Key Points
Question
What is the gender, racial, and ethnic diversity of elite National Institutes of Health investigators from 1991 to 2020?
Findings
In this cross-sectional study, while the number of principal investigators holding 3 or more research project grants increased 3-fold between 1991 and 2020, female and Black principal investigators were significantly underrepresented in this group, even after adjusting for career stage and degree.
Meaning
These results suggest that there is a growing funding gap among National Institutes of Health investigators, along with a persistent gender, race, and ethnic inequity among an elite class of SPIs. Consideration of the persistent gender, racial, and ethnic gaps in this elite class of investigators.
This cross-sectional study of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants examines trends in gender, racial, and ethnic diversity among principal investigators, with a particular focus on investigators holding 3 or more research project grants.
Abstract
Importance
Diversity in the biomedical research workforce is essential for addressing complex health problems. Female investigators and investigators from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups generate novel, impactful, and innovative research, yet they are significantly underrepresented among National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigators.
Objective
To examine the gender, ethnic, and racial distribution of super NIH investigators who received 3 or more concurrent NIH grants.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This cross-sectional study included a national cohort of NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) from the NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II) database from 1991 to 2020.
Exposures
Self-identified gender, race and ethnicity, annual number of NIH grant receipt, career stage, and highest degree.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Distribution of investigators receiving 3 or more research project grants, referred to as super principal investigators (SPIs), by gender, race, and ethnicity.
Results
Among 33 896 investigators in fiscal year 2020, 7478 (22.01%) identified as Asian, 623 (1.8%) as Black, 1624 (4.8%) as Hispanic, and 22 107 (65.2%) as White; 21 936 (61.7%) identified as men; and 8695 (35.3%) were early-stage investigators. Between 1991 and 2020, the proportion of SPIs increased 3-fold from 704 (3.7%) to 3942 (11.3%). However, SPI status was unequal across gender, ethnic, and racial groups. Women and Black PIs were significantly underrepresented among SPIs, even after adjusting for career stage and degree, and were 34% and 40% less likely than their male and White colleagues, respectively, to be an SPI. Black women PIs were the least likely to be represented among SPIs and were 71% less likely to attain SPI status than White men PIs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.41).
Conclusions and Relevance
In this cross-sectional study of a national cohort of NIH-funded investigators, the gender, ethnic, and racial gaps in receipt of multiple research project grants among NIH investigators was clearly apparent and warrants further investigation and interventions.
Introduction
Despite the benefits of diversity in scientific innovation, the distribution of National Institute of Health (NIH) funding has been historically disparate,1 with significant gender, racial, and ethnic inequalities in both NIH funding and success rate.2,3,4,5,6 In response, the NIH Working Group to the Advisory Committee and Director has made efforts in recent years to improve equity in NIH funding, leading to modest improvement in gender, racial, and ethnic representation among NIH investigators.1 However, little is known about gender, racial, and ethnic composition of principal investigators (PIs) who receive multiple NIH grants.
Although holding 1 research project grant is indicative of career success,7 academic institutions are increasingly prioritizing the recruitment and retention of principal investigators who hold multiple research project grants.8 A faculty member’s overall portfolio of research project grants may influence key institutional decisions regarding recruitment, salary, tenure, promotion, and resource allocations, as well as national policy decisions on research funding.8,9 Despite the significant power and resources held by investigators with multiple, simultaneous research grants (hereafter referred to as super principal investigators [SPI]), gender, racial, and ethnic composition of SPIs is currently unknown.
To evaluate gender, racial, and ethnic diversity of SPIs, we examined the distribution of SPIs over time using a national database of NIH investigators from 1991 to 2020. We also examined the likelihood of being an SPI by intersectional gender and racial or ethnic minority identity.
