Why NIH Needs To Prioritize Funding Black Scientists
As someone who has worked for many years now with PIs to help them secure NIH R01-level funding, I wholeheartedly endorse the Fund Black Scientists commentary published in Cell in 2021 by Stevens and colleagues. I want to share some key takeaways from the article and add some perspectives of my own.
You can read the full commentary here.
Addressing Racial Funding Disparities
The racial funding disparity at NIH is what the nationwide network of BME women faculty who authored the commentary collectively describes as “the most insidious barrier to the success of Black faculty in our profession.”
As the authors note, the racial funding gap originally identified in Ginther’s 2011 article has not changed. From 2000 to 2016, the NIH award probability of black PIs remained at about 55% of what white PIs received, even though academic achievements were similar.
Not long after the commentary was published, the NIH Director publicly acknowledged systemic racism at NIH but, unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), did not include any metrics, timeline, or funding to provide an avenue for meaningful change.
This statement represents a slow beginning and a sign that much more work needs to be done to close the NIH funding gap and support a more diverse group of researchers who more accurately reflect the extramural research workforce.
The Peer Review Experience of Black PIs
Part of what we do in all our strategic reviews is to help PIs respond to critiques from reviewers on their previous R01 and anticipate new objections in their resubmission. We’ve worked with a number of Black women PIs over the years and we’ve seen troublingly predictable racist critiques on their summary statements, which we help them address in their resubmission.
We notice a higher degree of scrutiny of their expertise, experience, and leadership capacity that we don’t see in the summary statements of their white counterparts. They also experience unfair scrutiny if they focus on disparities-related research, with the common criticism centered on the importance of the topic and the significance of the research in the first place. Again, these types of objections and racist assumptions are predictable and ones that we help prepare Black PIs to anticipate and address—because if they don’t address these objections their projects will remain unfunded.
But let me be clear about this:
Addressing racist assumptions should not be a problem for Black PIs to fix. Obviously. This puts Black PIs at a major disadvantage by having to spend precious space in their applications making arguments that their non-Black colleagues don’t have to make. If Black PIs got the same ‘benefit of the doubt’ in the review process this would allow them to focus on communicating the value of their research, not responding to racist critiques.
Racism and bias must be eliminated from the peer review process, and that is the responsibility of NIH, not the PIs submitting R01s. To enrich the experience of Black PIs, NIH must invest in understanding the impact of racism in the NIH grant review process while working quickly to address it.
Achieving Racial Funding Equity
The systemic racism at play in the grant review process leads to the biggest issue: disparities in research project funding that disproportionately harm Black researchers.
As the authors point out, the NIH has successfully implemented solutions for other funding disparities. The most obvious example is the Early Stage Investigator program policy. I wholeheartedly agree that a similar policy must be implemented to level the playing field for Black PIs.
And implementing such a policy in isolation will be insufficient to achieve racial funding equity.
That’s because the current ESI policy only works if your grant is scored well enough to be close to the pay line. But in the case of building an equity policy for Black investigators, if those grants are not scored well enough because of the implicit bias and racism in the review process, these investigators will not get close to the pay line, making this policy inconsequential for many Black PIs.
That’s why the authors have made many other related recommendations that can ensure a policy initiative like this can be successful. For example, they recommend that until racial funding equity is achieved, all grants from Black PIs must be discussed. I couldn’t agree more.
NIH Leadership Responsibilities
The conversation on the racial funding gap should never be about what Black PIs can do to overcome the hurdles. The real responsibility for change lies on the shoulders of NIH, academic institutions, and individual (non-Black) scientists who act as peer reviewers.
The recommendations that the authors offer in this commentary provide an ecosystem of solutions to address the racial funding gap at NIH. Work needs to happen on all fronts for change to be successful, because changing only one piece of the puzzle will never be enough for lasting change to be enacted. It’s too easy for institutions to point to one initiative and pat themselves on the back and say their work is done.
The commentary goes into great depth into recommendations for training NIH leadership which will greatly impact racial equity. Review those recommendations here.
The Role of Academic Institutions
If academic institutions are truly serious about their commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion, they must create a supportive environment for their Black faculty to succeed. This includes—but is certainly not limited to—recognizing the additional barriers that Black researchers face in securing NIH R01-level funding and ensuring that these researchers have access to additional resources and support to help them succeed.
But that only happens when those in the scientific community continue to show support for their colleagues. This is not a battle they should have to fight alone. If we all truly value diversity in research and want the best outcomes for a world in need of the research NIH scientists provide, we must all become champions for diversity, forcing NIH leadership to take notice and make actionable and lasting change throughout its entire ecosystem.
If you found this video helpful, click the button below to join our FREE Resource Library and get lots more tools to help you write a stronger NIH grant: