NIH funding longevity by gender

Lisa A. Hechtman, Nathan P. Moore, Claire E. Schulkey, Andrew C. Miklos, Anna Maria Calcagno, Richard Aragon, and Judith H. Greenberg
PNAS July 31, 2018 115 (31) 7943-7948; first published July 16, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800615115

  1. Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved June 12, 2018 (received for review January 16, 2018)

Article Figures & SI

Figures

  • Fig. 1.
    Fig. 1.

    Kaplan–Meier survival plot of investigators’ sustained NIH RPG funding. The number of individuals at risk are listed below the plot, and 95% CIs are shown (Greenwood’s formula). (A) Men remained in the funding pool at slightly higher rates than women [women, n = 10,660; men, n = 24,110; MH: χ2(1) = 15.5, P < 0.001; GW: χ2(1) = 10.2, P = 0.001]. (B) Funding longevity by cohort, based on the year of first major RPG award. Recently funded investigators exited the NIH funding pool more quickly than earliest-funded investigators [1991–1995, n = 7,731; 1996–2000, n = 8,312; 2001–2005, n = 8,758; 2006–2010, n = 9,969; MH: χ2(3) = 223, P < 0.001; GW: χ2(3) = 217, P < 0.001].

  • Fig. 2.
    Fig. 2.

    Kaplan–Meier survival curves, by gender, for each cohort. The numbers of individuals at risk are below the plots, and the percentages of women and men initially funded are to the right; 95% CIs are shown (Greenwood’s formula). Results are shown by cohort based on the year of first RPG. (A) In 1991–1995, women (28.35% of the cohort) left the funding pool at a slightly higher rate than men [women, n = 2,192; men, n = 5,539; MH: χ2(1) = 6.6, P = 0.01; GW: χ2(1) = 3.9, P = 0.05]. (B) In 1996–2000, women (29.31% of the cohort) left the funding pool at slightly higher rates than men [women, n = 2,436; men, n = 5,876; MH: χ2(1) = 4.6, P = 0.03; GW: χ2(1) = 4.0, P = 0.05]. (C) In 2001–2005, women (30.71%) and men showed no statistically significant survival difference [women, n = 2,690; men, n = 6,068; MH: χ2(1) = 2.1, P = 0.14; GW: χ2(1) = 1.1, P = 0.31]. (D) In 2006–2010, women (33.52%) and men showed no statistically significant survival difference [women, n = 3,342; men, n = 6,627; MH: χ2(1) = 0.2, P = 0.68; GW: χ2(1) = 0.1, P = 0.74].

  • Fig. 3.
    Fig. 3.

    Boxplots of new project application volume, funding rates, and score percentiles, by gender and cohort. Markers indicate means; bars indicate medians. Red cohort labels indicate statistically significant gender differences (P ≤ 0.05, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, two-tailed). Outliers are not shown. (A) Women submitted slightly fewer new applications per year than men overall and within each cohort (1991–1995: women, n = 2,192; men, n = 5,539; W = 6,383,318, P < 0.001; 1996–2000: women, n = 2,436; men, n = 5,876; W = 7,802,511, P < 0.001; 2001–2005: women, n = 2,690; men, n = 6,068; W = 8,868,382, P < 0.001; 2006–2010: women, n = 3,342 men, n = 6,627; W = 11,865,699, P < 0.001). (B) While average funding rates were no different between the genders overall, women had a slightly lower funding rate in the 1991–1995 cohort (women, n = 1,551; men, n = 4,032; W = 3,235,387, P = 0.04). (C) While women and men’s average score percentiles were not statistically different overall, in the 2006–2010 cohort, women scored slightly better on average than men (women, n = 1,501; men, n = 3,175; W = 2,487,779, P = 0.02).

  • Fig. 4.
    Fig. 4.

    Boxplots of renewal project submission rates, funding rates, and score percentiles, by gender and cohort. Markers indicate means; bars indicate medians. Red cohort labels indicate statistically significant gender differences (P ≤ 0.05, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, two-tailed). Outliers are not shown. (A) Women on average submitted a lower proportion of their eligible projects for renewal than men, overall and within each cohort (1991–1995: women, n = 2,157; men, n = 5,461; W = 6,113,935, P = 0.007; 1996–2000: women, n = 2,395; men, n = 5,776; W = 7,233,755, P < 0.001; 2001–2005: women, n = 2,642; men, n = 5,965; W = 8,115,178, P = 0.02; 2006–2010: women, n = 2,572; men, n = 5,365; W = 7,124,838, P = 0.007). (B) The women’s funding rate for project renewals was significantly lower than the men’s overall and for the first three cohorts (1991–1995: women, n = 1,322; men, n = 3,581; W = 2,513,130, P < 0.001; 1996–2000: women, n = 1,380; men, n = 3,684; W = 2,668,360, P = 0.005; 2001–2005: women, n = 1,355; men, n = 3,329; W = 2,365,518, P = 0.006). (C) Women also scored less well on review overall, but this difference was not significant within any cohort.

Data supplements

Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Request Permissions
NIH funding longevity by gender
Lisa A. Hechtman, Nathan P. Moore, Claire E. Schulkey, Andrew C. Miklos, Anna Maria Calcagno, Richard Aragon, Judith H. Greenberg
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2018, 115 (31) 7943-7948; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1800615115
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (46)
Current Issue

Submit

Article Classifications

  • Social Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Jump to section

You May Also be Interested in

Reconstructing the first day of the Cenozoic Era, following the asteroid impact 66 million years ago. Image courtesy of The University of Texas at Austin Jackson School of Geosciences.
Melt-rich rock from Chicxulub crater
Reconstructing the first day of the Cenozoic Era, following the asteroid impact 66 million years ago.
Image courtesy of The University of Texas at Austin Jackson School of Geosciences.
QnAs with NAS member and parasitologist Patricia Johnson. Image courtesy of Joy Ahn (University of California, Los Angeles, CA).
Featured QnAs
QnAs with NAS member and parasitologist Patricia Johnson
Image courtesy of Joy Ahn (University of California, Los Angeles, CA).

Similar Articles