Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Concerns about systemic racism at academic and research institutions have increased over the past decade. Here, we investigate data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major funder of research in the United States, and find evidence for pervasive racial disparities. In particular, white principal investigators (PIs) are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs. Funding rates for white PIs have also been increasing relative to annual overall rates with time. Moreover, disparities occur across all disciplinary directorates within the NSF and are greater for research proposals. The distributions of average external review scores also exhibit systematic offsets based on PI race. Similar patterns have been described in other research funding bodies, suggesting that racial disparities are widespread. The prevalence and persistence of these racial disparities in funding have cascading impacts that perpetuate a cumulative advantage to white PIs across all of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Related collections

Most cited references 174

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.

R K Merton (1968)

This account of the Matthew effect is another small exercise in the psychosociological analysis of the workings of science as a social institution. The initial problem is transformed by a shift in theoretical perspective. As originally identified, the Matthew effect was construed in terms of enhancement of the position of already eminent scientists who are given disproportionate credit in cases of collaboration or of independent multiple discoveries. Its significance was thus confined to its implications for the reward system of science. By shifting the angle of vision, we note other possible kinds of consequences, this time for the communication system of science. The Matthew effect may serve to heighten the visibility of contributions to science by scientists of acknowledged standing and to reduce the visibility of contributions by authors who are less well known. We examine the psychosocial conditions and mechanisms underlying this effect and find a correlation between the redundancy function of multiple discoveries and the focalizing function of eminent men of science-a function which is reinforced by the great value these men place upon finding basic problems and by their self-assurance. This self-assurance, which is partly inherent, partly the result of experiences and associations in creative scientific environments, and partly a result of later social validation of their position, encourages them to search out risky but important problems and to highlight the results of their inquiry. A macrosocial version of the Matthew principle is apparently involved in those processes of social selection that currently lead to the concentration of scientific resources and talent (50).

0 comments Cited 1209 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

How Structural Racism Works — Racist Policies as a Root Cause of U.S. Racial Health Inequities

Debra Malina, Zinzi D Bailey, Justin M Feldman … (2020)

0 comments Cited 422 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.

Corinne Moss-Racusin, John Dovidio, Victoria Brescoll … (2012)

Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student-who was randomly assigned either a male or female name-for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants' preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.

0 comments Cited 387 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Christine Yifeng Chen:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9580-6925

Sara S Kahanamoku:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4157-4791

Aradhna Tripati:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1695-1754

Rosanna A Alegado:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3615-5613

Vernon R Morris:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6828-4017

Peter Rodgers: Role: Reviewing Editor

Peter Rodgers: Role: Senior Editor

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): eLife

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Elife

Journal ID (publisher-id): eLife

Title: eLife

Publisher: eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

ISSN (Electronic): 2050-084X

Publication date (Electronic, pub): 29 November 2022

Publication date Collection: 2022

Volume: 11

Electronic Location Identifier: e83071

Affiliations

[1 ] Chemical and Isotopic Signatures Group, Division of Nuclear and Chemical Sciences, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ( https://ror.org/041nk4h53) Livermore United States

[2 ] Center for Diverse Leadership in Science, University of California, Los Angeles ( https://ror.org/046rm7j60) Berkeley, California United States

[3 ] Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley ( https://ror.org/03efmqc40) Berkeley United States

[4 ] Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, and American Indian Studies Center, University of California, Los Angeles ( https://ror.org/046rm7j60) Los Angeles United States

[5 ] Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol ( https://ror.org/0524sp257) Bristol United Kingdom

[6 ] Department of Oceanography and Sea Grant College Program, Daniel K Inouye Center for Microbial Oceanography: Research and Education, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa ( https://ror.org/01wspgy28) Honolulu United States

[7 ] School of Mathematical and Natural Sciences, New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, Arizona State University ( https://ror.org/03efmqc40) Phoenix United States

[8 ] Department of City and Regional Planning, College of Environmental Design, University of California, Berkeley ( https://ror.org/01an7q238) Berkeley United States

eLife ( https://ror.org/04rjz5883) United Kingdom

Author information

Christine Yifeng Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9580-6925

Sara S Kahanamoku https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4157-4791

Aradhna Tripati https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1695-1754

Rosanna A Alegado https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3615-5613

Vernon R Morris https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6828-4017

Justin Hosbey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0947-4002

Article

Publisher ID: 83071

DOI: 10.7554/eLife.83071

PMC ID: 9708090

PubMed ID: 36444975

SO-VID: 5833c44c-2ea3-424c-948f-b4d36a014701

License:

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

History

Date received : 30 August 2022

Date accepted : 28 October 2022

Funding

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000001, National Science Foundation;

Award ID: DGE 2146752

Award Recipient : Sara S Kahanamoku

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000008, David and Lucile Packard Foundation;

Award Recipient : Aradhna Tripati

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000879, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation;

Award Recipient : Aradhna Tripati

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006227, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;

Award ID: DE-AC52-07NA27344

Award Recipient : Christine Yifeng Chen

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Custom metadata

Author impact statement White principal investigators applying to the National Science Foundation are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs.

Template 5

ScienceOpen disciplines: Life sciences

Keywords: research grants,institutional funding of science,national science foundation,racial disparities,meta-research,none

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Life sciences

Keywords: research grants, institutional funding of science, national science foundation, racial disparities, meta-research, none

Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Bentham Science - Open Access

Most cited references 174

The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.

How Structural Racism Works — Racist Policies as a Root Cause of U.S. Racial Health Inequities

Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author information

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 132

Cited by 12

Most referenced authors 992