Representation of Women on National Institutes of Health Study Sections

Volerman, Anna; Arora, Vineet M.; Cursio, John F.; Wei, Helen; Press, Valerie G.

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37346

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At present, the three organizations examined herein have boards of directors comprising 44% women (8 of 18) at ADA (25), 33% (5 of 15) at JDRF (26), and 25% (3 of 12) at EASD (27). Additionally, when Volerman et al (28) examined study sections from one 2019 cycle of NIH funding, they found men were more likely to be reviewers and chairs, whereas women were more likely to hold less influential positions, including temporary affiliations and serving on study sections with lower total funding dollars or number of research grant awards. Indeed, in order to identify possible remedies for this clearly pervasive situation, there remains a need to more precisely identify the various stages in the career pipeline where inequities arise (e.g., promotion and tenure, award nomination, and selection committee bias) in addition to those reported here (editorial board participation, receipt of grant funding, and award recipients), altogether contributing toward the dilution of women from upper levels of leadership.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Women’s Leadership Gap in Diabetes: A Call for Equity and Excellence

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women are broadly underrepresented in scientific leadership positions and their accomplishments are not provided equal recognition compared with those of men, but the imbalance in the field of diabetes is unknown. Hence, we analyzed multiple aspects of historical and present-day female representation in the diabetes field. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe quantified gender representation at annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) meetings; editorial board service positions for ADA and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) journals; principal investigators for ADA, JDRF, and National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases P30 grant funding; and ADA, JDRF, and EASD award recipients. RESULTSThere are many women in the field of diabetes: registration for the ADA Scientific Sessions has been 43% female since 2016, and for over five decades, women made up 83% of ADA Presidents of Health Care and Education. Yet, only 9% of ADA Presidents of Medicine and Science have been women. Women were well represented on editorial boards for journals focused on diabetes education (Diabetes Spectrum, 89% female) and primary care (Clinical Diabetes, 49% female) but not for the more academically targeted Diabetes Care (34% female), Diabetes (21% female), and Diabetologia (30% female). Only one-third of ADA Pathway to Stop Diabetes and JDRF grants have been awarded to women, and females only lead 2 of 18 (11%) of the P30-supported Diabetes Research Centers. Finally, only 2-12% of major ADA, JDRF, and EASD awards were given to women, without significant change over time. CONCLUSIONSDespite increasing recognition of gender imbalance in research and medicine, many disparities in the field of diabetes persist. We call for decreasing barriers for advancement of female investigators and creating environments that promote their retention and equitable recognition for their contributions to the field.Over one-half of the population self-identifies as female (1). Nearly 60% of individuals earning undergraduate and master's degrees in the U.S. are female. Women are also well represented among persons earning MD degrees (47%) and PhD degrees

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Women’s Leadership Gap in Diabetes: A Call for Equity and Excellence

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I took a biased approach and mentioned two extraordinary female Nobel Prize winners, Gerty Cori and Rita Levi-Montalcini, but in reality, only 12 of 111 prizes in medicine have been awarded to women (4). In contrast with other trends, the number of female physicians in leadership roles at academic centers has not increased over a 35-year period, instead remaining stagnant at 25% less than that for males (10), as has women's representation on National Institutes of Health study sections (11).…”

Section: Immigrants Leading Biomedical Researchmentioning

confidence: 86%

Contributions of immigrants to biomedical research in the US: a personal reflection

Paczesny¹

2021

Journal of Clinical Investigation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…11 This is yet another impetus to address the gender disparities in research scholar tracks, academic departments concerning promotion and retention, as well as within NIH study sections, where women remain underrepresented as chairs and reviewers. 13 Finally, more data are needed to provide insight into the apparent underrepresentation of NIH-funded cardiac anesthesiologists, who attract a mere 3.5% of anesthesiology funding. It is unclear if this disparity is unique to cardiac anesthesiology, or reflects a broader reluctance of anesthesiologist-scientistswith increasing pressure to produce academically-to complete a clinical fellowship.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%