Fund Black scientists

Gender(ed) science: How the institutionalization of gender continues to shape the conduct and content of women's health research

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and attributes that a particular society considers appropriate for men and women based on assumptions about biological sex. It also operates as a major social organizing principle that confers unequal power, status, and resources to men and women, with direct consequences for health. Historic patriarchal and misogynistic beliefs and values are reinforced through social institutions, including health science, which reify gender inequities. This commentary examines two key domains in which the social organization and institutionalization of gender in scientific research affect the conduct of women's health research and, by extension, women's health outcomes. These domains are: 1) decisions about which topics are prioritized, researched, and funded and 2) the dissemination of research findings. Using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a case study to illustrate broader patterns in scientific research, we present evidence of gender-based inequities in what is prioritized, deemed fundable, and disseminated, and how this affects knowledge production and attention to women's health. We highlight efforts and progress made by the NIH and call for additional attention to further address gender-based inequities and their impact on women's health research. We conclude with a call for critical social science analyses-ideally supported by the NIH-of the social organization of health science research to identify points of intervention for redressing deep-seated obstacles to advancing research on women's health.

Analysis of science journalism reveals gender and regional disparities in coverage

Science journalism is a critical way for the public to learn about and benefit from scientific findings. Such journalism shapes the public's view of the current state of science and legitimizes experts. Journalists can only cite and quote a limited number of sources, who they may discover in their research, including recommendations by other scientists. Biases in either process may influence who is identified and ultimately included as a source. To examine potential biases in science journalism, we analyzed 22,001 non-research articles published by Nature and compared these with Nature-published research articles with respect to predicted gender and name origin. We extracted cited authors' names and those of quoted speakers. While citations and quotations within a piece do not reflect the entire information-gathering process, they can provide insight into the demographics of visible sources. We then predicted gender and name origin of the cited authors and speakers. We compared articles with a comparator set made up of first and last authors within primary research articles in Nature and a subset of Springer Nature articles in the same time period. In our analysis, we found a skew toward quoting men in Nature science journalism. However, quotation is trending toward equal representation at a faster rate than authorship rates in academic publishing. Gender disparity in Nature quotes was dependent on the article type. We found a significant over-representation of names with predicted Celtic/English origin and under-representation of names with a predicted East Asian origin in both in extracted quotes and journal citations but dampened in citations.

COVID-19 as a chronic stressor and the importance of individual identity: A data-driven look at academic productivity during the pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted personal and professional life. For academics, research, teaching, and service tasks were upended and we all had to navigate the altered landscape. However, some individuals faced a disproportionate burden, particularly academics with minoritized identities or those who were early career, were caregivers, or had intersecting identities. As comparative endocrinologists, we determine how aspects of individual and species-level variation influence response to, recovery from, and resilience in the face of stressors. Here, we flip that framework and apply an integrative biological lens to the impact of the COVID-19 chronic stressor on our endocrine community. We address how the pandemic altered impact factors of academia (e.g., scholarly products) and relatedly, how factors of impact (e.g., sex, gender, race, career stage, caregiver status, etc.) altered the way in which individuals could respond. We predict the pandemic will have long-term impacts on the population dynamics, composition, and landscape of our academic ecosystem. Impact factors of research, namely journal submissions, were altered by COVID-19, and women authors saw a big dip. We discuss this broadly and then report General and Comparative Endocrinology (GCE) manuscript submission and acceptance status by gender and geographic region from 2019 to 2023. We also summarize how the pandemic impacted individuals with different axes of identity, how academic institutions have responded, compile proposed solutions, and conclude with a discussion on what we can all do to (re)build the academy in an equitable way. At GCE, the first author positions had gender parity, but men outnumbered women at the corresponding author position. Region of manuscript origin mattered for submission and acceptance rates, and women authors from Asia and the Middle East were the most heavily impacted by the pandemic. The number of manuscripts submitted dropped after year 1 of the pandemic and has not yet recovered. Thus, COVID-19 was a chronic stressor for the GCE community.

The Role of the National Institute of Mental Health in Promoting Diversity in the Psychiatric Research Workforce

The mission of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is to transform the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses through basic and clinical research, paving the way for prevention, recovery, and cure. This mission can only be realized if full participation in the research enterprise is open to all. Nevertheless, systemic racism and other barriers remain significant obstacles to achieving a diverse workforce. To address these barriers, NIMH must ensure a just and equitable funding process, support diversity-focused training opportunities, and encourage research into mental health disparities and other areas of interest to a diverse array of scientists.

Junior scientists spotlight social bonds in seminars for diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM

Disparities for women and minorities in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers have continued even amidst mounting evidence for the superior performance of diverse workforces. In response, we launched the Diversity and Science Lecture series, a cross-institutional platform where junior life scientists present their research and comment on diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM. We characterize speaker representation from 79 profiles and investigate topic noteworthiness via quantitative content analysis of talk transcripts. Nearly every speaker discussed interpersonal support, and three-fifths of speakers commented on race or ethnicity. Other topics, such as sexual and gender minority identity, were less frequently addressed but highly salient to the speakers who mentioned them. We found that significantly co-occurring topics reflected not only conceptual similarity, such as terms for racial identities, but also intersectional significance, such as identifying as a Latina/Hispanic woman or Asian immigrant, and interactions between concerns and identities, including the heightened value of friendship to the LGBTQ community, which we reproduce using transcripts from an independent seminar series. Our approach to scholar profiles and talk transcripts serves as an example for transmuting hundreds of hours of scholarly discourse into rich datasets that can power computational audits of speaker diversity and illuminate speakers' personal and professional priorities.