Methods
Data Source
Data were obtained for principal investigator–specific research project grants from the NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II) database for fiscal years 1985 to 2020.1 The IMPAC II is a database maintained by the NIH and is provided with limited use. Research project grants included grants with the following activity codes: DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5, P01, PN1, PM1, R00, R01, R03, R15, R21, R22, R23, R29, R33, R34, R35, R36, R37, R61, R50, R55, R56, RC1, RC2, RC3, RC4, RF1, RL1, RL2, RL9, RM1, UA5, UC1, UC2, UC3, UC4, UC7, UF1, UG3, UH2, UH3, UH5, UM1, UM2, U01, U19, and U34. Grants awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and supplemental COVID-19 appropriations were excluded. Funding dollars were adjusted for inflation to 2019 US dollars using the Biomedical Research and Development Price Index. Patients or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting, or dissemination plans of our research. Our analyses were conducted according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines and were deemed exempt by the Yale University institutional review board.
Demographic Variables
PIs’ gender, race, and ethnicity were self-reported by the faculty applying for NIH grant funding. PIs with unknown or withheld gender identity (14 291 [1.8%]) were excluded from regression analyses. We examined trends in research project grants from 1991 to 2020 due to a significant portion of missing racial and ethnic data on investigators prior to 1991. Racial categories included American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, White, more than 1 race, unknown, or withheld. Ethnicity categories included Hispanic, Not Hispanic, unknown, or withheld. Racial and ethnic identities were combined into the following categories: Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, and other (which included American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, more than 1 race, unknown, or withheld). PIs who reported Hispanic ethnicity were categorized as Hispanic regardless of racial identity.
Defining SPIs
We defined SPIs as principal investigators holding 3 or more concurrent active research project grants in a given fiscal year (approximately the top 10% of all NIH principal investigators in 2020). Unadjusted rates of being an SPI were determined by calculating the proportion of each gender, ethnic and racial, or intersectional group that were SPIs vs non-SPIs.
The IMPAC II data set comprise both small and large dollars research project grants. To determine the robustness of utilizing number of grants to define SPI, we compared median and interquartile range (IQR) of total funding dollars received among SPIs and non-SPIs across demographic groups for fiscal year 2020.
Statistical Analysis
Nonparametric t tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests with posthoc Dunn correction for multiple comparisons were used to determine significance between median funding dollar amounts across groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the relative odds of women and investigators from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups of being an SPI compared with men and White investigators, respectively. Covariates include PI’s highest degree and career stage. Degree was defined as MD, MD/PhD, PhD, or other degrees. PI’s career stage was approximated using investigator’s age, categorized as early (age under 46 years), middle (age 46 to 58 years), and late (age above 58 years), as described previously.1 Finally, we included 3 time periods that delineate significant changes in the NIH budget: 1991-1998 (phase 1) before the first budget increase, 1999-2014 (phase 2) between the first and second budget increase, and 2015-2020 (phase 3) after the second budget increase, and tested the interaction between phase and gender, ethnic, and racial identities to determine whether the relative odds of being an SPI for disadvantaged groups (eg, women, Black, and Hispanic) have changed over time. Adjusted percentage of SPI investigators within each combined subgroup of gender, ethnic, and racial identity was determined from the fully adjusted logistic models. Statistical tests were 2-sided with type 1 error rate of 0.05. All analyses were performed using Stata version 16.1 (Stata Inc).
Results
Trends in NIH SPIs
In fiscal year 1991, among 18 820 investigators, 1187 (6.4%) identified as Asian, 100 (0.5%) as Black, 320 (1.7%) as Hispanic, and 14 630 (77.7%) as White; 13 821 (80.0%) identified as men; and 9124 (52.8%) were early-stage investigators. In comparison, in fiscal year 2020, among 33 896 investigators, 7478 (22.1%) identified as Asian, 623 (1.8%) as Black, 1624 (4.8%) as Hispanic, and 22 107 (65.2%) as White; 21 936 (61.7%) identified as men; and 8695 (35.3%) were early-stage investigators (Table).
