Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

34 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Ginther DK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3412416 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards.

Ginther Donna K DK Schaffer Walter T WT Schnell Joshua J Masimore Beth B Liu Faye F Haak Laurel L LL Kington Raynard R

Science (New York, N.Y.) 20110801 6045

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 lik ...[more]

PMID: 21852498

Similar Datasets

NIH Career Development Awards: conversion to research grants and regional distribution.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC6264617 | biostudies-literature

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

Project description: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.

| S-EPMC6235266 | biostudies-literature

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

Project description:PurposeTo analyze the relationship between gender, race/ethnicity, and the probability of being awarded an R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).MethodThe 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.ResultsWhite 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.ConclusionsDifferences 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.

| S-EPMC4965301 | biostudies-literature

Underreporting of race/ethnicity in COVID-19 research.

Project description:ObjectivesAlthough racial/ethnic disparities in healthcare have long been recognized, recent discourse around structural racism will hopefully lead to improved transparency surrounding these issues. Despite the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial/ethnic minorities, the extent and reliability of race reporting in COVID research is unclear.MethodsCOVID-19 research published in three top medical journals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was reviewed and assessed for race reporting and proportional representation.ResultsOf the 95 manuscripts that were identified, 56 reporting on 252,262 patients met eligibility. Thirty-five (62.5%) did not report race distribution and 15 (26.7%) did not report ethnicity. There was no difference based on journal (P = 0.87), study sponsor (P = 0.41), whether the study was retrospective or prospective (P = 0.33), or observational vs interventional (P = 0.11). Studies with ≥250 patients were more likely to report on race (OR 4.01, 95% CI: 1.12-14.37, P = 0.027), and North American (USA and Canada) studies were more likely than European studies (OR 7.88, 95% CI: 1.73-37.68, P = 0.006) to report on race. COVID-19 research mirrored USA COVID-19 racial incidence; however, both showed higher distribution of COVID-19 infection among Blacks and a smaller proportion of Whites compared to the USA population. This suggests that research is broadly representing infection rates and that social determinants of health are impacting racial distribution of infection.ConclusionsDespite increasing awareness of racial disparities and inequity, COVID-19 research during the first wave of the pandemic lacked appropriate racial/ethnicity reporting. However, research mirrored COVID-19 incidence in the USA, with an increased burden of infection among Black individuals.

| S-EPMC8221824 | biostudies-literature

Underreporting of Gender and Race/Ethnicity Differences in NIH-Funded Dementia Caregiver Support Interventions.

Project description:Women and racial/ethnic minority dementia caregivers have unique caregiving experiences and support needs. To ensure the identification of potentially important differences in outcomes within these groups, the amended National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy on Inclusion of Women and Minorities mandates reporting by gender and race/ethnicity. The objective of this study was to determine the inclusion and reporting rates among NIH-funded dementia caregiver support interventions. A focused systematic literature review of studies published from 1994 to 2015 located 48 articles meeting inclusion criteria. The majority of studies included women and racial/ethnic minorities; however, 67% did not report results by gender or racial/ethnic group. Acknowledgment of underreporting was more common for race/ethnicity than gender. Our findings suggest limited NIH guideline compliance that may reflect a lack of awareness regarding potential gender disparities in caregiving roles. Ensuring NIH guideline compliance necessitates shared investments from researchers, editors, and reviewers to ensure group differences are systematically identified and reported.

| S-EPMC5809319 | biostudies-literature

Biostatistics Faculty and NIH Awards at U.S. Medical Schools.

Project description:Statistical principles and methods are critical to the success of biomedical and translational research. However, it is difficult to track and evaluate the monetary value of a biostatistician to a medical school (SoM). Limited published data on this topic is available, especially comparing across SoMs. Using National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards and American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) faculty counts data (2010-2013), together with online information on biostatistics faculty from 119 institutions across the country, we demonstrated that the number of biostatistics faculty was significantly positively associated with the amount of NIH awards, both as a school total and on a per faculty basis, across various sizes of U.S. SoMs. Biostatisticians, as a profession, need to be proactive in communicating and advocating the value of their work and their unique contribution to the long-term success of a biomedical research enterprise.

| S-EPMC4386754 | biostudies-literature

A snapshot of translational research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH): A case study using behavioral and social science research awards and Clinical and Translational Science Awards funded publications.

