Reflections on race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards

It has been a decade since “Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards” was published. Receiving the American Society for Cell Biology Public Service Award allows me to reflect on this research and its impact. In this essay, I share the story of how my research interests and professional networks provided the opportunity to do this important work. I also make the case for improved data and mentoring to address race and ethnic disparities in NIH funding.

NIH Funding of COVID-19 Research in 2020: a Cross Sectional Study

ObjectiveThis study aims to characterize and evaluate the NIH’s grant allocation pattern of COVID-19 research.DesignCross sectional studySettingCOVID-19 NIH RePORTER Dataset was used to identify COVID-19 relevant grants.Participants1,108 grants allocated to COVID-19 research.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was to determine the number of grants and funding amount the NIH allocated for COVID-19 by research type and clinical/scientific area. The secondary outcome was to calculate the time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date.ResultsThe NIH awarded a total of 56,169 grants in 2020, of which 2.0% (n=1,108) were allocated for COVID-19 research. The NIH had a $42 billion budget that year, of which 5.3% ($2.2 billion) was allocated to COVID-19 research. The most common clinical/scientific areas were social determinants of health (n=278, 8.5% of COVID-19 funding), immunology (n=211, 25.8%), and pharmaceutical interventions research (n=208, 47.6%). There were 104 grants studying COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions, of which 2 grants studied the efficacy of face masks and 6 studied the efficacy of social distancing. Of the 83 COVID-19 funded grants on transmission, 5 were awarded to study airborne transmission of COVID-19, and 2 grants on transmission of COVID-19 in schools. The average time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date was 151 days (SD: ±57.9).ConclusionIn the first year of the pandemic, the NIH diverted a small fraction of its budget to COVID-19 research. Future health emergencies will require research funding to pivot in a timely fashion and funding levels to be proportional to the anticipated burden of disease in the population.

Which medical schools produce the most neurosurgery residents? An analysis of the 2014–2020 cohort

OBJECTIVE In this study, the authors sought to determine which US medical schools have produced the most neurosurgery residents and to evaluate potential associations between recruitment and medical school characteristics. METHODS Demographic and bibliometric characteristics were collected for 1572 residents in US-based and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited neurosurgery programs over the 2014 to 2020 match period using publicly available websites. US medical school characteristics were collected, including class size, presence of a home neurosurgery program, number of clinical neurosurgery faculty, research funding, presence of a neurosurgery interest group, and a top 10 ranking via U.S. News & World Report or Doximity. Correlations and associations were then evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PCC), independent-samples t-test, and univariable or stepwise multivariable linear regression, as appropriate. RESULTS Vanderbilt University produced the most neurosurgery residents as a percentage of medical graduates at 3.799%. Case Western Reserve University produced the greatest absolute number of neurosurgery residents (n = 40). The following factors were shown to be associated with a higher mean percentage of graduates entering neurosurgery: number of clinical neurosurgery faculty (PCC 0.509, p < 0.001), presence of a neurosurgery interest group (1.022% ± 0.737% vs 0.351% ± 0.327%, p < 0.001) or home neurosurgery program (1.169% ± 0.766% vs 0.428% ± 0.327%, p < 0.001), allopathic compared with osteopathic school (0.976% ± 0.719% vs 0.232% ± 0.272%, p < 0.001), U.S. News top 10 ranking for neurology and neurosurgery (1.923% ± 0.924% vs 0.757% ± 0.607%, p < 0.001), Doximity top 10 residency program ranking (1.715% ± 0.803% vs 0.814% ± 0.688%, p < 0.001), and amount of NIH funding (PCC 0.528, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study have delineated which medical schools produced the most neurosurgery residents currently in training, and the most important independent factors predicting the percentage of graduates entering neurosurgery and the preresidency h-index.

Inequalities in the distribution of National Institutes of Health research project grant funding

Previous reports have described worsening inequalities of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. We analyzed Research Project Grant data through the end of Fiscal Year 2020, confirming worsening inequalities beginning at the time of the NIH budget doubling (1998-2003), while finding that trends in recent years have reversed for both investigators and institutions, but only to a modest degree. We also find that career-stage trends have stabilized, with equivalent proportions of early-, mid-, and late-career investigators funded from 2017 to 2020. The fraction of women among funded PIs continues to increase, but they are still not at parity. Analyses of funding inequalities show that inequalities for investigators, and to a lesser degree for institutions, have consistently been greater within groups (i.e., within groups by career stage, gender, race, and degree) than between groups.