Table. Characteristics of National Institutes of Health–Funded Investigators by Super Principal Investigator (SPI) Status, 2020.
| Characteristics | Investigators, No. (%) | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All (N = 33 896) | Non-SPI (n = 29 989) | SPI (n = 3907) | ||
| Ethnicity and race | ||||
| Asian | 7478 (22.1) | 6523 (21.8) | 955 (24.4) | <.001 |
| Black | 623 (1.8) | 588 (2.0) | 35 (0.9) | |
| Hispanic | 1624 (4.8) | 1465 (4.9) | 159 (4.1) | |
| Othera | 2064 (6.1) | 1861 (6.2) | 203 (5.2) | |
| White | 22 107 (65.2) | 19 552 (65.2) | 2555 (65.4) | |
| Gender | ||||
| Men | 21 936 (64.7) | 19 068 (63.6) | 2868 (73.4) | <.001 |
| Women | 11 960 (35.3) | 10 921 (36.4) | 1039 (26.6) | |
| Degree | ||||
| PhD | 24 371 (71.9) | 21 728 (72.5) | 2643 (67.6) | <.001 |
| MD/PhD | 3599 (10.6) | 2999 (10.0) | 600 (15.4) | |
| MD | 5274 (15.6) | 4623 (15.4) | 651 (16.7) | |
| Other | 652 (1.9) | 639 (2.1) | 13 (0.3) | |
| Career stage | ||||
| Early (<46 y) | 10 386 (30.6) | 9546 (31.8) | 840 (21.5) | <.001 |
| Middle (46-58 y) | 8395 (24.8) | 7294 (24.3) | 1101 (28.2) | |
| Late (>58 y) | 12 969 (38.3) | 11 228 (37.4) | 1741 (44.6) | |
| Unknown | 2146 (6.3) | 1921 (6.4) | 225 (5.8) | |
| Combined identity subgroups | ||||
| Asian | <.001 | |||
| Men | 5088 (15.0) | 4356 (14.5) | 732 (18.7) | |
| Women | 2390 (7.1) | 2167 (7.2) | 223 (5.7) | |
| Black | ||||
| Men | 334 (1.0) | 311 (1.0) | 23 (0.6) | |
| Women | 289 (0.9) | 277 (0.9) | 12 (0.3) | |
| Hispanic | ||||
| Men | 1021 (3.0) | 902 (3.0) | 119 (3.0) | |
| Women | 603 (1.8) | 563 (1.9) | 40 (1.0) | |
| Othera | ||||
| Men | 1423 (4.2) | 1268 (4.2) | 155 (4.0) | |
| Women | 641 (1.9) | 593 (2.0) | 48 (1.2) | |
| White | ||||
| Men | 14 070 (41.5) | 12 231 (40.8) | 1839 (47.1) | |
| Women | 8037 (23.7) | 7321 (24.4) | 716 (18.3) | |
Other included American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, more than 1 race, unknown, or withheld.
From 1991 to 2020, the total number of NIH PIs increased 1.8-fold from 18 820 to 34 936 (eFigure 1 in Supplement 1), which corresponds to a spending increase from $11.9 billion to $22.4 billion. Notably, there were 2 years in which the NIH budget increased substantially, in 1998 and 2015.
We next examined trends in PIs holding multiple grants by summarizing the proportion of all PIs who held multiple active grants in a given fiscal year at 4 levels: PIs who held 2 or more active grants, 3 or more grants, 4 or more grants, or 5 or more grants (Figure 1). Since 1991, the proportion of PIs who held multiple grants has increased overall, with major inflection points occurring when there was an increase in the NIH budget in 1998 and 2015). Between 1991 and 2020, the percentage of PIs with 2 or more research project grants increased by 60% (from 21.2% to 33.2%), while the percentage of PIs with 3 or more research project grants increased 3-fold (from 3.7% to 11.3%). The percentage of PIs with 4 or more research project grants increased more than 6-fold (from 0.6% to 3.8%), and the percentage of PIs with 5 or more research project grants increased 10-fold (from 0.1% to 1.2%).
Figure 1. Proportion of Principal Investigators (PIs) With Active Concurrent Research Project Grants From 1991-2020.
Super principal investigators (SPIs) included all PIs with 3 or more research project grants (approximately the top 10% of PIs in 2020).
The number of PIs with 3 or more research project grants grew at a rate that outpaced the baseline increase in NIH investigators (3.0-fold vs 1.8-fold; P < .001). This SPI cohort of PIs with 3 or more concurrent active research project grants represented 10% of all NIH-funded investigators in the past 5 years. Funding allocation to SPIs increased more than 2-fold from 12.7% in 1991 to 28.0% in 2020 (eFigure 2A in Supplement 1). In 2020, SPIs, who comprise 11.3% of all PIs, received 28.0% of federal NIH research funding, with a median (IQR) annual total research funding of $1.42 million ($1.08-$2.05 million) per PI compared with $0.38 million ($0.25-$0.62 million) per PI among non-SPI (P < .001) (eFigure 2B in Supplement 1).