Project description:The translation of biomedical research from basic knowledge to application has been a priority at the National Institute of Health (NIH) for many years. Tracking the progress of scientific research and knowledge through the translational process is difficult due to variation in the definition of translational research as well as the identification of benchmarks for the spread and application of biomedical research; quantitatively tracking this process is even more difficult. Using a simple and reproducible method to assess whether publications are translational, we examined NIH R01 behavioral and social science research (BSSR) awards funded between 2008 and 2014 to determine whether there are differences in the percent of translational research publications produced by basic and applied research awards. We also assessed the percent of translational research publications produced by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program to evaluate whether targeted translational research awards result in increased translational research. We found that 3.9% of publications produced by basic research awards were translational; that the percent of translational research publications produced by applied research awards is approximately double that of basic research awards (7.4%); and that targeted translational research awards from the CTSA program produced the highest percentage of translational research publications (13.4%). In addition, we assessed differences in time to first publication, time to first citation, and publication quality by award type (basic vs. applied), and whether an award (or publication) is translational.

| S-EPMC5942790 | biostudies-literature

Use of race, ethnicity, and ancestry data in health research.

Project description:Race, ethnicity, and ancestry are common classification variables used in health research. However, there has been no formal agreement on the definitions of these terms, resulting in misuse, confusion, and a lack of clarity surrounding these concepts for researchers and their readers. This article examines past and current understandings of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in research, identifies the distinctions between these terms, examines the reliability of these terms, and provides researchers with guidance on how to use these terms. Although race, ethnicity, and ancestry are often treated synonymously, they should be considered as distinct terms in the context of health research. Researchers should carefully consider which term is most appropriate for their study, define and use the terms consistently, and consider how their classification may be used in future research by others. The classification should be self-reported rather than assigned by an observer wherever possible.

| S-EPMC10022242 | biostudies-literature

The use of race, ethnicity and ancestry in human genetic research.

Project description:Post-Human Genome Project progress has enabled a new wave of population genetic research, and intensified controversy over the use of race/ethnicity in this work. At the same time, the development of methods for inferring genetic ancestry offers more empirical means of assigning group labels. Here, we provide a systematic analysis of the use of race/ethnicity and ancestry in current genetic research. We base our analysis on key published recommendations for the use and reporting of race/ethnicity which advise that researchers: explain why the terms/categories were used and how they were measured, carefully define them, and apply them consistently. We studied 170 population genetic research articles from high impact journals, published 2008-2009. A comparative perspective was obtained by aligning study metrics with similar research from articles published 2001-2004. Our analysis indicates a marked improvement in compliance with some of the recommendations/guidelines for the use of race/ethnicity over time, while showing that important shortfalls still remain: no article using 'race', 'ethnicity' or 'ancestry' defined or discussed the meaning of these concepts in context; a third of articles still do not provide a rationale for their use, with those using 'ancestry' being the least likely to do so. Further, no article discussed potential socio-ethical implications of the reported research. As such, there remains a clear imperative for highlighting the importance of consistent and comprehensive reporting on human populations to the genetics/genomics community globally, to generate explicit guidelines for the uses of ancestry and genetic ancestry, and importantly, to ensure that guidelines are followed.

| S-EPMC3237839 | biostudies-literature

Effects of sex, race, ethnicity, and education on online aging research participation.

Project description:Introduction:This study aimed to identify the relationship of sociodemographic variables with older adults participation in an online registry for recruitment and longitudinal assessment in cognitive aging. Methods:Using Brain Health Registry (BHR) data, associations between sociodemographic variables (sex, race, ethnicity, education) and registry participation outcomes (task completion, willingness to participate in future studies, referral/enrollment in other studies) were examined in adults aged 55+ (N = 35,919) using logistic regression. All models included sex, race, ethnicity, education, age, and subjective memory concern. Results:Non-white race, being Latino, and lower educational attainment were associated with decreased task completion and enrollment in additional studies. Results for sex were mixed. Discussion:The findings provide novel information about engagement in online aging-related registries, and highlight a need to develop improved engagement strategies targeting underrepresented sociodemographic groups. Increasing registry diversity will allow researchers to refer more representative populations to Alzheimer's and related dementias prevention and treatment trials.

| S-EPMC7249268 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data