IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nas/journl/v115y2018p7943-7948.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

NIH funding longevity by gender

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa A. Hechtman

    (National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892)

  • Nathan P. Moore

    (National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892)

  • Claire E. Schulkey

    (National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892)

  • Andrew C. Miklos

    (National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892)

  • Anna Maria Calcagno

    (National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892)

  • Richard Aragon

    (National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892)

  • Judith H. Greenberg

    (National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa A. Hechtman & Nathan P. Moore & Claire E. Schulkey & Andrew C. Miklos & Anna Maria Calcagno & Richard Aragon & Judith H. Greenberg, 2018. "NIH funding longevity by gender," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(31), pages 7943-7948, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:7943-7948
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/31/7943.full
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Gender differences in performance of top cited scientists by field and country," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2421-2447, December.
    2. Paul Siu Fai Yip & Yunyu Xiao & Clifford Long Hin Wong & Terry Kit Fong Au, 2020. "Is there gender bias in research grant success in social sciences?: Hong Kong as a case study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Iñaki Ucar & Margarita Torre & Antonio Elías, 2022. "Mind the gender gap: COVID-19 lockdown effects on gender differences in preprint submissions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Zhu, Wanying & Jin, Ching & Ma, Yifang & Xu, Cong, 2023. "Earlier recognition of scientific excellence enhances future achievements and promotes persistence," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    5. Bonnielin K Swenor & Beatriz Munoz & Lisa M Meeks, 2020. "A decade of decline: Grant funding for researchers with disabilities 2008 to 2018," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-11, March.
    6. Ryo Takahashi, 2022. "Gender differences in tolerance for women's opinions and the role of social norms," Working Papers 2123, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:7943-7948. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Eric Cain (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.pnas.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.