To determine the robustness of our findings, we performed a sensitivity analysis using total grant dollars across gender and ethnic and racial identities. Across all gender, ethnic, and racial groups, SPIs received a significant higher median (IQR) annual research project grant funding compared with non-SPIs (men: non-SPIs, $0.39 million [$0.26-$0.62 million] vs SPIs, $1.30 million [$0.95-$1.73 million]; women: non-SPIs, $0.38 million [$0.24-$0.61 million] vs SPIs, $1.30 million [$0.94-$1.74 million]; P < .001) (eFigure 3A and 3B in Supplement 1). There was no difference in annual median research funding dollars for men and women SPIs ($1.30 million for both men and women SPIs; P > .99), or across ethnic and racial groups ($1.30 million [$0.95-$1.77 million] for White SPIs, $1.20 million [$0.92-$1.61 million] for Asian SPIs, $1.20 million [$0.89-$1.70 million] for Hispanic SPIs, and $1.50 million [$1.00-$1.84 million] for Black SPIs; Dunn-corrected P > .05 for all comparisons) (eFigure 1B, eFigure 3 in Supplement 1).
Representation of Women and Black NIH Investigators Among SPIs
Next, we examined gender composition of SPIs (Figure 2A and Figure 2B). In 1991, 2.1% of women and 4.4% of men were SPIs. By 2020, these numbers increased to 8.7% and 13.1% for women and men, respectively (Figure 2A; eTable 1 in Supplement 1). After adjusting for degree and career stage, women PIs had 40%, 38%, and 34% lower odds than men to attain SPI status in phases 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Figure 2B; eTable 1 in Supplement 1). While the interaction analysis between time phase and gender revealed that the relative disadvantage of women attaining SPI status has diminished over time (P = .003), women continue to have significantly lower odds of being an SPI than men.
Figure 2. Gender, Ethnic, and Racial Diversity Among SPIs.
Error bars indicate 95% CIs. In panel B, odds ratios adjusted for career stage (early, middle, and late) and degree; in panel D, odds adjusted for career stage and degree.
There was similar inequity in ethnic and racial representation among SPIs. In 1992, 4.1%, 4.0%, 4.4%, and 1.0% of White, Asian, Hispanic, and Black PIs, respectively, were SPIs (Figure 2C). Although these proportions increased for all ethnic and racial groups over time, the proportion of Black PIs having SPI status remained significantly lower than White PIs in phase 3 (5.6% Black vs 11.5% White; P < .001). Interaction analysis between time phase and ethnic and racial identity indicated that the relative odds of being an SPI for PIs of color (eg, Asian, Hispanic, and Black) significantly changed over time (P < .001). In phase 1, after adjusting for degree and career stage, compared with White PIs, Asian PIs were as likely to be an SPI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94-1.13), and Black and Hispanic PIs were less likely to be an SPI (Black: aOR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16-0.47; Hispanic: aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95) (Figure 2D; eTable 1 in Supplement 1). By phase 3, Asian PIs were significantly more likely than White PIs to be an SPI (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11), while Hispanic PIs were as likely as White PIs to be an SPI (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.00). Although the likelihood of Black PIs having SPI status increased over time, Black PIs were still half as likely as White PIs to be SPIs in phase 3 (aOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42-0.61) (Figure 2D; eTable 1 in Supplement 1).
Black Women PIs Least Likely to Be SPIs
We examined the intersections between gender and ethnic and racial identity among SPIs over time. Between 1991 and 2020, the proportion of SPIs among White, Asian, and Hispanic men increased at a higher rate compared with Black men and all women (eFigure 4 in Supplement 1). In 2020, while 13.1% of White men PIs were SPIs, only 6.8% and 4.1% of Black men and women PIs were SPIs, respectively (P < .001).