Structural Racism in Psychiatric Research Careers: Eradicating Barriers to a More Diverse Workforce

Investigators from minoritized backgrounds are underrepresented in psychiatric research. That underrepresentation contributes to disparities in outcomes of access to mental health care. Drawing on lived experience, scholarly qualitative reports, and empirical data, the authors review how the underrepresentation of minoritized researchers arises from interlocking, self-reinforcing effects of structural biases in our research training and funding institutions. Minoritized researchers experience diminished early access to advanced training and opportunities, stereotype threats and microaggressions, isolation due to lack of peers and senior mentors, decreased access to early funding, and unique community and personal financial pressures. These represent structural racism-a system of institutional assumptions and practices that perpetuates race-based disparities, in spite of those institutions' efforts to increase diversity and in contradiction to the values that academic leaders outwardly espouse. The authors further review potential approaches to reversing these structural biases, including undergraduate-focused research experiences, financial support for faculty who lead training/mentoring programs, targeted mentoring through scholarly societies, better use of federal diversity supplement funding, support for scientific reentry, cohort building, diversity efforts targeting senior leadership, and rigorous examination of hiring, compensation, and promotion practices. Several of these approaches have empirically proven best practices and models for dissemination. If implemented alongside outcome measurement, they have the potential to reverse decades of structural bias in psychiatry and psychiatric research.

Integrated Care Pathways for Black Persons With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Critical Transdisciplinary Scoping Review of the Clinical Care Journey

Objectives: This novel critical transdisciplinary scoping review examined the literature on integrated care pathways that consider Black people living with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The objectives were to (a) summarize the extent, nature, and range of literature on care pathways that consider Black populations, (b) summarize how Blackness, race, and racism are conceptualized in the literature, (c) determine how Black people come to access care pathways, and (d) identify how care pathways in research consider the mechanism of injury and implications for human occupation. Methods: Six databases were searched systematically identifying 178 articles after removing duplicates. In total, 43 articles on integrated care within the context of Black persons with TBI were included. Narrative synthesis was conducted to analyze the data and was presented as descriptive statistics and as a narrative to tell a story. Findings: All studies were based in the United States where 81% reported racial and ethnic disparities across the care continuum primarily using race as a biological construct. Sex, gender, and race are used as demographic variables where statistical data were stratified in only 9% of studies. Black patients are primarily denied access to care, experience lower rates of protocol treatments, poor quality of care, and lack access to rehabilitation. Racial health disparities are disconnected from racism and are displayed as symptoms of a problem that remains unnamed. Conclusion: The findings illustrate how racism becomes institutionalized in research on TBI care pathways, demonstrating the need to incorporate the voices of Black people, transcend disciplinary boundaries, and adopt an anti-racist lens to research.

PEERing forward in parasitology

PEERs in Parasitology (PiP) is a global scientific grassroots organization founded in 2021 to promote equity and inclusion for persons (currently and) historically excluded from science because of ethnicity and/or race. The article details systemic obstacles PEER parasitologists face and current and future strategies of PiP to overcome them.

Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the fields of nutrition and obesity: A road map to equity in academia

Research shows that a diverse faculty improves academic, clinical, and research outcomes in higher education. Despite that, persons in minority groups, usually categorized by race or ethnicity, are underrepresented in academia (URiA). The Nutrition Obesity Research Centers (NORCs), supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, hosted workshops on five separate days in September and October 2020. NORCs convened these workshops to identify barriers and facilitators for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and provide specific recommendations to improve DEI within obesity and nutrition for individuals from URiA groups. Recognized experts on DEI presented each day, after which the NORCs conducted breakout sessions with key stakeholders who engage in nutrition and obesity research. The breakout session groups included early-career investigators, professional societies, and academic leadership. The consensus from the breakout sessions was that glaring inequities affect URiA in nutrition and obesity, particularly related to recruitment, retention, and advancement. Recommendations from the breakout sessions to improve DEI across academia focused on six themes: (1) recruitment, (2) retention, (3) advancement, (4) intersectionality of multiple challenges (e.g., being Black and a woman), (5) funding agencies, and (6) implementation of strategies to address problems related to DEI.

Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the fields of nutrition and obesity: A roadmap to equity in academia

Research shows that a diverse faculty improves academic, clinical, and research outcomes in higher education. Despite that, persons in minority groups, usually categorized by race or ethnicity, are underrepresented in academia (URiA). The Nutrition Obesity Research Centers (NORCs), supported by the NIDDK, hosted workshops on five separate days in September and October 2020. NORCs convened these workshops to identify barriers and facilitators for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and provide specific recommendations to improve DEI within obesity and nutrition for individuals from URiA groups. Recognized experts on DEI presented each day, after which the NORCs conducted breakout sessions with key stakeholders who engage in nutrition and obesity research. The breakout session groups included early-career investigators, professional societies, and academic leadership. The consensus from the breakout sessions was that glaring inequities affect URiA in nutrition and obesity, particularly related to recruitment, retention, and advancement. Recommendations from the breakout sessions to improve DEI across the academe focused on six themes: (1) recruitment, (2) retention, (3) advancement, (4) intersectionality of multiple challenges (e.g., being Black and a woman), (5) funding agencies, and (6) implementation of strategies to address problems related to DEI.

Critical Perspectives on Expanding Racial/Ethnic Diversity in the HIV Research Workforce: Comorbidities and Mentoring

HIV-related comorbidities in underrepresented minority populations are reframed to include the co-occurring problems of systemic and structural barriers, within the mentoring context as a buffer and as action-oriented. This framework is discussed to improve racial and ethnic minority diversity in the research workforce from the perspectives of HIV comorbidities and mentoring. An integrated and coordinated approach to HIV-related comorbidities and inequities may be helpful when combined with research on the social-structural contributions as drivers to diversify the research workforce. We emphasize how these key research issues (a) provide a platform for training and retraining a highly motivated, diverse workforce and (b) facilitate the empowerment of these trained individuals to conduct rigorous scientific research on social-structural factors to mitigate the effects of these comorbidities. We conclude that a diverse research workforce is necessary but insufficient for improving training-related outcomes or reducing comorbidity effects. Additional considerations are warranted that include systemic approaches and changes at the structural and institutional levels.

Career self-efficacy disparities in underrepresented biomedical scientist trainees

The present study examines racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in career self-efficacy amongst 6077 US citizens and US naturalized graduate and postdoctoral trainees. Respondents from biomedical fields completed surveys administered by the National Institutes of Health Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (NIH BEST) programs across 17 US institutional sites. Graduate and postdoctoral demographic and survey response data were examined to evaluate the impact of intersectional identities on trainee career self-efficacy. The study hypothesized that race, ethnicity and gender, and the relations between these identities, would impact trainee career self-efficacy. The analysis demonstrated that racial and ethnic group, gender, specific career interests (academic principal investigator vs. other careers), and seniority (junior vs. senior trainee level) were, to various degrees, all associated with trainee career self-efficacy and the effects were consistent across graduate and postdoctoral respondents. Implications for differing levels of self-efficacy are discussed, including factors and events during training that may contribute to (or undermine) career self-efficacy. The importance of mentorship for building research and career self-efficacy of trainees is discussed, especially with respect to those identifying as women and belonging to racial/ethnic populations underrepresented in biomedical sciences. The results underscore the need for change in the biomedical academic research community in order to retain a diverse biomedical workforce.

Undue burden: Black faculty, COVID-19, and the racial justice movement

A crucial reckoning was initiated when the COVID-19 pandemic began to expose and intensify long-standing racial/ethnic health inequities, all while various sectors of society pursued racial justice reform. As a result, there has been a contextual shift towards broader recognition of systemic racism, and not race, as the shared foundational driver of both societal maladies. This confluence of issues is of particular relevance to Black populations disproportionately affected by the pandemic and racial injustice. In response, institutions have initiated diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts as a way forward. This article considers how the dual pandemic climate of COVID-19-related health inequities and the racial justice movement could exacerbate the "time and effort tax" on Black faculty to engage in DEI efforts in academia and biomedicine. We discuss the impact of this "tax" on career advancement and well-being, and introduce an operational framework for considering the interconnected influence of systemic racism, the dual pandemics, and DEI work on the experience of Black faculty. If not meaningfully addressed, the "time and effort tax" could contribute to Black and other underrepresented minority faculty leaving academia and biomedicine - consequently, the very diversity, equity, and inclusion work meant to increase representation could decrease it.

Black in Cancer: Two Years of Empowering the Next Generation

In the 2 years since the inception of Black in Cancer, we have modeled an action-oriented commitment to improving Black representation across all levels of the cancer spectrum. We reflect on our successes and consider new ways to innovate and inspire the cancer community.

Gender, Racial, and Ethnic and Inequities in Receipt of Multiple National Institutes of Health Research Project Grants

IMPORTANCE

Diversity in the biomedical research workforce is essential for addressing complex health problems. Female investigators and investigators from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups generate novel, impactful, and innovative research, yet they are significantly underrepresented among National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigators.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the gender, ethnic, and racial distribution of super NIH investigators who received 3 or more concurrent NIH grants.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study included a national cohort of NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) from the NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II) database from 1991 to 2020.

EXPOSURES

Self-identified gender, race and ethnicity, annual number of NIH grant receipt, career stage, and highest degree.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Distribution of investigators receiving 3 or more research project grants, referred to as super principal investigators (SPIs), by gender, race, and ethnicity.

