in the NIH-Funded Workforce.

Because of national interest in the "graying" of the biomedical workforce, we examine aging and funding within the pool of NIH-funded investigators and applicants, particularly in the growing field of stem cell research. We provide evidence of a maturing and more competitive stem cell workforce and discuss policy implications.

Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and National Institutes of Health R01 Research Awards: Is There Evidence of a Double Bind for Women of Color?

PURPOSE: To analyze the relationship between gender, race/ethnicity, and the probability of being awarded an R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). METHOD: The authors used data from the NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination grants management database for the years 2000-2006 to examine gender differences and race/ethnicity-specific gender differences in the probability of receiving an R01 Type 1 award. The authors used descriptive statistics and probit models to determine the relationship between gender, race/ethnicity, degree, investigator experience, and R01 award probability, controlling for a large set of observable characteristics. RESULTS: White women PhDs and MDs were as likely as white men to receive an R01 award. Compared with white women, Asian and black women PhDs and black women MDs were significantly less likely to receive funding. Women submitted fewer grant applications, and blacks and women who were new investigators were more likely to submit only one application between 2000 and 2006. CONCLUSIONS: Differences by race/ethnicity explain the NIH funding gap for women of color, as white women have a slight advantage over men in receiving Type 1 awards. Findings of a lower submission rate for women and an increased likelihood that they will submit only one proposal are consistent with research showing that women avoid competition. Policies designed to address the racial and ethnic diversity of the biomedical workforce have the potential to improve funding outcomes for women of color.

Size and characteristics of the biomedical research workforce associated with U.S. National Institutes of Health extramural grants.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) annually invests approximately $22 billion in biomedical research through its extramural grant programs. Since fiscal year (FY) 2010, all persons involved in research during the previous project year have been required to be listed on the annual grant progress report. These new data have enabled the production of the first-ever census of the NIH-funded extramural research workforce. Data were extracted from All Personnel Reports submitted for NIH grants funded in FY 2009, including position title, months of effort, academic degrees obtained, and personal identifiers. Data were de-duplicated to determine a unique person count. Person-years of effort (PYE) on NIH grants were computed. In FY 2009, NIH funded 50,885 grant projects, which created 313,049 full- and part-time positions spanning all job functions involved in biomedical research. These positions were staffed by 247,457 people at 2,604 institutions. These persons devoted 121,465 PYE to NIH grant-supported research. Research project grants each supported 6 full- or part-time positions, on average. Over 20% of positions were occupied by postdoctoral researchers and graduate and undergraduate students. These baseline data were used to project workforce estimates for FYs 2010-2014 and will serve as a foundation for future research.

Are race, ethnicity, and medical school affiliation associated with NIH R01 type 1 award probability for physician investigators?

PURPOSE: To analyze the relationship among National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 Type 1 applicant degree, institution type, and race/ethnicity, and application award probability. METHOD: The authors used 2000-2006 data from the NIH IMPAC II grants database and other sources to determine which individual and institutional characteristics of applicants may affect the probability of applications being awarded funding. They used descriptive statistics and probit models to estimate correlations between race/ethnicity, degree (MD or PhD), and institution type (medical school or other institution), and application award probability, controlling for a large set of observable characteristics. RESULTS: Applications from medical schools were significantly more likely than those from other institutions to receive funding, as were applications from MDs versus PhDs. Overall, applications from blacks and Asians were less likely than those from whites to be awarded funding; however, among applications from MDs at medical schools, there was no difference in funding probability between whites and Asians, and the difference between blacks and whites decreased to 7.8%. The inclusion of human subjects significantly decreased the likelihood of receiving funding. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with applications from whites, applications from blacks have a lower probability of being awarded R01 Type 1 funding, regardless of the investigator's degree. However, funding probability is increased for applications with MD investigators and for those from medical schools. To some degree, these advantages combine so that applications from black MDs at medical schools have the smallest difference in funding probability compared with those from whites.

Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards.

We investigated the association between a U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 applicant's self-identified race or ethnicity and the probability of receiving an award by using data from the NIH IMPAC II grant database, the Thomson Reuters Web of Science, and other sources. Although proposals with strong priority scores were equally likely to be funded regardless of race, we find that Asians are 4 percentage points and black or African-American applicants are 13 percentage points less likely to receive NIH investigator-initiated research funding compared with whites. After controlling for the applicant's educational background, country of origin, training, previous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics, we find that black applicants remain 10 percentage points less likely than whites to be awarded NIH research funding. Our results suggest some leverage points for policy intervention.

Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs.

PURPOSE: The authors provide an analysis of sex differences in National Institutes of Health (NIH) award programs to inform potential initiatives for promoting diversity in the research workforce. METHOD: In 2010, the authors retrieved data for NIH extramural grants in the electronic Research Administration Information for Management, Planning, and Coordination II database and used statistical analysis to determine any sex differences in securing NIH funding, as well as subsequent success of researchers who had already received independent NIH support. RESULTS: Success and funding rates for men and women were not significantly different in most award programs. Furthermore, in programs where participation was lower for women than men, the disparity was primarily related to a lower percentage of women applicants compared with men, rather than decreased success rates or funding rates. However, for subsequent grants, both application and funding rates were generally higher for men than for women. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectional analysis showed that women and men were generally equally successful at all career stages, but longitudinal analysis showed that men with previous experience as NIH grantees had higher application and funding rates than women at similar career points. On average, although women received larger R01 awards than men, men had more R01 awards than women at all points in their careers. Therefore, while greater participation of women in NIH programs is under way, further action will be required to eradicate remaining sex differences.