In phase 1, after adjusting for degree and career stage, compared with White men, Asian and Hispanic men were as likely to be an SPI (Asian men PIs: aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99-1.20; Hispanic men PIs: aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02) while Black men were significantly less likely to be an SPI (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58) (eFigure 4, eTable 2 in Supplement 1). Compared with White men PIs, all women PIs across ethnic and racial groups were less likely to be an SPI in phase 1, with Black women PIs having the largest disadvantage (White women PIs: aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.58-0.68; Asian women PIs: aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32-0.55; Hispanic women PIs: 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.52; Black women PIs: 0.05; 95% CI, 0-0.39) (eFigure 4, eTable 2 in Supplement 1).
By phase 3, compared with White men, Asian men were more likely (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13), and Hispanic men were as likely (aOR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86-1.04) to be an SPI, while Black men remained less likely to be an SPI (aOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.67) (Figure 3). Compared with White men, White, Asian, Hispanic and Black women were 33%, 29%, 43%, and 71% less likely to be an SPI in phase 3. Although interaction analysis revealed that the relative odds of being an SPI improved over time for Black men and for women across all ethnic and racial groups (P < .001), these groups remained significantly less likely than White men to be an SPI in phase 3 (Figure 3). Remarkably, even though the relative odds of Black women being an SPI improved after the first NIH budget increase (phase 1: aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.00-0.39; phase 2: aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.26-0.44), these odds have not changed after the most recent NIH budget increase (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.41) (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Proportion of SPIs by Gender, Ethnic, and Racial Intersectional Subgroups.
Error bars indicates 95% CIs. Odds ratios were adjusted for career stage and degree.
Discussion
In this study, we found that an elite class of principal investigators who held 3 or more grants grew in number over the past 30 years. The proportion of SPIs among all PIs increased 3-fold from 3.7% in 1991 to 11.3% in 2020. Moreover, the compositional diversity of SPIs was not equitable across gender and ethnic and racial groups. Even after adjusting for career stage and degree, women and Black PIs were significantly less likely to have SPI status compared with White PIs. Black women were most disparately underrepresented among SPIs, with White men PIs being more than 3-fold more likely to be an SPI compared with Black women.
The rise in the percentage of SPIs among all investigators and the concurrent ethnic and racial disparity among SPIs is concerning. Despite evidence of diminishing returns on investment for PIs receiving greater than $600 000 per year in funding,10,11 data suggest that NIH dollars are increasingly concentrated among a small proportion of investigators. This led NIH leadership to consider capping NIH funding to 3 R01-equivalent grants per investigator,12 although this policy was never implemented across NIH institutes and centers. Given the well-documented benefits of diversity among investigative teams, ethnic and racial disparities among PIs and SPIs could limit scientific impact and innovation,13,14,15,16 posing a substantial threat to the success of the US biomedical research enterprise.
While the cause of the gender, ethnic, and racial gap in SPI status reported in this study is likely multifactorial, disparities in mentorship available to Black and women faculty may contribute to this gap.17 Mentorship not only guides early career faculty on a path to success but also exposes faculty to a network of peers that will facilitate collaborations and support.18,19,20 Black and women scientists are less likely than White and men scientists to be mentored by high impact senior mentors,21 and therefore less likely to acquire the scientific network, tacit knowledge, and sponsorship that are inherently required for securing grants. Furthermore, even when mentored by senior faculty, bias and racism may affect the relationship that Black and women faculty have with their mentors, resulting in negative mentoring that harms women and faculty of color.22,23,24
Patterns of grant submission may also influence the disparities in SPI status by gender, race, and ethnicity described in this study. Higher frequency grant submission and resubmission have been linked to funding success,25 and prior studies have reported that women, in aggregate, and Black faculty submit fewer grants than their counterparts.26,27 Investment in both early and mid-career meaningful mentorship initiatives for Black and women faculty will be essential to improve funding longevity and reduce the inequitable ethnic and racial distribution of NIH funding allocated to first-time PIs and among more established SPIs.28 Such programs may include expansion of diversity supplements for early-career faculty, developing mentoring networks for female and Black faculty,29,30,31 and incentivizing diverse team-based science through additional emphasis in program grants and multiple principal investigator awards.