RESULTS

Among 33 896 investigators in fiscal year 2020, 7478 (22.01%) identified as Asian, 623 (1.8%) as Black, 1624 (4.8%) as Hispanic, and 22 107 (65.2%) as White; 21 936 (61.7%) identified as men; and 8695 (35.3%) were early-stage investigators. Between 1991 and 2020, the proportion of SPIs increased 3-fold from 704 (3.7%) to 3942 (11.3%). However, SPI status was unequal across gender, ethnic, and racial groups. Women and Black PIs were significantly underrepresented among SPIs, even after adjusting for career stage and degree, and were 34% and 40% less likely than their male and White colleagues, respectively, to be an SPI. Black women PIs were the least likely to be represented among SPIs and were 71% less likely to attain SPI status than White men PIs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.41).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study of a national cohort of NIH-funded investigators, the gender, ethnic, and racial gaps in receipt of multiple research project grants among NIH investigators was clearly apparent and warrants further investigation and interventions.

Retaining Faculty from Underrepresented Groups in Academic Medicine: Results from a Needs Assessment

OBJECTIVES

Academic medical centers can improve the quality of care and address health inequities by recruiting and retaining faculty from underrepresented in medicine (URiM) groups; however, the retention of URiM faculty is a barrier to reaching equity-related goals because URiM faculty are less likely to remain in academia and be promoted compared with their peers. As such, the objective of this study was to determine factors that influence the retention of URiM faculty at large academic centers.

METHODS

One-time, semistructured stay interviews were conducted to assess the experiences of URiM faculty at a large academic hospital in Boston, Massachusetts between October 2016 and April 2017. A qualitative researcher coded the transcripts and identified central themes.

RESULTS

The participants (N = 17) were 65% Black/African American and 35% Hispanic/Latinx. The median number of years on faculty was 3 years (range 1-33). The themes identified through the stay interviews were grouped into three domains: areas of strength, challenges to advancement, and suggestions for improvement of support. Participants voiced leadership support in their development, the community of patients, URiM networking opportunities, and mentorship as strengths. The barriers to retention included the lack of transparency and trust in their work, a sense of tokenism, organizational management issues, and implicit biases. The suggested ways to improve support included the expanding of initiatives to include all members of groups URiM, continuing URiM faculty development programs, and increasing funding to support advancement.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscored the importance of supportive leadership, URiM-specific faculty development programs, networking opportunities, and the recognition of achievements as factors that influence the retention of faculty at a large academic medical center. In addition, participants highlighted the need for strong mentor networks and emphasizing sponsorship.

BME 2.0: Engineering the Future of Medicine

If the 20th century was the age of mapping and controlling the external world, the 21st century is the biomedical age of mapping and controlling the biological internal world. The biomedical age is bringing new technological breakthroughs for sensing and controlling human biomolecules, cells, tissues, and organs, which underpin new frontiers in the biomedical discovery, data, biomanufacturing, and translational sciences. This article reviews what we believe will be the next wave of biomedical engineering (BME) education in support of the biomedical age, what we have termed BME 2.0. BME 2.0 was announced on October 12 2017 at BMES 49 (https://www.bme.jhu.edu/news-events/news/miller-opens-2017-bmes-annual-meeting-with-vision-for-new-bme-era/). We present several principles upon which we believe the BME 2.0 curriculum should be constructed, and from these principles, we describe what view as the foundations that form the next generations of curricula in support of the BME enterprise. The core principles of BME 2.0 education are (a) educate students bilingually, from day 1, in the languages of modern molecular biology and the analytical modeling of complex biological systems; (b) prepare every student to be a biomedical data scientist; (c) build a unique BME community for discovery and innovation via a vertically integrated and convergent learning environment spanning the university and hospital systems; (d) champion an educational culture of inclusive excellence; and (e) codify in the curriculum ongoing discoveries at the frontiers of the discipline, thus ensuring BME 2.0 as a launchpad for training the future leaders of the biotechnology marketplaces. We envision that the BME 2.0 education is the path for providing every student with the training to lead in this new era of engineering the future of medicine in the 21st century.

Open Citizen Science: fostering open knowledge with participation

Citizen Science or community science has been around for a long time. The scope of community involvement in Citizen Science initiatives ranges from short-term data collection to intensive engagement to delve into a research topic together with scientists and/or other volunteers. Although many volunteer researchers have academic training, it is not a prerequisite for participation in research projects. It is important to adhere to scientific standards, which include, above all, transparency with regard to the methodology of data collection and public discussion of the results, and open educational resources (OER). Hereby, Citizen Science is closely linked to Open Science. In our contribution, we will introduce two projects, both developed within the Wikimedia Fellowship Freies Wissen.

The top-down approach: ERGo! An Entomology Research Tool to raise awareness of biodiversity protection.

Inclusion in academia and pressing social problems such as climate change are fundamentally social justice issues. To facilitate early participation in the scientific process on the part of people holding underrepresented identities in science, we develop a Citizen Science initiative based on a low-cost open-source platform (ERGo!) to perform a technique for electrical recordings from insect eyes known as electroretinograms (ERGs) while presenting visual stimuli. Pasadena Unified School District High School students pilot ERG experiments to test the feasibility of this technique as a large-scale Citizen Science initiative. With ERGo!, future Citizen Scientists contribute data to cutting-edge research that monitors insect biodiversity, adaptation, and health in rapidly changing environments caused by monocultures, pesticides, and climate change.

