National Institutes of Health addresses the science of diversity

Abstract

The US biomedical research workforce does not currently mirror the nation's population demographically, despite numerous attempts to increase diversity. This imbalance is limiting the promise of our biomedical enterprise for building knowledge and improving the nation's health. Beyond ensuring fairness in scientific workforce representation, recruiting and retaining a diverse set of minds and approaches is vital to harnessing the complete intellectual capital of the nation. The complexity inherent in diversifying the research workforce underscores the need for a rigorous scientific approach, consistent with the ways we address the challenges of science discovery and translation to human health. Herein, we identify four cross-cutting diversity challenges ripe for scientific exploration and opportunity: research evidence for diversity's impact on the quality and outputs of science; evidence-based approaches to recruitment and training; individual and institutional barriers to workforce diversity; and a national strategy for eliminating barriers to career transition, with scientifically based approaches for scaling and dissemination. Evidence-based data for each of these challenges should provide an integrated, stepwise approach to programs that enhance diversity rapidly within the biomedical research workforce.diversity | scientific workforce | underrepresentation in science | culture | biomedical research

Gender diversity leads to better science

“…Universities and science-policy stakeholders, including the European Commission and the US National Institutes of Health, readily subscribe to this argument (1)(2)(3). But is there, in fact, a gender-diversity dividend in science?…”

Development and Evaluation of Two Abbreviated Questionnaires for Mentoring and Research Self-Efficacy

“…Three cohorts (2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014) [7][8][9][10] Engaged in Health-related Research (PRIDE), 4 offered research education and skills training during two annual summer institutes, with individual mentoring throughout the one-year training period. PRIDE mentees were matched with one or more experienced faculty mentors whose re-Mentoring and Research Self-efficacy -Jeffe et al participation and data-collection activities for evaluation, and mentees provided written informed consent.…”

“…A diverse biomedical-research workforce is important, because a diversity of perspectives is expected to yield a broader spectrum of novel research questions for studying disease risk, pathogenesis and outcomes, response to treatments, and ways to reduce health disparities. [7][8][9][10] A growing body of evidence indicates that mentors can promote junior faculty members' professional development and positively support their perceived self-efficacy. [11][12][13][14] Successful mentoring relationships are determined, in part, by mentees' perceptions of their mentors' roles, 15 as mentees may have multiple mentors, each playing a different role.…”

Theory-Informed Research Training and Mentoring of Underrepresented Early-Career Faculty at Teaching-Intensive Institutions: The Obesity Health Disparities PRIDE Program

“…Lack of progress in workforce diversity can contribute to the persistent racial/ number and quality of diverse faculty who are more likely to have a passion for, and commitment to, reducing health disparities. [11][12][13] The NIH Biomedical Research Workforce Pipeline Report 1 noted that 'mentorship' was among the top three most frequently noted pipeline issues. A number of mentoring programs for minority scholars address diversity in the research workforce; however, few, if any, focus on faculty of color at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other teaching-intensive institutions.…”