Studies Show Racial Disparity in NIH Grants
- Author: Mary Singleton
- Posted: 2024-07-02
The federal grant award process is dependent on the program and the agency. Each grant generally goes through some sort of initial evaluation where the federal evaluators will determine whether the application can form the basis for the award. There is usually some sort of initial screening where evaluators review and assess the merits of the application. Then, the highest-scoring grant proposals will either proceed to the next phase of evaluation or will be selected for an award. Thus, the scores that applicants receive on their evaluation will make the difference between receiving a grant or not getting one. Data on the evaluation scores received are often made public or can be requested by the general public.
Minority Researchers do not Get Grants at the Same Rate as White Scientists
Researchers at the University of Washington analyzed scores from proposals that were graded by the NIH. This agency is one of the largest sources of federal grant dollars as it seeks the best solutions that researchers can provide to the country's most pressing health issues. The researchers sought to compare the success rates of white scientists who applied for federal dollars with the rate at which black scientists receive awards.
The topline numbers that the researchers reported were shocking. Black applicants for federal scientific grant dollar only received awards at 55% of the rate that white applicants received money. This shows that there is even racial disparity in a federal program that should not take race into account according to strict government rules.
According to NIH rules, grants go through a preliminary scoring process. Each grant is given a numerical score in five different criteria. The scores are totaled and then used to determine whether the grant will make its way through to the next round of evaluation.
The federal government claims that its scoring factors are completely objective. Still, there are some ways for racial bias to make their way into the scores that evaluators assess. For example, evaluators may be able tell from the topics selected by the researchers the race of the applicant. Hypothetically, when the researchers present a topic such as the health impacts of certain things on the black community, the evaluators could take on an implicit bias against the proposal.
Another factor in the lack of awards to minority researchers could be the fact that they are underrepresented in professional circles and may have smaller professional networks. This may lessen their exposure to the current scientific standards that NIH is looking for in grant proposals.
Finally, the researcher's track record is another area where NIH scores the application. This is another way that bias can make its way into the score that the application receives. However, many studies have focused on topic choice as the primary way that there can be disparate treatment in how the scoring system is applied.
NIH Is Currently Reviewing its Scoring System
To its credit, NIH is undertaking a review of how it scores and assesses grants in order to reform the process. The agency aims to be neutral and objective and will reevaluate how it awards grants if there is some data that it is falling short in this area. The NIH intends for its peer-to-peer review to take out subjective biases, even if it does not ultimately manifest itself in the results. Accordingly, the NIH is looking at whether it should simplify its award criteria from the current procedures that reviewers use.
Recent events now should cause the NIH to intensify and accelerate this review. Given the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 has had on black communities, additional research is necessary to narrow the racial disparity in health in the United States. Oftentimes, NIH grants are the first way that the government can begin to address a health priority before Congress can appropriate funding for a particular program.
