We appreciate Voyles and Sell’s continued monitoring of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) research portfolio related to lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) health. Our article examined trends from 1989 through 2011, and their analysis extends NIH funding trends through 2012. Ongoing monitoring is not only important but also necessary to ensure NIH is held accountable for their investment in understanding and improving the health of LGB populations.
Curiously, projects about transgender health were not mentioned. Was this because there were not any non-HIV transgender health projects in 2012, or was there another rationale for exclusion? Regardless of the reason, we hope NIH and researchers make efforts to include—and measure—transgender people in future projects.
Voyles and Sell included a thorough analysis of NIH funding by examining the total dollars invested in each project and which institutes funded LGB projects. They found at least one promising piece of evidence: the percentages of dollars funded in LGB health are equal to the proportion of projects per activity code. However, the percentages were dismal, with the highest at 0.56%. Moreover, 74.07% (n = 20) of the institutes did not fund any non-HIV LGB projects in 2012. This is an area of improvement necessary for NIH, because most, if not all, institutes are involved with topic areas pertinent to LGB and transgender (LGBT) health. It is, however, important to note that additional institutes have funded non-HIV LGB projects since 2012 (e.g., National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute on Nursing Research, National Cancer Institute). This suggests NIH is able to increase the number of granting institutes in a short amount of time. Thus, institutes absent any LGBT projects should be targets of focused efforts to increase LGBT health research, as this may present a target for efficient growth. It may also be that some institutes did not fund LGB projects because viable proposals were not submitted. In addition to changes at the institutes, researchers may need to assume greater responsibility for addressing LGBT disparities in their proposals.
We view analyses of NIH’s research portfolio as a call to action that can fuel NIH to improve their policies and foster a welcoming and affirming climate for LGBT health research. Additionally, we hope our analyses provide LGBT health researchers with (1) information to pair the funding gaps with issues we know are problematic1 and communities want resolved, and (2) motivation to submit high-quality proposals on such topics.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge all the researchers, practitioners, and funders who continue to work tirelessly to assess and improve the health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations.
References
- 1.Institute of Medicine. The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]