The bottom-up approach: Open cultural data collection. A Citizen Science initiative for regional knowledge curation.

We catalogued the 18th century German magazine ‘Die Gartenlaube’ (in Wikisource) with bibliographic metadata in Wikidata in a project called ‘Die Datenlaube’. We develop collaborative approaches for linked open data methods to produce data sets about historical knowledge. The concept of ‘Open Citizen Science’ offers a methodological baseline for Open Science practises in fields of digital humanities. Scanned documents and structured open metadata revealed open access to historic collections. Through the Wikimedia platforms 'Die Datenlaube' creates possibilities to edit entries, to design own investigations, and to contribute to OER.

Based on the elaboration of the two rather different projects (natural and social sciences, involvement of pupils vs citizens, top-down vs bottom-up), we will discuss similarities and hence the challenges and lessons learned for using and developing Open Science elements in Citizen Science and mutual learning. Furthermore, we will conclude by focusing on the opportunities resulting from the integration of societal expectations in science and vice versa.

Nurturing Diverse Generations of the Medical Workforce for Success With Authenticity: An Association of Black Cardiologists' Roundtable

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the consequences of systemic racism in the United States with Black, Hispanic, and other racial and ethnic diverse populations dying at disproportionately higher rates than White Americans. Addressing the social and health disparities amplified by COVID-19 requires in part restructuring of the healthcare system, particularly the diversity of the healthcare workforce to better reflect that of the US population. In January 2021, the Association of Black Cardiologists hosted a virtual roundtable designed to discuss key issues pertaining to medical workforce diversity and to identify strategies aimed at improving racial and ethnic diversity in medical school, graduate medical education, faculty, and leadership positions. The Nurturing Diverse Generations of the Medical Workforce for Success with Authenticity roundtable brought together diverse stakeholders and champions of diversity and inclusion to discuss innovative ideas, solutions, and opportunities to address workforce diversification.

Cultivating Anti-Racism Allies in Academic Medicine

Racial microaggressions, racially based remarks, or actions that negatively impact marginalized physicians of color (Black, Latino/a/x, and American Indian/Alaskan Natives) often go unaddressed. This article provides four strategies for how individuals and institutions can engage in anti-racism allyship: (1) be an upstander during microaggressions, (2) be a sponsor and advocate for physicians of color, (3) acknowledge academic titles and accomplishments, and (4) challenge the idea of a "standard fit" for academic faculty and research. Skills in academic allyship should be taught to all physicians throughout the educational continuum to mitigate feelings of isolation that racialized minority physicians frequently experience.

"If you got a problem, I got a problem too": working toward making academic science more equitable

I am extraordinarily grateful and humbled to win the ASCB Prize for Excellence in Inclusivity. However, even as I continue to center equity in all aspects of my work as a scientist, educator, and professor, I hope that we can make this award, and awards like it, obsolete. To do that, we need to recognize all the ways that academic science, and our society in general, is structured to limit who gets to fully participate as scientists and scientific leaders, limiting true innovation and advancement of science and technology. This essay is an attempt to illuminate those connections.

Neural Impacts of Stigma, Racism, and Discrimination

Racism is a chronic stressor fueled by stigma that can result in significant distress and dysfunction as well as negatively affect emotions, behavior, quality of life, and brain health. The effects of stigma and discrimination emerge early in life and have long-term consequences. In this review, we sought to use neuroscience research to describe how stigma, racism, and discrimination can impact brain and mental health. Societal stigmas may be encoded by associative fear learning and pattern completion networks, and experiences of racial discrimination may similarly affect threat-responsive regions and circuits. Race-related differences in brain function and structure supporting threat circuitry are largely attenuated when negative life experiences and discrimination are taken into account. Downstream, chronic activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary axis in the context of discrimination and stigma can contribute to physical health disparities in minoritized and marginalized groups. Finally, we discuss models that provide a framework for interventions and societal-level strategies across ecologic systems to build resilience and foster posttraumatic growth.

Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation

Concerns about systemic racism at academic and research institutions have increased over the past decade. Here, we investigate data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major funder of research in the United States, and find evidence for pervasive racial disparities. In particular, white principal investigators (PIs) are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs. Funding rates for white PIs have also been increasing relative to annual overall rates with time. Moreover, disparities occur across all disciplinary directorates within the NSF and are greater for research proposals. The distributions of average external review scores also exhibit systematic offsets based on PI race. Similar patterns have been described in other research funding bodies, suggesting that racial disparities are widespread. The prevalence and persistence of these racial disparities in funding have cascading impacts that perpetuate a cumulative advantage to white PIs across all of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Fund behavioral science like the frameworks we endorse: the case for increased funding of preliminary studies by the National Institutes of Health

Innovative, groundbreaking science relies upon preliminary studies (aka pilot, feasibility, proof-of-concept). In the behavioral sciences, almost every large-scale intervention is supported by a series of one or more rigorously conducted preliminary studies. The importance of preliminary studies was established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2014/2015 in two translational science frameworks (NIH Stage and ORBIT models). These frameworks outline the essential role preliminary studies play in developing the next generation of evidence-based behavioral prevention and treatment interventions. Data produced from preliminary studies are essential to secure funding from the NIH’s most widely used grant mechanism for large-scale clinical trials, namely the R01. Yet, despite their unquestionable importance, the resources available for behavioral scientists to conduct rigorous preliminary studies are limited. In this commentary, we discuss ways the existing funding structure at the NIH, despite its clear reliance upon high-quality preliminary studies, inadvertently discourages and disincentivizes their pursuit by systematically underfunding them. We outline how multiple complementary and pragmatic steps via a small reinvestment of funds from larger trials could result in a large increase in funding for smaller preliminary studies. We make the case such a reinvestment has the potential to increase innovative science, increase the number of investigators currently funded, and would yield lasting benefits for behavioral science and scientists alike.

A Path Toward Systemic Equity in Life Cycle Assessment and Decision-Making: Standardizing Sociodemographic Data Practices

Social equity has been a concept of interest for many years, gaining increased focus from energy and environmental communities. The equitable development, collection, and reporting of sociodemographic data (e.g., data related to socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity) are needed to help meet several of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (i.e., Affordable and Clean Energy; Reduce Inequalities; Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions; and Partnerships for the Goals). Yet, there has not been a consolidation of relevant concepts and application framing in energy and environmental life cycle assessment and decision-making practices. Our study aims to help fill this gap by consolidating existing knowledge on relevant equity applications, providing examples of sociodemographic data needs, and presenting a path toward a more holistic equity administration. In this critique, we present a framework for integrating equity in energy and environmental research and practitioner settings, which we call systemic equity. Systemic equity requires the simultaneous and effective administration of resources (i.e., distributive equity), policies (i.e., procedural equity), and addressing the cultural needs of the systematically marginalized (i.e., recognitional equity). To help provide common language and shared understanding for when equity is ineffectively administered, we present ostensible equity (i.e., when resource and policy needs are met, but cultural needs are inadequately met), aspirational equity (i.e., when policy and cultural needs are met, but resources are inadequate), and exploitational equity (i.e., when resource and cultural needs are met, but policies are inadequate). We close by establishing an adaptive 10-step process for developing standard sociodemographic data practices. The systemic equity framework and 10-step process are translatable to other practitioner and research communities. Nonetheless, energy and environmental scientists, in collaboration with transdisciplinary stakeholders, should administer this framework and process urgently.

The role of mentoring in promoting diversity equity and inclusion in STEM Education and Research

The success of mentoring derives from active and respectful listening and the willingness to learn and accept opportunities for personal growth. This shapes every trainee and their destined path in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The act of cultivating rapport, asking, and pondering meaningful questions, and receiving constructive feedback are critical to support a productive mentoring relationship. Successful mentoring in STEM can be established and allow mentees, especially underrepresented minorities (URMs), to flourish in an environment where they feel welcomed and supported. However, mentees from underrepresented groups often experience inadequate mentoring due to a mentor's lack of awareness, poor trainings themselves, or lack of understanding of the mentee's hardships. It is important for mentors and mentees to work together to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in STEM education through creativity, authenticity, and networking. We analyzed data obtained from students who attended a recent workshop that are interested in going to graduate school. Our results show that despite low initial expectations for the workshop, many students were satisfied in the knowledge they gleaned. The future and role of diversity in STEM within these underrepresented groups lies in community support and an important role that they can play in the lives of others through DEI initiatives and throughout their careers all of which involves positive mentoring.

Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia

There are growing bodies of evidence demonstrating the benefits of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) on academic and organizational excellence. In turn, some editors have stated their desire to improve the EDI of their journals and of the wider scientific community. The Royal Society of Chemistry established a minimum set of requirements aimed at improving EDI in scholarly publishing. Additionally, several resources were reported to have the potential to improve EDI, but their effectiveness and feasibility are yet to be determined. In this commentary we suggest six approaches, based on the Royal Society of Chemistry set of requirements, that journals could implement to improve EDI. They are: (1) adopt a journal EDI statement with clear, actionable steps to achieve it; (2) promote the use of inclusive and bias-free language; (3) appoint a journal’s EDI director or lead; (4) establish a EDI mentoring approach; (5) monitor adherence to EDI principles; and (6) publish reports on EDI actions and achievements. We also provide examples of journals that have implemented some of these strategies, and discuss the roles of peer reviewers, authors, researchers, academic institutes, and funders in improving EDI.

Perceived Barriers to Serving on National Institutes of Health Scientific Review Groups Experienced by Black and African American Scientists

IMPORTANCE

African American and Black scientists are awarded disproportionately fewer National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants than White scientists. Increasing Black representation on NIH scientific review groups (SRGs) likely will contribute to increased equity in funding rates because research topics of Black and African American scientists' submitted applications will be more highly valued; however, Black and African American scientists often perceive barriers that prevent them from serving on NIH SRGs.

OBJECTIVE

To examine perceived barriers that prevent Black and African American scientists from serving on NIH SRGs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study used a mixed methods online approach with a convenience sample of Black and African American scientists to identify barriers to NIH grant review participation. Eligible participants were recruited online from professional organizations with primarily Black and African American membership. From February through April 2021, participants were asked to identify barriers to serving on NIH SRGs using concept mapping. Participants brainstormed statements describing barriers to serving on NIH SRGs, sorted statements into content themes, and rated statements on how true they were. Multidimensional scaling and a hierarchical cluster analysis identified content themes. Data analysis was conducted in May and June of 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Self-reported barriers to serving on an NIH SRG among Black and African American scientists.

RESULTS

A total of 52 scientists participated in both phases of the study (mean [SD] age, 42.3 [8.2] years; 46 women [88.5%]). Participants provided 68 unique statements that were organized into 9 thematic clusters describing barriers to serving on NIH SRGs. Themes included structural racism, diversity not valued, toxic environment, review workload demand, lack of reward, negative affect about the review process, competing demands at home institution, lack of opportunity, and perceptions of being unqualified.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Black and African American scientists reported many barriers to serving on NIH SRGs that are unique to Black and African American scientists, as well as barriers that transcend race but are exacerbated by structural racism. This study provides NIH with concrete opportunities to address realized barriers to increase inclusion of Black and African American scientists on NIH SRGs, fund more Black and African American scientists, and ultimately reduce health inequities in the US.

Award rate inequities in biomedical research

Purpose

The analysis of existing institutional research proposal databases can provide novel insights into science funding parity. The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between race/ethnicity and extramural research proposal and award rates across a medical school faculty and to determine whether there was evidence that researchers changed their submission strategies because of differential inequities across submission categories.

Method

The authors performed an analysis of 14,263 biomedical research proposals with proposed start dates between 2010–2022 from the University of Michigan Medical School, measuring the proposal submission and award rates for each racial/ethnic group across 4 possible submission categories (R01 & Equivalent programs, other federal, industry, and non-profit).

Results

Researchers from each self-identified racial/ethnic group (Asian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino) pursued a different proposal submission strategy than the majority group (White). The authors found that Black/African American researchers experienced negative award rate differentials across all submission categories, which resulted in the lowest R01 & Equivalent and Other Federal submission rates of any racial/ethnic group and the highest submission rate to non-profit sources. The authors did not find support for the hypothesis that researchers changed submission strategies in response to award rate inequalities across submission categories.

Conclusions

Biomedical researchers from different racial/ethnic groups follow markedly different proposal submission strategies within the University of Michigan Medical School. There is also a clear relationship between race/ethnicity and rates of proposal award. Black/African American and Asian researchers appear disadvantaged across all submission categories relative to White researchers. This study can be easily replicated by other academic research institutions, revealing opportunities for positive intervention.

Assessing researchers' capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to conduct equity-oriented dissemination and implementation research, an exploratory cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

A recent paradigm shift has led to an explicit focus on enhancing health equity through equity-oriented dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. However, the integration and bidirectional learning across these two fields is still in its infancy and siloed. This exploratory study aimed to examine participants' perceived capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to conduct equity-oriented D&I research.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional survey distributed online from December 2020 to April 2021. Participants were recruited at either D&I or health disparities-oriented conferences, meetings, through social media, or personal outreach via emails. Informed by the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model (COM-B), the survey queried respondents about different aspects of engaging in and conducting equity-oriented D&I research. All analyses were conducted in SPSS Version 27.0.

RESULTS

A total of 180 participants responded to the survey. Most participants were women (81.7%), white (66.1%), academics (78.9%), and faculty members (53.9%). Many reported they were advanced (36.7%) or advanced beginners (27.8%) in the D&I field, and a substantial proportion (37.8%) reported being novice in D&I research that focused on health equity. Participants reported high motivation (e.g., 62.8% were motivated to apply theories, models, frameworks for promoting health equity in D&I research), but low capability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research (e.g., 5% had the information needed for promoting health equity in D&I research). Most participants (62.2%) reported not having used measures to examine equity in their D&I projects, and for those who did use measures, they mainly used individual-level measures (vs. organizational- or structural-level measures). When asked about factors that could influence their ability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research, 44.4% reported not having the skills necessary, and 32.2% stated difficulties in receiving funding for equity-oriented D&I research.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings provide empirical insight into the perspectives of researchers from different backgrounds on what is needed to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. These data suggest the need for a multi-pronged approach to enhance the capability and opportunities for conducting equity-oriented D&I work, such as: training specifically in equity-oriented D&I, collaboration between D&I researchers with individuals with expertise and lived experience with health equity research, funding for equity-oriented D&I research, and recognition of the value of community engaged research in promotion packages.

The Role of the National Institute of Mental Health in Promoting Diversity in the Psychiatric Research Workforce

The mission of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is to transform the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses through basic and clinical research, paving the way for prevention, recovery, and cure. This mission can only be realized if full participation in the research enterprise is open to all. Nevertheless, systemic racism and other barriers remain significant obstacles to achieving a diverse workforce. To address these barriers, NIMH must ensure a just and equitable funding process, support diversity-focused training opportunities, and encourage research into mental health disparities and other areas of interest to a diverse array of scientists.

Lack of Representation in Psychiatric Research: A Data-Driven Example From Scientific Articles Published in 2019 and 2020 in the American Journal of Psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

The authors examined representation and accuracy of descriptions of sociodemographic identities in psychiatric research through quantifying data contained in recently published articles from a high-impact psychiatry journal.

METHODS

Sociodemographic data were aggregated from articles (i.e., studies that provide information on individual samples) published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2019 and 2020 (N=125). Articles were coded by two raters for sociodemographic data, acknowledgment of lack of representation as a limitation, and focus on health disparities or inequities.

RESULTS

While 90% of studies provided the age of participants and 84% provided information about the sex/gender of participants, only 43% presented information about the racial or ethnicity identities of participants. One study reported the sexual identity of participants. Lack of representation relative to 2019 U.S. Census data was found for multiple racial groups, Latino/Hispanic individuals, and women (genetic studies only). Only 25% of studies acknowledged lack of representation as a limitation, and two studies focused on health disparities or inequities.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight a need to increase representation in psychiatric research and improve accuracy of language when describing the sociodemographic characteristics of participants.

Anti-Black Racism and Power: Centering Black Scholars to Achieve Health Equity

In health equity research, anti-Black racism and power imbalances manifest at every phase of the research process and contribute to the marginalization and exclusion of Black scholars. This essay highlights how power operates as a central component of anti-Black racism, and I describe the importance of centering Black scholars in funding, conducting, and implementing health equity research. Interdisciplinary collaboration between the fields of bioethics, public health ethics, and health equity could generate dialogue and develop recommendations to help balance power dynamics, address anti-Black racism, and, ultimately, make meaningful progress toward health equity.

Embracing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Scientific Community—Viewpoints of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee of the North American Vascular Biology Organization

Recent increased visibility on racial issues in the United States elicited public outcry and a collective call for action. The social justice movement has facilitated energetic discussions about race, sexual orientation, and various issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. This article discusses issues faced by people of color that we as scientists can address, as well as challenges faced by women and internationally trained scientists in the scientific community that need immediate attention. Moreover, we highlight various ways to resolve such issues at both institutional and individual levels. Silence and incremental solutions are no longer acceptable to achieving lasting social justice and ensure prosperous societies that work for all.

Addressing racial and phenotypic bias in human neuroscience methods

Despite their premise of objectivity, neuroscience tools for physiological data collection, such as electroencephalography and functional near-infrared spectroscopy, introduce racial bias into studies by excluding individuals on the basis of phenotypic differences in hair type and skin pigmentation. Furthermore, at least one methodology-electrodermal activity recording (skin conductance responses)-may be influenced not only by potential phenotypic differences but also by negative psychological effects stemming from the lived experience of racism. Here we situate these issues within structural injustice, urge researchers to challenge racism in their scientific work and propose procedures and changes that may lead to more equitable science.

Beyond inclusion: Enacting team equity in precision medicine research

PURPOSE

To identify meanings of and challenges to enacting equitable diversification of genomics research, and specifically precision medicine research (PMR), teams.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with 102 individuals involved in three U.S.-based precision medicine research consortia and conducted over 400 observation hours of their working group meetings, consortium-wide meetings, and conference presentations. We also reviewed published reports on genomic workforce diversity (WFD), particularly those relevant to the PMR community.

RESULTS

Our study finds that many PMR teams encounter challenges as they strive to achieve equitable diversification on scientific teams. Interviewees articulated that underrepresented team members were often hired to increase the study's capacity to recruit diverse research participants, but are limited to on-the-ground staff positions with little influence over study design. We find existing hierarchies and power structures in the academic research ecosystem compound challenges for equitable diversification.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that meaningful diversification of PMR teams will only be possible when team equity is prioritized as a core value in academic research communities.

The Minority Scientists' Experience: Challenging and Overcoming Barriers to Enhancing Diversity and Career Advancement

Minority groups face barriers in accessing quality health care, professional advancement, and representation in immunology research efforts as a result of institutional racism that if unaddressed can perpetuate a lack of diversity. In 2021, the AAI Minority Affairs Committee convened a cross section of academic and industry scientists from underrepresented groups at various stages of their professions to discuss how best to address the toll racism takes on study design and scientific careers. Panelists drew directly from their own experiences as scientists to share perspectives and strategies for countering a lack of representation in clinical research, responding to microaggressions, navigating academic advancement, and providing effective mentorship. The session reinforced the need for minority scientists to take an active role in advocating for diversity, engaging mentors, and taking responsibility to face rather than avoid institutional obstacles. Overall, increased dialogue and institutional awareness of the experience of scientists from underrepresented groups in research remain the best tools to ensure a health equity mindset and advancement of their careers.