Menu

Study Finds No Race or Gender Bias in Grant Peer Review

The paper’s authors say bias may nevertheless be present in other steps of the granting process.

Jun 1, 2018
Shawna Williams

ISTOCK, JACOBLUNDA study that asked experts to review real grant proposals in which the investigator’s name had been changed has found no meaningful difference in rankings based on race or gender, according to a preprint published May 25. The findings appear to contradict previous reports that found worse average grant funding outcomes for women and African-Americans than could be explained by differences in qualifications. Still, the new study’s authors write that bias may indeed be present in other aspects of the granting process.

See “NIH Funds to Tackle Sex Bias in Research”

“I’ve made a career out of studying bias and how to overcome it. I know the problem to be real. But here in this particular context, it may not be the place where the bias shows itself,” coauthor Patricia Devine of the University of Wisconsin–Madison tells Science.

The research team substituted the real names on 48 funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposals with fake names statistically likely to belong to either a white man, a black man, a black woman, or a white woman. They then sent the proposals to several hundred scientists who were expert in the grant’s field for review (reviewers were paid for participating, and told not to review references lest they reveal the true investigator’s name). The results revealed only tiny differences in the scores given to the proposals with different names.

See “Opinion: Fixing Science’s Human Bias”

“A name is just one factor among many ways in which your race and gender are embedded in everything you do,” such as where one’s training takes place, Raynard Kington, president of Grinnell College in Iowa, tells Science. Kington coauthored a 2011 study that found African-American scientists were 10 percent less likely to win NIH grants than white researchers, after accounting for factors such as publication record. That study has prompted efforts on NIH’s part to study and counteract bias.

November 2018

Intelligent Science

Wrapping our heads around human smarts

Marketplace

Sponsored Product Updates

Slice® Safety Cutters for Lab Work

Slice® Safety Cutters for Lab Work

Slice cutting tools—which feature our patent-pending safety blades—meet many lab-specific requirements. Our scalpels and craft knives are well suited for delicate work, and our utility knives are good for general use.

The Lab of the Future: Alinity Poised to Reinvent Clinical Diagnostic Testing and Help Improve Healthcare

The Lab of the Future: Alinity Poised to Reinvent Clinical Diagnostic Testing and Help Improve Healthcare

Every minute counts when waiting for accurate diagnostic test results to guide critical care decisions, making today's clinical lab more important than ever. In fact, nearly 70 percent of critical care decisions are driven by a diagnostic test.

LGC announces new, integrated, global portfolio brand, Biosearch Technologies, representing genomic tools for mission critical customer applications

LGC announces new, integrated, global portfolio brand, Biosearch Technologies, representing genomic tools for mission critical customer applications

LGC’s Genomics division announced it is transforming its branding under LGC, Biosearch Technologies, a unified portfolio brand integrating optimised genomic analysis technologies and tools to accelerate scientific outcomes.