Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency

Abstract

Background Across countries and disciplines, studies show male researchers receive more research funding than their female peers. Because most studies have been observational, it is unclear whether imbalances stem from evaluations of female research investigators or of their proposed research. In 2014, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research created a natural experiment by dividing investigator-initiated funding applications into two new grant programmes: one with and one without an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator. Methods We analysed application success among 23 918 grant applications from 7093 principal investigators in all investigator-initiated Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant programmes between 2011 and 2016. We used generalised estimating equations to account for multiple applications by the same applicant and compared differences in application success between male and female principal investigators under different review criteria. Findings Overall application success across competitions was 15•8%. After adjusting for age and research domain, the predicted probability of success in traditional programmes was 0•9 percentage points lower for female applicants than male applicants (95% CI 2•0 lower-0•2 higher; odds ratio 0•934, 95% CI 0•854-1•022). In the new programme, in which review focused on the proposed science, the gap remained 0•9 percentage points (3•2 lower-1•4 higher; 0•998, 0•794-1•229). In the new programme with an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator, the gap was 4•0 percentage points (6•7 lower-1•3 lower; 0•705, 0•519-0•960). Interpretation Gender gaps in grant funding are attributable to less favourable assessments of women as principal investigators, not of the quality of their proposed research. We discuss reasons less favourable assessments might occur and strategies to foster fair and rigorous peer review.

Women and Men Were Proportionally Represented Among Speakers at Major National Neurology Conferences in 2017

“…In a study of Canadian Institute of Health Research grants, grant application success of women when compared to men was lower when the reviewers were asked to focus on the principal investigator, rather than on the quality of the proposed science. 15 Future studies of gender disparities in academic advancement within neurology should investigate differences in membership and leadership in national committees, as well as differences in visiting and endowed professorships. While local factors, such as administrative effectiveness, quantity and quality of teaching, mentorship, and development of curricula or educational resources may be important, these factors are harder to compare across individuals and institutions.…”

Implicit bias is strongest when assessing top candidates

“…Finland has launched a program in which governmental agencies join forces to establish a standardized template, to be used across all funding bodies, for evaluating researchers in a fair and equal way (https://avointiede.fi/sites/avointiede.fi/files/Vast uullinen-arviointi-luonnos_1.pdf), which may also standardize procedures and remove the impact of bias. Based on the bias we identified here, and previous exhaustive work showing biased review processes [8][9][10]15 we propose a three-step semiblinded review process ( Figure 6). We suggest that project proposals should be assessed blinded to applicant gender, merits could be quantified using the composite bibliometric score, and a reviewer would integrate these two components into an overall assessment.…”

“…Recent data suggest both overt and implicit bias is generally decreasing 2 , yet women still make up only one third of all professors in European countries [3][4][5] . Implicit bias affects multiple aspects of a scientific career, including decision making in recruitment 6,7 , grant awarding [8][9][10] , and citations 11 . An entry-level group leader position in academia is typically awarded following peer review of the applicants and their proposed projects, assessing quality, innovativeness, feasibility and potential.…”

Sociality enhances survival in science, especially for female researchers

“…Yet despite much effort to understand the underlying causes (summarised in Fig. 1 of 21 ), disparities between the genders show discouragingly few signs of reducing 8,9,13,22–25 . Given these obstacles to career attainment and progression, what lessons can we learn from scientists that have survived in science and carved out long careers for themselves?…”