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

doi:10.1073/pnas.1800615115

New Research In

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

Article Figures & SI

Figures

Download figure

Open in new tab

Download powerpoint

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].
Download figure

Open in new tab

Download powerpoint

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].
Download figure

Open in new tab

Download powerpoint

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).
Download figure

Open in new tab

Download powerpoint

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.