Dr Sally Rockey on NIH Grant Equity
Dear Friends of Women in Science,
Susan Forsburg alerted me to an article in the March 18 issue of NIH's Extramural Nexus newsletter, by Dr. Sally Rockey, NIH's Deputy Director for Extramural Research. She serves as the principal scientific leader and advisor to the National Institutes of Health Director on the NIH extramural research program. She celebrated Women's History Month by reviewing some data on how women fare in the extramural grant programs. Women have achieved parity with men in all of their graduate and postdoctoral training opportunities and the mentored career development programs. However, among research project grants, women are only 27% of all the principal investigators (PIs). She states that women have been making steady gains in this percentage; however, when I clicked on the graph, it looked to me like a plateau since about 2004. And furthermore, there is a very similar success rate for men and women for first grants, but not for renewals. Dr. Rockey says that the similar first grant rate shows that there is no gender discrimination but the renewal results require further study.
She noted that even though these success rates are similar, grants to women who have migrated into faculty positions that allow for continued NIH grant application throughout the career are low compared to grants to men in these positions. Thus, gender equity still requires some work and study to make it fairer.
She cited Ceci and Williams' recent paper to say that lifestyle choices could explain the gender difference. As we have noted here, the methodology they used could narrow the conclusions they could reach, but certainly support for childcare is an important issue.
What has been your experience with NIH? Has it been woman-friendly as far as you can tell?
Cheers,
Laura
Hi Phoebe,
Interesting! Do you really mean the 2008 issue? Is there any way non-AWIS members could see the article in question?
best,
Laura
In response to the comment of FBP about percent women being hired for tenure track jobs: I know it seems counter-intuitive, but a careful data analysis indicates that 1) in Physics, Engineering and Computer Sci, women ARE being hired for assistant professorships at the level expected by their representation among recent PhDs. However, they are still less than 25% of the PhDs; 2) in math, female assistant professors also occur in proportion to the PhD pool, but I suspect if we dug deeper we would find disproportionately few in research universities;and 3) in biology, chemistry and biomedical sciences, female assistant professors are significantly fewer than expected based on PhDs awarded. The reason for lower-than-expected women in the life sciences and chemistry may still involve some discrimination, but much is because many of these young women are discouraged by pressures on tenure-track faculty to generate grant income and lots of publications - and thus do not apply for such positions. AWIS members can read about this online ("The Disappearing Biomedical Faculty Women"), in the AWIS Magazine, 2008 summer issue: .
I think NIH is a benevolent dictatorship. I'm very surprised, actually, to hear that Dr. Rockey is so high up in the organization. It seems full of male physicians at the top to me. The study sections do seem to be fair to women, though. I have no real complaints.
Dear Minette and FBP,
I had an overall positive experience with NIH funding for many years, except for the conference you mentioned, Minette. I did wish that the AREA program was designed differently, more like the RUI program for NSF. Those grant programs are designed for PIs whose research involves undergraduate students, but is still publishable, important work. NSF's RUI lets the PI ask for the amount he/she needs, while NIH's AREA is limited to $100,000 direct costs (last time I received one, anyway. It may have been increased later). Also, AREA has functioned out of the Small Business encouragement office, which is an odd fit.
cheers,
Laura
Hi Laura,
The only problem with NIH, in my experience, is the kind of thing you described in "the establishment strikes back" chapter in your book. They suddenly decide to change direction and all of the current PIs names are mud. I see they did that to Alzheimer researchers recently; one of my friends was horrified by the booklet that came out saying each group's research was not well founded, not well done. I've escaped so far, but I am anxious. It might be rarer in the General Medicine Institute, where my funds come from.
I've never had any trouble with National Institutes of Health. I think their review panels are fair and their program officers have always seemed to be on my side. A thoroughly professional outfit. I am surprised that women are a lower percent of tenure track jobs (I assume that's what she means), because at least at assistant professor level the hires are almost equal in biological sciences and in mathematics now. I guess that's still not true in Chem, Physics, Engineering, Comp Sci.
FBP