While programs to support grant submission and resubmission are critical, this intervention will likely remain insufficient to address the disparities reported in this study as prior research has shown that Black faculty receive lower scores and are less likely to be funded after grant resubmission than their White counterparts, even after controlling for training record, prior award, and publication history.26,27 Therefore, women and faculty from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups face disparity at 2 levels—initial application32 and reapplication26,27—suggesting a worrying trend of inequitable resource allocation at all career stages. These data suggest that structural interventions may be necessary to address bias in grant assessment, such as diversifying members of NIH study sections and program staff,33 which in 2021 was 33.8% female, 2.3% Black, and 4.5% Hispanic.34 In addition to increasing diversity in study sections, the NIH could consider promoting bias training and education among reviewers.
Despite historical struggles with diversity among PIs, the NIH has introduced several interventions to address funding disparities in recent years. In 2021, the NIH established the UNITE initiative to address systemic racism in the NIH and biomedical researcher workforce.35 The committees operating under the UNITE initiative have made considerable efforts to increase workforce diversity and reduce disparities in research funding, such as increasing funding to NIH institutes that receive a higher percentage of applications from female and faculty from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups (eg, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities), increasing support to minority-serving institutions, and implementation of the Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation (FIRST) funding opportunity to support the recruitment of diverse faculty cohorts.36
Moving forward, the UNITE initiative and the NIH could consider structural changes in the grant review process to assess the ethnic and racial diversity of investigators listed in grant applications. Diverse teams are more innovative and produce higher quality research than homogenous teams,13,15,37 and including an investigator team diversity score could represent an evidence-based metric to promote high-impact science. Additionally, the NIH could incorporate an assessment of the institutional climate of equity and inclusion as a component of a grant application’s scoring criteria. Measures of equity and inclusion could include the institution’s compositional faculty diversity and equity in promotion and salary.
Other structural reforms may include changes to timing of funding deadlines. Request for Application (RFA) and Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for NIH grants are often released shortly before the submission deadline. Women, Hispanic, and Black scientists are less likely to have access to strong research networks and mentorship22,23 and are frequently overtasked with unpaid and unrewarded administrative duties that can be detrimental to their research and career success,38,39 including meeting grant submission deadlines. Providing more time between FOA and RFA release and submission deadline would allow women and faculty from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups time and resources to build and submit their grant applications.
Limitations
Our study had several limitations. This study examined the likelihood of being an SPI given that an investigator had already received NIH funding and does not account for submission behavior differences across demographic groups nor the environmental support (such as research funding available at the institution). These factors may affect the gender, racial, and ethnic disparities described and are important to examine to inform future policies and interventions. Furthermore, our study included funding to contact principal investigators and does not include delineation of whether a grant has multiple PIs. The multiple PI approach is critical for team-based science and can play an important role to improve diversity, as well as mentoring for young women and underrepresented faculty. In addition, a small percentage of PIs withheld their ethnic or racial identity and some ethnic and racial groups, such as Alaska Native, Native American, Hawaiian Native, and Pacific Islanders, were too small for analysis. The small number of Indigenous investigators reflected systemic marginalization across biomedicine and society. More attention should be paid to promote and enhance biomedical research funding to Indigenous investigators, as well as researchers with other marginalized identities such as socioeconomic disadvantage and faculty with disability.40 Lastly, this study focused on NIH-funded investigators and have limited generalizability to other federal and nonfederal funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation,41 for which further study is needed.
Conclusions
In this cross-sectional study of NIH investigators from 1991 to 2020, we found a growing gap among NIH investigators that created a cohort of highly funded NIH investigators. Importantly, there were persistent gender, ethnic, and racial inequities among this elite class of SPIs. As the NIH develops critical initiatives and reforms to promote equity among its investigators, consideration of the persistent gender and ethnic and racial gaps in this elite class and the influence they have is critical for meaningful reform.
