The Underfunding of Black Scientists

August 19, 2011, 3:12 pm

This week an NIH-commissioned study (featured in Science) found that African-American scientists are 10 percent less likely to receive research funding than white scientists, even when applying from similar institutions and having the same research credentials. According to those at the NIH, this problem could be the result of the long-term advantage white scientists build up over the course of their careers—meaning the social networks and opportunities that they get due to white privilege. Specifically, white scientists have much better exposure to mentoring and more opportunities for research collaboration. However, the NIH also noted that the unfair advantage of white scientists could stem from the peer review process for NIH grants—a process that claims it only takes into account merit, but contains human bias throughout as all processes do.

The NIH collects racial information on its applicants, but that information is not shared with peer review panels. However, as the majority of black scientists work at historically black colleges and universities (HBCU’s), applications to the NIH are not necessarily race-blind because institutional affiliation is part of a grant application. There could be bias on the part of the peer-review panels in terms of the type of institution a scientist hails from, and there could be assumptions about a person’s race based on their institutional type.

Often times, reviewers label black institutions and individuals who are black as sub-par and less than their white counterparts—sometimes consciously but also unconsciously. For over a century, being black in America has been tantamount to “not being as good” and this attitude spills over into peer review processes, college admissions, faculty hiring, and every other aspect of selection in higher education.

Research shows that HBCU’s and their faculty receive substantially fewer federal research dollars. According to a 2008 report by the Congressional Research Service, “Many HBCU’s face difficulty competing for federal research dollars with other research-performing universities.” Federal data reveal that research-performing HBCU’s have not shared proportionately in the distribution of federal research and development dollars going to colleges and universities. Although funding to HBCU’s had increased in the past 10 years in absolute terms, it remains only a small fraction of the total awarded to all U.S. colleges and universities. If HBCU’s receive less federal funding, then so do African-Americans.

In order to create parity in research funding, it is important that the federal government continue to examine its track record for awarding research dollars, taking into consideration race, type of institution, access to opportunity and mentoring, and graduate student pipeline issues. Programs that reach out to African-American scholars and better prepare them to be competitive for grant competitions are essential to eliminating the bias present in funding at all levels.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged African American, Black, HBCUs, Marybeth Gasman, NIH, scientists, STEM. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

hmcleaver

When the Soviet Union dispatched university students to dig potatoes and such during harvest time it was generally seen as the result of a lack of manpower in the countryside – due to flight to the cities (led by young peasant women who had the worst jobs). It’s easy to imagine something similar happening in North Korea. At the same time, Shigemura’s speculation (see link) that such dispersal might also be due to growing student unrest and the desire by the state to disperse and demobilize is interesting. The situation makes one wonder not only if the spreading wave of struggles in Europe, Africa and the Mideast is reaching North Korea, but also if any such factors were at play in the USSR.
609zr

My first thought was that such a decision will worsen the economy in the long run, but you make a good point. My second thought was that you can not believe anything from South Korea. From what little I have been allowed to see, I find the average North Korean stronger and superior to the average South Korean. Lifting the sanctions on North Korea would allow them to develop into anything they choose. You can not blame a people for the actions of it’s leaders. Do not blame Americans for the actions of some of it’s presidents. To those of you who are wishing there was a thumbs down button on this blog, you do not know or understand the situation unless you have lived there.
old nassau’67

1. “However, the NIH also noted that the unfair advantage of white scientists could stem from the peer review process for NIH grants—a process that claims it only takes into account merit, but contains human bias throughout as all processes do.” Aha: so the several hundred thousand PhD/D.SC. NIH reviewers (of the 80,000 applications examined in the study) are guilty of a coordinated, massive, seven-year racial denigration OR “minority” applications, for several reasons, just ain’t up to snuff. Looks as if one of the last merit processes in which competence outweighs color is about to be dismantled in the name of diversity.
2. If we could see one rejected, Afro-American (self-defined*) study that, if written by a (self-defined*) white, would have received a grant, I would be more accepting of the “inherent bias” rationale.
3. *:I wonder how “race” is determined? If Tiger Woods, self-defined Cabalasian, applied for $$ to study the effects of a bad knee on playing golf, how would he define himself? What about Dr. Obama, studying the effects of politics on one’s sanity?
midlifechange

old nassau’67
Your cynicism bespeaks serious undercurrent assumptions and an obvious privileged paradigm that you both suffer and benefit from.
zoran

I actually agree with oldnassau67. Cynicism is often the result of a lot of experience.
I doubt very much that reviewers, after googling the prop
zoran

My previous comment was screwed up, sorry. I agree with
oldnassau67, and to midlifechange: cynicism is
often the result of long experience. I doubt
very much that reviewers, after googling the
proposer, reject the proposal based on race.
It is more likely that it was genuinely based
on merit, assuming, of course that the reviewer is not
a clueless indvidual as is not unknown to happen.
Unfortunately, vigorous affirmative action has created
many situations where people are in a position they are
unqualified for. I have seen it myself on more than one
occasion. It is inevitable that such race-based decisions
eventually clash with merit-based ones. Surprisingly,
some people still exercise common sense!
theatheist

It’s easy to imagine that a small-but-measurable percentage of funding applications written by black scientists contain traces of African American Vernacular English. From there we might speculate that a small-but-measurable number of grant readers make negative assumptions, consciously or unconsciously, about the intelligence of the applicant based on these traces, and thus the overall worthiness of the proposal.

These are two hypotheses worth testing.
jffoster

Congratulations, Professor Gasman;
You’ve found yet another reason for merging, consolidating, and / or closing most if not all Holdover Black Colleges and Universities.
22261984

Here’s the comment I posted on the CHE news story re this topic: If it’s suspected that there may be racial discrimination afoot — and even it’s not suspected – then why indeed not remove all indications of race from the applications? But the cynic in me wants to predict that this is too obvious a solution, and that what will be embraced instead is some sort of affirmative action until NIH gets its numbers right. (Key sentence buried in this article, btw, in case you missed it: “The only conclusion is that the remaining racial gap is due to either differences in the quality of the applications, or some type of racial bias, or both, she said.” Given the likely use of racial preferences by those employing the researchers, it would stand to reason that there might well be a difference in the quality of applications.)
EricAdler

Without having read the article the statement that “African American researchers are 10% less likely to receive funding than whites” doesn’t seem so bad. I thought that this meant that if the probability of whites getting a grant is P, and then the probability that African Americans would get funded is P*0.9.
When I looked up the article I found that my idea was incorrect. The gap was much larger than I thought. The story is well worth reading.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/blacks-less-likely-than-whites-to-get-nih-grants-study-finds/2011/08/15/gIQAJqoyNJ_story.html

Before accounting for education and qualifications,

“The analysis of data from more than 40,000 researchers who submitted more than 80,000 grant applications to NIH between 2000 and 2006 found that only about 16 percent of those from black applicants were approved, compared with about 29 percent of those from white scientists.”

Based on this story, African Americans are 44.8% less likely to get funded than whites.
This is a huge gap. Even after accounting for education and qualifications the percentage shrinks to 37% less likely.

The article talks about a number of initiatives that the NIH has taken to address this problem. They are taking this very seriously.

The percentage of African American researchers, 1.4%, is also miniscule compared to the percentage in the general population, 12%. Of course this is an even bigger problem than the grant acceptance gap.
goxewu

Some questions:

* On the one hand, the proportional discrepancy in the funding of grant applications by black scientists could be the result of bias against them. On the other hand the discrepancy could be caused by grant applications by black scientists not being as good, overall, as everybody else’s. How do we know which is which?

* The discrepancy is likely to be a mixture of application quality and bias, but it’s possible that either of those factors could be statistically insignificant. How do we know what the mixture is?

* Are their similar discrepancies in the funding of grant applications for Latino and Asian-American scientists?

* Since Asian-Americans are “overrepresented” in many scholarly areas in the United Statest (e.g., they’d constitute close to half of the entering freshman class at Berkeley if there weren’t some sort of affirmative action in place), are grant applications from Asian-American scientists “overfunded”?

* If they are “overfunded,” is the reason quality, bias in favor of Asian-American scientists, or a mixture of the two?

* If it’s a mixture, what are the percentages?

* “Programs that reach out to African-American scholars and better prepare them to be competitive for grant competitions…” If African-American scholars aren’t as “competitive,” and these programs aren’t simply about how to network, does not the need for such programs speak to the overall quality of grant applications from black scientists?

* “If HBCU’s receive less federal funding, then so do African-Americans.” What does this sentence mean?

* “African-American scientists are 10 percent less likely to receive research funding than white scientists, even when applying from similar institutions and having the same research credentials….the majority of black scientists work at historically black colleges and universities (HBCU’s)…” What is the discrepancy in grant funding between black scientists who don’t work at HBCU’s and scientists of other races?

* Another factor could be the field for which the application is made. Do black scientists’ grant applications tend to be in fields are less well-funded than others?

* Within fields of scientific research, do black scientists apply for grants in areas that are less well-funded than others?
EricAdler

Read the Washington Post article I linked in my post below.

The 10% number, without a clear statement of what it means, leads to an underestimation of the problem.

Blacks submissions are approved 16%of the time versus whites at 29% of the time. The percentage difference between the approval rates is 44.8%. Correction for educational qualifications reduces the percentage difference to 37%, still a highly significant gap.

Asians applications for grant funding are approved at a slightly lower rate for whites. Corrections for educational background make this close to equal.
Asians get doctorates at a higher rate than white Americans, but this clearly doesn’t mean they are overfunded.

There clearly is a problem here. It could be due to a superior social network, since only 1.4% of researchers are blacks, it is less likely that they know people on the approval boards. It could be due to bias conscious or unconscious, as the article points out.
http://twitter.com/etheliaruiz Ethelia Ruiz

Bien
jeffgray

A novel idea: accountability and responsibility for head coaches, most if not all of whom set the tone, standards, limits and expectations within their programs, and are or at least should be well aware of the activities of their assistants and staff. If a head coach in any given situation can objectively establish that he or she set the proper boundaries and expectations, and an assistant operated independently and outside of same without their knowledge or the wink of an eye, fair enough. Absent that, institutions hire head coaches to manage programs, and they are and should be held responsible for ensuring that they are managed properly. The comments from coaches above are classic deflection if not abdication of responsibility. If institutions can be held responsible for the actions of all the coaches who work for them and manage their respective programs, coaches can be held responsible for the staff and programs they are supposed to supervise and manage.