Scientific Productivity, Research Funding, Race and Ethnicity
📝 Abstract
In a recent study by Ginther et al., the probability of receiving a U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) RO1 award was related to the applicant’s race/ethnicity. The results indicate black/African-American applicants were 10% less likely than white peers to receive an award, after controlling for background and qualifications. It has generated a widespread debate regarding the unfairness of the NIH grant review process and its correction. In this paper, the work by Ginther et al. was augmented by pairing analysis, axiomatically-individualized productivity and normalized funding success measurement. Although there are racial differences in R01 grant success rates, normalized figures of merit for funding success explain the discrepancy. The suggested “leverage points for policy intervention” are in question and require deeper and more thorough investigations. Further adjustments in policies to remove racial disparity should be made more systematically for equal opportunity, rather than being limited to the NIH review process.
💡 Analysis
In a recent study by Ginther et al., the probability of receiving a U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) RO1 award was related to the applicant’s race/ethnicity. The results indicate black/African-American applicants were 10% less likely than white peers to receive an award, after controlling for background and qualifications. It has generated a widespread debate regarding the unfairness of the NIH grant review process and its correction. In this paper, the work by Ginther et al. was augmented by pairing analysis, axiomatically-individualized productivity and normalized funding success measurement. Although there are racial differences in R01 grant success rates, normalized figures of merit for funding success explain the discrepancy. The suggested “leverage points for policy intervention” are in question and require deeper and more thorough investigations. Further adjustments in policies to remove racial disparity should be made more systematically for equal opportunity, rather than being limited to the NIH review process.
📄 Content
Page 1
Scientific Productivity, Research Funding, Race and Ethnicity J.S. Yang1,2, M.W. Vannier3, F. Wang4, Y. Deng4, F.R. Ou4, J.R. Bennett1, Y. Liu4*, G. Wang1* 1VT-WFU School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA 2School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China 3Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA 4School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China *To whom correspondence should be addressed (YL: cmuliuyang@yahoo.com; GW: ge-wang@ieee.org) ABSTRACT In a recent study by Ginther et al., the probability of receiving a U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) RO1 award was related to the applicant’s race/ethnicity. The results indicate black/African-American applicants were 10% less likely than white peers to receive an award, after controlling for background and qualifications. It has generated a widespread debate regarding the unfairness of the NIH grant review process and its correction. In this paper, the work by Ginther et al. was augmented by pairing analysis, axiomatically-individualized productivity and normalized funding success measurement. Although there are racial differences in R01 grant success rates, normalized figures of merit for funding success explain the discrepancy. The suggested “leverage points for policy intervention” are in question and require deeper and more thorough investigations. Further adjustments in policies to remove racial disparity should be made more systematically for equal opportunity, rather than being limited to the NIH review process. 1. BACKGROUND In a recent study (D. K. Ginther et al.: “Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards,” Science, 19 August, p. 1015), the probability of receiving a U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) RO1 award was related to the applicant’s race/ethnicity. The results indicate black/African-American applicants were 10% less likely than white peers to receive an award, after controlling for background and qualifications, and further suggest “leverage points for policy intervention” [1]. These findings have generated a widespread debate regarding the unfairness of the NIH grant review process and its correction. The moral imperative is clear that any hidden racial bias is not to be tolerated, particularly in the NIH funding process. However, the question of whether such a racial bias truly exists requires unbiased, rigorous and systematic evaluation. NIH director Francis Collins and Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak reiterated that the Ginther study revealed “from 2000 to 2006, black (1) grant applicants were significantly less likely to receive NIH research funding than were white applicants. The gap in success rates amounted to 10 percentage points, even after controlling for education, country of origin, training, employer characteristics, previous research awards, and publication record (2). Their analysis also showed a gap of 4.2 percentage points for Asians; however, the differences between Asian and white award probabilities were explained by exclusion of noncitizens from the analysis” [2]. NIH officials admitted “the gap could also result from ‘insidious’ bias favoring whites in a peer-review system that supposedly ranks applications only on scientific merit” [3]. In a Letter to Editor of Science, Dr. Voss expressed uneasiness about proposals which address implications of the Ginther study [4]. He warned that “disparity-reduction policies represent social experiments with tremendously important consequences, the effects of which could take decades to identify…much of the racial disparity reported could be attributed to black R01 applicants having half the citation count and one-fifth as many last-authored publications as white applicants from similarly ranked institutions. Coupled with the finding that R01s were awarded to highly ranked applications irrespective of Page 2
race, this suggests that R01 disparity is due to lower research success among black applicants rather than to any problems with NIH review” [4]. In another Letter to Editor, Dr. Erickson pointed out that the citation analysis defined in the Ginther study was not relevant to competitive scientists, the number of citations under consideration should be about 1,000, instead of being about 84, and the number of citations should be normalized to the career length. The opinion was expressed that similarly qualified scientists “would be equally successful in grant funding, with no disparity for race and ethnicity” [5]. D. K. Ginther et al. wrote a defensive response to these letters. They disagree with Voss about his explanation, because “there is substantial evidence that affirmative action does not explain the results” [6]. They found that “blacks and whites were equally likely to receive tenure at higher education institutions that are research intensive”, and “a bad match for research careers will have most likely been
This content is AI-processed based on ArXiv data.