eFigure 1. Total Number of NIH-funded Principal Investigators (PIs) and NIH Budget Spending From 1991-2020
eFigure 2. Distribution of Funding Between SPI and Non-SPI
eFigure 3. Median Research Project Grant Funding for Fiscal Year 2020 Among SPIs and Non-SPIs
eFigure 4. Distribution of SPI Status by Gender-Racial/Ethnic Identity
eTable 1. Unadjusted and Adjusted Multiple Logistic Regression of Being an SPI Over Time
eTable 2. Unadjusted and Adjusted Multiple Logistic Regression of Being an SPI Over Time by Gender-Racial/Ethnic Intersectional Identity
Data Sharing Statement
References
- 1.Lauer MS, Roychowdhury D. Inequalities in the distribution of National Institutes of Health research project grant funding. eLife. 2021;10:e71712. doi: 10.7554/eLife.71712 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Andriole DA, Yan Y, Jeffe DB. Mediators of racial/ethnic disparities in mentored K award receipt among U.S. medical school graduates. Acad Med. 2017;92(10):1440-1448. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001871 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ginther DK, Kahn S, Schaffer WT. Gender, race/ethnicity, and National Institutes of Health R01 research awards: is there evidence of a double bind for women of color? Acad Med. 2016;91(8):1098-1107. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001278 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ley TJ, Hamilton BH. Sociology—the gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science. 2008;322(5907):1472-1474. doi: 10.1126/science.1165878 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Stevens KR, Masters KS, Imoukhuede PI, et al. Fund Black scientists. Cell. 2021;184(3):561-565. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ward HB, Levin FR, Greenfield SF. Disparities in gender and race among physician-scientists: a call to action and strategic recommendations. Acad Med. 2022;97(4):487-491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Jacob BA, Lefgren L. The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. J Public Econ. 2011;95(9-10):1168-1177. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Mbuagbaw L, Anderson LN, Lokker C, Thabane L. Advice for junior faculty regarding academic promotion: what not to worry about, and what to worry about. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020;13:117-122. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S240056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Peifer M. Call to restore NIH’s cap on grant funding. Science. 2017;357(6349):364. doi: 10.1126/science.aao2443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lauer M, Roychowdhury D, Patel K, Walsh R, Pearson K. Marginal returns and levels of research grant support among scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health. bioRxiv. Preprint posted online May 29, 2017. doi: 10.1101/142554 [DOI]
- 11.Lorsch JR. Maximizing the return on taxpayers’ investments in fundamental biomedical research. Mol Biol Cell. 2015;26(9):1578-1582. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E14-06-1163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lauer M. Implementing Limits on Grant Support to Strengthen the Biomedical Research Workforce. National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research . May 2, 2017. Accessed June 24, 2022. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/05/02/nih-grant-support-index/
- 13.Freeman RB, Huang W. Collaboration: strength in diversity. Nature. 2014;513(7518):305. doi: 10.1038/513305a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Valantine HA, Lund PK, Gammie AE. From the NIH: a systems approach to increasing the diversity of the biomedical research workforce. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2016;15(3):fe4. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Nielsen MW, Bloch CW, Schiebinger L. Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation. Nature Human Behaviour. 2018;2(10):726-734. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0433-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hofstra B, Kulkarni VV, Munoz-Najar Galvez S, He B, Jurafsky D, McFarland DA. The diversity-innovation paradox in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(17):9284-9291. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1915378117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Yu H, Willis KA, Litovitz A, et al. The effect of mentee and mentor gender on scientific productivity of applicants for NIH training fellowships. bioRxiv. February 3, 2021. doi: 10.1101/2021.02.02.429450 [DOI]
- 18.Vishwanatha J, Pfund C, Ofili E, Okuyemi K. NIH’s mentoring makes progress. Science. 2016;354(6314):840-841. doi: 10.1126/science.aal1898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sood A, Tigges B, Helitzer D. Mentoring early-career faculty researchers is important—but first “train the trainer.” Academic Medicine. 2016;91(12):1598-1600. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001264 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Beech BM, Bruce MA, Thorpe RJ Jr, Heitman E, Griffith DM, Norris KC. Theory-informed research training and mentoring of underrepresented early-career faculty at teaching-intensive institutions: the obesity health disparities PRIDE program. Ethn Dis. 2018;28(2):115-122. doi: 10.18865/ed.28.2.115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Bova B. Mentoring revisited: the Black woman's experience. Mentoring & Tutoring. 