Does your race impact your chances of receiving NIH funding?

A recent study revealed a surprising statistic regarding NIH funding. Black researchers were 10% less likely than whites to receive NIH funding between 2000 and 2006. This statistic holds only for black PhD-level researchers - not other minorities - and the disparity is shown even when controlling for similar academic level and institution.

Predictably, NIH has panicked and is working to understand the cause of this disparity and try to find ways to eliminate it. Some critics have suggested that there are inherent flaws in the review system that can be impacted by bias of reviewers. In some cases, I can understand their point. Perhaps some reviewers believe that historically black colleges and universities have poorer resources, or that an education from an HBCU is inferior. However, other than in proposals involving individuals who attended or are employed by HBCUs, I do not understand how race can become a factor for reviewers. True, there are some ethnic names that are more popular among certain races and ethnicities, but I have known just as many black Michaels, Jasons and Ashleys as I have white ones. What else is at play here?

As you may have guessed from reading this blog, I firmly believe that success in obtaining grant funding is often rooted in the quality and quantity of help received in proposal preparation. So perhaps, in exposing the disparity in NIH funding, the researchers actually exposed a disparity in institutional support provided to black researchers.

What do you think?

NIH funded WHAT??!

I just read this article and was a little shocked, to say the least. At a time when top cancer researchers and other prominent, productive scientists are finding it almost impossible to get funded, and many labs are shutting down, NIH appears to have money to burn. The article mentions a very large ($9.4 million) grant that included multiple projects. One of these projects examined penis size in the gay community and its relationship to sexual positions. The researchers claim that NIH money wasn't actually used to measure any men- just to pay for the write-up and analysis of the data. It doesn't matter what part of the study the money was used for. This was a complete waste of taxpayer money.

The CDC will buy you a house and a Harley!

I usually keep up on stories of fraud and misconduct on federal grants, but I missed this one: Autism researcher indicted for alleged $1M CDC fraud. It is very sad that $1 million that should have funded ground-breaking autism research instead lined the pockets of a greedy researcher. I am very glad that he was caught, but wish it could have happened sooner. How does someone get away with this for so long? Did the fact that it was an international award cause the lax oversight?

Today's Vent: Know what you are getting yourself into!

Applying for federal money is a complicated, time-consuming process. Whether you are applying for an NIH or NSF research grant, or a CDC cooperative agreement, you need to understand that you are embarking on a long journey that requires attention to detail and proper planning. If you are responding to a 200-page Request for Proposals, guess what? You actually need to read the entire 200 pages. If you do not have the time and resources available to fully commit to putting together a top-notch proposal, how will you carry out the project you propose if the grant is awarded?