Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Commentary

Reporting Grantee Demographics for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Neuroscience

Suparna Choudhury and Neil K. Aggarwal
Journal of Neuroscience 7 October 2020, 40 (41) 7780-7781; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2285-20.2020
Suparna Choudhury
1Division of Social and Transcultural Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0G4, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neil K. Aggarwal
2New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Centre, New York, New York 10032
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Professional neuroscience organizations have recently pledged their commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion in examining institutional discrimination; to raise questions about how to train underrepresented scientists; and to recruit underrepresented subjects for a more equitable scientific enterprise in the 21st century. Studies have illuminated racial disparities in funding, likely because of implicit bias in the review process and differential access to resources. We propose that one concrete way to monitor and redress these disparities is to collect and publicize data on grantees by gender, race, ethnicity, and location from neuroscience funding agencies. Beyond remedying historical disadvantages, disseminating funding more equitably across recipients would be an empirical solution that can improve the very quality of neuroscience.

  • diversity
  • equity
  • funding
  • inclusion
  • racism research community

Professional neuroscience organizations have recently pledged their commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion in examining institutional discrimination. The British Neuroscience Association has promoted the #BlackInNeuroWeek initiative (July 27 to August 2, 2020) to celebrate Black voices in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) (https://www.bna.org.uk/mediacentre/news/blackinneuroweek/). The Federation of European Neuroscience Societies (FENS) has waived fees for scientists from low- and middle-income countries to attend its 2020 Virtual Forum (https://www.fens.org/News-Activities/News/2020/07/FENS-2020-Diversity-grant-awardees/). The Society for Neuroscience has restated its plan to ensure diversity in its committees and membership (https://www.sfn.org/about/mission-and-strategic-plan#diversity). And Nature Neuroscience is determined to make manuscript review and citation more inclusive of gender (Nature Neuroscience, 2020) after investigators found that reference lists from five influential neuroscience journals included more articles with men as first and last authors (Dworkin et al., 2020).

These developments may prompt questions into why diversity, equity, and inclusion are necessary. To start, policymakers have found that education and employment rates for women and minorities lag behind their representation in the general population (Nature Neuroscience, 2018; National Science Foundation, 2019). At the same time, they constitute a growing part of the STEM workforce—minorities alone will constitute 45% of the American population by 2050—and propel innovation by pursuing research agendas that have been historically overlooked (National Academy of Sciences et al., 2011). Moreover, most basic science and clinical research studies enroll samples of convenience drawn from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (“WEIRD”) societies, and findings from American and European subjects may not be generalizable to populations elsewhere (Henrich et al., 2010). This raises a critical question: how do we train underrepresented scientists and recruit underrepresented subjects for a more equitable scientific enterprise in the 21st century?

One way could be to collect and publicize data on grantees by gender, race, ethnicity, and location from organizations that allocate grants for neuroscience research. The ability to win large awards such as R01-level grants from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) marks a milestone in career independence for neuroscientists (United States Government Accountability Office, 2018). But studies have illuminated disparities in funding. A 2011 study revealed that Black applicants were 10% less likely than Whites to be awarded large NIH research grants from 2000 to 2006 after controlling for educational background, country of origin, training, previous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics (Ginther et al., 2011). These differences were attributed to implicit biases in grant review and differential access to resources, mentorship, and training programs for minority neuroscientists.

A decade later, disparities in grant funding have persisted. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that a combined 17% of Black, Native American, and native Hawaiian applicants received large NIH grants from 2013 to 2017, compared with 24% for Hispanic/Latinos, 24% for Asians, and 27% for Whites; women comprised one-fourth of NIH tenured investigators despite completing half of all doctorates in the biological sciences (United States Government Accountability Office, 2018). In 2016, the NIH Office of Scientific Workforce Diversity outlined a 5 year plan to expand, sustain, and promote workforce diversity and build evidence on outcomes, but the GAO warned that the NIH would not hold itself accountable without quantitative metrics or time frames to assess its performance (United States Government Accountability Office, 2018).

As societies around the world seek to redress various forms of implicit bias and explicit discrimination against women and underrepresented minorities, now is the time to publicize information on grantee recipients by gender, race, ethnicity, and location. Reporting demographic data of applicants and grantees for major award schemes in neuroscience would be an empirical solution to monitoring disparities in funding. The NIH already does this for subjects of funded studies (https://report.nih.gov/RISR/#/), suggesting that a similar model for grantees could be possible.

But beyond remedying historical disadvantages, this solution can improve the very quality of neuroscience. Disseminating funding across recipients who vary widely by gender, race, ethnicity, and geographic location could allow us to study the brain in the context of its social milieu, and to experimentally investigate mental processes as inherently social (Rose, 2016). Sharing data and paradigms across a wider international research community would help to generate and test hypotheses on the role of environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic factors in mechanisms of brain development across the lifespan and in the trajectory of mental disorders. Funding agencies could collect relevant demographic information and harness infrastructures from open neuroscience platforms to collect international data from ongoing projects and track the flow of resources. As a community committed to bringing transparency to the scientific process for “tangible activism” (Bumpus, 2020), neuroscientists have much to gain from reporting and monitoring grantee demographics.

Footnotes

  • S.C. was supported by the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (FRQS).

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Suparna Choudhury at suparna.choudhury{at}mcgill.ca

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bumpus N
    (2020) Too many senior white academics still resist recognizing racism. Nature 583:661. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02203-w pmid:32724148
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Dworkin JD,
    2. Linn KA,
    3. Teich EG,
    4. Zurn P,
    5. Shinohara RT,
    6. Bassett DS
    (2020) The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists. Nat Neurosci 23:918–926. doi:10.1038/s41593-020-0658-y pmid:32561883
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Ginther DK,
    2. Schaffer WT,
    3. Schnell J,
    4. Masimore B,
    5. Liu F,
    6. Haak LL,
    7. Kington R
    (2011) Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science 333:1015–1019. doi:10.1126/science.1196783 pmid:21852498
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Henrich J,
    2. Heine SJ,
    3. Norenzayan A
    (2010) Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466:29. doi:10.1038/466029a pmid:20595995
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (2011) Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America's science and technology talent at the crossroads. Washington, DC: National Academies.
  6. ↵
    National Science Foundation (2019) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation.
  7. ↵
    Nature Neuroscience (2018) Promoting diversity in neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 21:1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Nature Neuroscience (2020) Widening the scope of diversity. Nat Neurosci 23:903.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Rose N
    (2016) Neuroscience and the future for mental health. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 25:95–100. doi:10.1017/S2045796015000621 pmid:26234570
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    United States Government Accountability Office (2018) NIH research: action needed to ensure workforce diversity strategic goals are achieved. Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office.
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 40 (41)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 40, Issue 41
7 Oct 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reporting Grantee Demographics for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Neuroscience
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Reporting Grantee Demographics for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Neuroscience
Suparna Choudhury, Neil K. Aggarwal
Journal of Neuroscience 7 October 2020, 40 (41) 7780-7781; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2285-20.2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Reporting Grantee Demographics for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Neuroscience
Suparna Choudhury, Neil K. Aggarwal
Journal of Neuroscience 7 October 2020, 40 (41) 7780-7781; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2285-20.2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • diversity
  • equity
  • funding
  • inclusion
  • racism research community

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Lessons from the Stories of Women in Neuroscience
  • Toward an Anti-Racist Approach to Biomedical and Neuroscience Research
  • Black In Neuro, Beyond One Week
Show more Commentary
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.