2000;8(1):5-16. doi: 10.1080/713685511 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Cole ER, McGowan BL, Zerquera DD. First-year faculty of color: narratives about entering the academy. Equity & Excellence in Education. 2017;50(1):1-12. doi: 10.1080/10665684.2016.1262300 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Eby LT, McManus SE, Simon SA, Russell JEA. The protege's perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: the development of a taxonomy. J Vocational Behavior. 2000;57(1):1-21. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1726 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Davis TM, Jones MK, Settles IH, Russell PG. Barriers to the successful mentoring of faculty of color. J Career Dev. 2021;49(5). doi: 10.1177/08948453211013375 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Haggerty PA, Fenton MJ. Outcomes of early NIH-funded investigators: experience of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0199648. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199648 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Hechtman LA, Moore NP, Schulkey CE, et al. NIH funding longevity by gender. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(31):7943-7948. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1800615115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ginther Donna K, Schaffer Walter T, Schnell J, et al. Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science. 2011;333(6045):1015-1019. doi: 10.1126/science.1196783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Enders FT, Golembiewski EH, Orellana MA, et al. Changing the face of academic medicine: an equity action plan for institutions. J Clin Transl Sci. 2022;6(1):e78. doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.DeCastro R, Sambuco D, Ubel PA, Stewart A, Jagsi R. Mentor networks in academic medicine: moving beyond a dyadic conception of mentoring for junior faculty researchers. Acad Med. 2013;88(4):488-496. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318285d302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Hill KA, Desai MM, Chaudhry SI, Nguyen M, Boatright D. NIH diversity supplement awards by year and administering institute. JAMA. 2021;326(23):2427-2429. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.19360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Hill KA, Desai MM, Chaudhry SI, Fancher T, et al. National Institutes of Health diversity supplement awards by medical school. J Gen Intern Med. Published online November 7, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07849-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Taffe MA, Gilpin NW. Racial inequity in grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health. eLife. 2021;10:e65697. doi: 10.7554/eLife.65697 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Volerman A, Arora VM, Cursio JF, Wei H, Press VG. Representation of women on National Institutes of Health study sections. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e2037346. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.National Institutes of Health . CSR Data & Evaluations. Center for Scientific Review. Accessed June 24, 2022. https://public.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/Evaluations#reviewer_demographics
- 35.National Institutes of Health . UNITE—Milestones & Progress. Accessed June 24, 2022. https://www.nih.gov/ending-structural-racism/unite-milestones-progress
- 36.Bernard MA, Johnson AC, Hopkins-Laboy T, Tabak LA. The US National Institutes of Health approach to inclusive excellence. Nature Medicine. 2021;27(11):1861-1864. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01532-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Adams J. Collaborations: the fourth age of research. Nature. 2013;497(7451):557-560. doi: 10.1038/497557a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Trejo J. The burden of service for faculty of color to achieve diversity and inclusion: the minority tax. Mol Biol Cell. 2020;31(25):2752-2754. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E20-08-0567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Williamson T, Goodwin CR, Ubel PA. Minority tax reform—avoiding overtaxing minorities when we need them most. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(20):1877-1879. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2100179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Swenor BK, Munoz B, Meeks LM. A decade of decline: grant funding for researchers with disabilities 2008 to 2018. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0228686. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228686 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Chen CY, Kahanamoku SS, Tripati A, et al. Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation. eLife. 2022;11:e83071. doi: 10.7554/eLife.83071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
eFigure 1. Total Number of NIH-funded Principal Investigators (PIs) and NIH Budget Spending From 1991-2020
eFigure 2. Distribution of Funding Between SPI and Non-SPI
eFigure 3. Median Research Project Grant Funding for Fiscal Year 2020 Among SPIs and Non-SPIs
eFigure 4. Distribution of SPI Status by Gender-Racial/Ethnic Identity
eTable 1. Unadjusted and Adjusted Multiple Logistic Regression of Being an SPI Over Time
eTable 2. Unadjusted and Adjusted Multiple Logistic Regression of Being an SPI Over Time by Gender-Racial/Ethnic Intersectional Identity
Data Sharing Statement
