Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Gender equity in funding

Nature Reviews Chemistry volume 6, pages 233–234 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Numerous studies show that gender-based bias affects the distribution of research funding, with researcher-focused assessments being particularly prone to bias. Considering the negative impact on science when bias intrudes on funding decisions, granting agencies need to improve their efforts to document, monitor and reduce it.

Objectively speaking, the physical sciences have, since their inception, been led almost exclusively by male researchers. Discounting any view that places women and people of minority ethnic groups as inherently inferior leaves us with the conclusion that science has been affected by specific systemic biases. Considering that gender is neither binary nor fixed, the discussion of ‘men’ and ‘women’ here is recognized as a simplification and not meant to obscure the complexity of gender.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. Wittman, H. O., Hendricks, M., Straus, S. & Tannenbaum, C. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. Lancet 393, 531–40 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hipólito, J., Shirai, L. T. & Diele-Viegas, L. M. et al. Brazilian budget cuts further threaten gender equality in research. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01640-8 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lincoln, A. E., Pincus, S., Koster, J. B. & Leboy, P. S. The matilda effect in science: awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42, 307–320 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tamblyn, R., Girard, N., Qian, C. J. & Hanley, J. Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada. CMAJ 190, E489–E499 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Guglielmi, G. Gender bias tilts success of grant applications. Nature 554, 14–15 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Adam, D. Science funders gamble on grant lotteries. Nature 575, 574–575 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wennerås, C. & Wold, A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387, 341–343 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    Cathleen M. Crudden

  2. Institute of Transformative Bio-Molecules (WPI-ITbM), Nagoya University, Furo, Chikusa, Nagoya, Japan

    Cathleen M. Crudden

Authors
  1. Cathleen M. Crudden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cathleen M. Crudden.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crudden, C.M. Gender equity in funding. Nat Rev Chem 6, 233–234 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-022-00376-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-022-00376-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing