Systemic racial disparities in funding rates at the National Science Foundation

Fostering diversity in mathematics cognition

Integrating diverse perspectives in psychological science can enhance innovation in research and allow research teams to better study diverse populations of individuals through an authentic lens. Despite recent efforts to better address issues of race and ethnicity in research samples, the field of psychology broadly-and the area of mathematics cognition specifically-has largely failed to support scientists from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. In this essay, we consider the unique contributions that scholars of color can make to psychological research in mathematics cognition. Next, we reveal common challenges faced by scholars of color and challenges to recruiting and maintaining scholars of color in our community with a focus on Black scholars. Finally, we propose actions for diversifying the "pipeline" of promising scholars.

Social Justice, Community Engagement, and Undergraduate STEM Education: Participatory Science as a Teaching Tool

Social justice is increasingly being seen as relevant to the science curriculum. We examine the intersection of participatory science, social justice, and higher education in the United States to investigate how instructors can teach about social justice and enhance collaborations to work toward enacting social justice. Participatory science approaches, like those that collect data over large geographic areas, can be particularly useful for teaching students about social justice. Conversely, local-scale approaches that integrate students into community efforts can create powerful collaborations to help facilitate social justice. We suggest a variety of large-scale databases, platforms, and portals that could be used as starting points to address a set of learning objectives about social justice. We also describe local-scale participatory science approaches with a social justice focus, developed through academic and community partnerships. Considerations for implementing participatory science with undergraduates are discussed, including cautions about the necessary time investment, cultural competence, and institutional support. These approaches are not always appropriate but can provide compelling learning experiences in the correct circumstances.

Research and mentorship in behavior analysis from a lens of cultural responsiveness and antiracism

Although scientific endeavors strive to be objective, they are the work of individuals whose unique perspectives and experiences influence their research and interpretations of the world and data. Much has been said and written lately about the need to embed cultural responsiveness in behavior analysis and the need to enhance diversity in the field. In fact, similar conversations are taking place in many areas of science. Despite the current buzz, many behavioral researchers may be left wondering what they can do or whether it is incumbent on them to act. For the field of behavior analysis to move toward adopting the values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and access, members of the scientific community must actively engage in behaviors that foster inclusive and safe learning environments for students, engage in collaborative work, and incorporate culturally responsive research and mentorship practices. This article will describe some current practices, showcase exemplars of culturally responsive research and mentorship, and provide resources for researchers and mentors.

Diversity in research on aging: A new series

This editorial comments on the article by Gilmore et al.

Elements of successful NIH grant applications

Is there a formula for a competitive NIH grant application? The Serenity Prayer may provide one: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the ability to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." But how to tell the difference? In this Perspective, we provide an inclusive roadmap-elements of NIH funding. Collectively, we have over 30 y of peer review experience as NIH Scientific Review Officers in addition to over 30 y of program experience as NIH Program Officers. This article distills our NIH experience. We use Euclid's 13-book landmark, The Elements, as our template to humbly share what we learned. We have three specific aims: inform, guide, and motivate prospective applicants. We also address ways that support diversity and inclusion among applicants and young investigators in biomedical research. The elements we describe come from a wide range of sources. Some themes will be general. Some will be specific. All will be candid. The ultimate goal is a competitive application, serenity, and hopefully both.

The urgency of restructuring the landscape of behavioral medicine: Commentary from early-career diversity institute scholars

Structural and systemic barriers entrenched in academia have sustained for decades, and resulted in a lack of diversity in leadership positions, inequitable workloads for women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, and increasing issues with retention of faculty, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic. Increasing opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in higher education via legislation, policies, and general anti-DEI sentiment contextualizes the importance of prioritizing DEI. The goal of this commentary is to open discussion among academic institutions regarding changes in DEI culture that will facilitate the growth of diverse early-career faculty (ECF). We use an adapted framework which incorporates DEI into a faculty competency model to (i) guide our discussion of the rationale for restructuring academic systems to promote DEI and (ii) recommend strategies for institutional progress for ECF that can translate across academic institutions. Implementing policies and practices that seek to recruit, retain, and support historically underrepresented ECF are needed, and may involve faculty mentorship programs, establishing equitable funding mechanisms, reforming faculty evaluation practices, and examining and correcting inequities in faculty workloads. The onus is on institutions to recognize and replace the exclusionary practices and biases that have existed within their walls, and continuously promote and monitor their DEI efforts and initiatives to ensure their efficacy. Inclusive academic cultures that demonstrate their value of diversity and commitment to equity promotion at all levels of the organization, including among ECF, are necessary for ensuring excellence in scholarship in academia.

Pluripotency of a founding field: rebranding developmental biology

The field of developmental biology has declined in prominence in recent decades, with off-shoots from the field becoming more fashionable and highly funded. This has created inequity in discovery and opportunity, partly due to the perception that the field is antiquated or not cutting edge. A 'think tank' of scientists from multiple developmental biology-related disciplines came together to define specific challenges in the field that may have inhibited innovation, and to provide tangible solutions to some of the issues facing developmental biology. The community suggestions include a call to the community to help 'rebrand' the field, alongside proposals for additional funding apparatuses, frameworks for interdisciplinary innovative collaborations, pedagogical access, improved science communication, increased diversity and inclusion, and equity of resources to provide maximal impact to the community.

Following the Principles of the Universe: Lessons from Plants on Individual and Communal Thriving

The means by which plants and other organisms exist in and respond to dynamic environments to support their thriving as individuals and in communities provide lessons for humans on sustainable and resilient thriving. First examined in my book, Lessons from Plants (Harvard University Press, 2021), I explore herein the following question: "How can plants teach us to be better humans?" I consider how insights gathered from plant physiology, phenotypic plasticity, and other plant growth phenomena can help us improve our lives and our society, with a focus on highlighting academic and scientific environments. Genetically identical plants can have very different appearances, metabolisms, and behaviors if the external environments in which they are growing differ in light or nutrient availability, among other environmental differences. Plants are even capable of transformative behaviors that enable them to maximize their chances of survival in dynamic and sometimes unfriendly environments, while also transforming the environment in which they exist in the process. Highlighting examples from research on, for instance, plants' responses to light and nutrient cues, I focus on insights for humans derived from lessons from plants. These lessons focus on how plants achieve their own purposes by following common principles of the universe on thriving and resilience as individuals and in communities.

The Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex

Research focused on health disparities-whether relating to one's race/ethnicity, gender expression, sexual orientation, citizenship status, income level, etc.-constitutes a large, generative, and highly profitable portion of scholarship in academic, clinical, and government settings. Health disparities research is expressed as a means of bringing greater attention to, and ultimately addressing via evidence-based implementation science, acts of devaluation and oppression that have continually contributed to these inequities. Philosophies underlying health disparities research's expansive and growing presence mirror the formal logic and ethos of the Military Industrial Complex and the Prison Industrial Complex. The "Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex," operationalized in this article, represents a novel mutation and extension of these complexes, primarily being enacted through these three mechanisms: 1) The construction and maintenance of beliefs, behaviors, and policies in healthcare, and society more broadly, that create and sustain disadvantages in minority health; 2) the creation and funding of research positions that inordinately provide non-minoritized people and those without relevant lived experiences the ability to study health disparities as "health equity tourists"; and 3) the production of health disparities research that, due to factors one and two, is incapable of fully addressing the disparities. In this piece, these and other core elements of the Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex, and the research bubble that it has produced, are discussed. Additionally, strategies for reducing the footprint and impact of the Health Disparities Research Industrial Complex and better facilitating opportunities for meaningful implementation in the field are presented.

Early Engagement in HIV Research: Evaluation of the Penn CFAR Scholars Program Aimed at Increasing Diversity of the HIV/AIDS Workforce

BACKGROUND

Demographic diversity is not represented in the HIV/AIDS workforce. Engagement of underrepresented trainees as early as high school may address this disparity.

METHODS

We established the Penn Center for AIDS Research (CFAR) Scholars Program, a mentored research experience for underrepresented minority (URM) trainees spanning educational stages from high school to medical school. The program provides participants with tailored educational programming, professional skill building, and mentored research experiences. We conducted qualitative interviews with scholar, mentor, and leadership groups to evaluate the program's impact.

RESULTS

Eleven participants were selected to partake in 1 of 5 existing mentored research programs as CFAR scholars. Scholars attended an 8-week HIV Seminar Series that covered concepts in the basic, clinical, behavioral, and community-based HIV/AIDS research. Program evaluation revealed that scholars' knowledge of HIV pathophysiology and community impact increased because of these seminars. In addition, they developed tangible skills in literature review, bench techniques, qualitative assessment, data analysis, and professional network building. Scholars reported improved academic self-efficacy and achieved greater career goal clarity. Areas for improvement included clarification of mentor-mentee roles, expectations for longitudinal mentorship, and long-term engagement between scholars. Financial stressors, lack of social capital, and structural racism were identified as barriers to success for URM trainees.

CONCLUSION

The Penn CFAR Scholars Program is a novel mentored research program that successfully engaged URM trainees from early educational stages. Barriers and facilitators to sustained efforts of diversifying the HIV/AIDS workforce were identified and will inform future program planning.

Applying anti-racist approaches to informatics: a new lens on traditional frames

Health organizations and systems rely on increasingly sophisticated informatics infrastructure. Without anti-racist expertise, the field risks reifying and entrenching racism in information systems. We consider ways the informatics field can recognize institutional, systemic, and structural racism and propose the use of the Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) to mitigate and dismantle racism in digital forms. We enumerate guiding questions for stakeholders along with a PHCRP-Informatics framework. By focusing on (1) critical self-reflection, (2) following the expertise of well-established scholars of racism, (3) centering the voices of affected individuals and communities, and (4) critically evaluating practice resulting from informatics systems, stakeholders can work to minimize the impacts of racism. Informatics, informed and guided by this proposed framework, will help realize the vision of health systems that are more fair, just, and equitable.

Counterpoint: Preprints and the Future of Scientific Publishing-In Favor of Relevance

Peer-reviewed journals provide an invaluable but inadequate vehicle for scientific communication. Preprints are now an essential complement to peer-reviewed publications. Eschewing preprints will slow scientific progress and reduce the public health impact of epidemiologic research. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted long-standing limitations of the peer-review process. Preprint servers, such as bioRxiv and medRxiv, served as crucial venues to rapidly disseminate research and provide detailed backup to sound-bite science that is often communicated through the popular press or social media. The major criticisms of preprints arise from an unjustified optimism about peer review. Peer review provides highly imperfect sorting and curation of research and only modest improvements in research conduct or presentation for most individual papers. The advantages of peer review come at the expense of months to years of delay in sharing research methods or results. For time-sensitive evidence, these delays can lead to important missteps and ill-advised policies. Even with research that is not intrinsically urgent, preprints expedite debate, expand engagement, and accelerate progress. The risk that poor-quality papers will have undue influence because they are posted on a preprint server is low. If epidemiology aims to deliver evidence relevant for public health, we need to embrace strategic uses of preprint servers.

Interdisciplinary approaches to advancing anti-racist pedagogies in ecology, evolution, and conservation biology

Racism permeates ecology, evolution, and conservation biology (EECB). Meaningfully advancing equity, inclusion, and belonging requires an interdisciplinary anti-racist pedagogical approach to educate our community in how racism shaped our field. Here, we apply this framework, highlight disparities and interdisciplinary practices across institutions globally, and emphasize that self-reflection is paramount before implementing anti-racist interventions.

Antiracist Research and Practice for Environmental Health: Implications for Community Engagement

BACKGROUND

Communities who experience disproportionate environmental exposures and associated adverse health outcomes have long been aware of, and worked to draw attention to, the role of racism in shaping those risks. A growing number of researchers are focusing on racism as a fundamental driver of racial inequities in environmental health. Importantly, several research and funding institutions have publicly committed to addressing structural racism within their organizations. These commitments highlight structural racism as a social determinant of health. They also invite reflection on antiracist approaches to community engagement in environmental health research.

OBJECTIVES

We discuss strategies for taking more explicitly antiracist approaches to community engagement in environmental health research.

DISCUSSION

Antiracist (as opposed to nonracist, color-blind, or race-neutral) frameworks entail thinking or acting in ways that explicitly question, analyze, and challenge policies and practices that produce or sustain inequities between racial groups. Community engagement is not inherently antiracist. There are, however, opportunities for extending antiracist approaches when engaging communities who are disproportionately harmed by environmental exposures. Those opportunities include a) promoting leadership and decision-making power by representatives from harmed communities, b) centering community priorities in identifying new research areas, and c) translating research into action by applying knowledge from multiple sources to disrupt policies and practices that create and sustain environmental injustices. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11384.

Assessment of US Federal Funding of Incarceration-Related Research, 1985 to 2022

IMPORTANCE

The US leads the world in the raw number of incarcerated persons as well as the rate of incarceration, with detrimental effects on individual-, family-, community-, and population-level health; as such, federal research has a critical role in documenting and addressing the health-related impacts of the US criminal legal system. How often incarceration-related research is funded at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), and US Department of Justice (DOJ) levels has a direct association with the public attention given to mass incarceration as well as the efficacy of strategies to mitigate negative effects and poor health related to incarceration.

OBJECTIVE

To understand how many incarceration-related projects have been funded at the NIH, NSF, and DOJ.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used public historical project archives to search for relevant incarceration-related keywords (eg, incarceration, prison, parole) since January 1, 1985 (NIH and NSF), and since January 1, 2008 (DOJ). Quotations and Boolean operator logic were used. All searches and counts were conducted and double verified by 2 coauthors between December 12 and 17, 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Number and prevalence of funded projects related to incarceration and prison keywords.

RESULTS

The term incarceration resulted in 3540 of 3 234 159 total project awards (0.11%) and prisoner-related terms resulted in 11 455 total project awards (0.35%) across the 3 federal agencies since 1985. Nearly a tenth of all projects funded at NIH since 1985 related to education (256 584 [9.62%]) compared with only 3373 projects (0.13%) that related to criminal legal or criminal justice or correctional system and 18 projects (0.0007%) that related to incarcerated parents. Only 1857 (0.07%) of all NIH-funded projects have been funded related to racism since 1985.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cross-sectional study found that a very low number of projects about incarceration have historically been funded at the NIH, DOJ, and NSF. These findings reflect a dearth of federally funded studies investigating the effects of mass incarceration or intervention strategies to mitigate adverse effects. Given the consequences of the criminal legal system, it is undoubtedly time for researchers, and our nation, to invest more resources into studying whether this system should be maintained, the intergenerational effects of mass incarceration, and strategies to best mitigate its impact on public health.

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.