New research reveals a troubling trend in biomedical science funding, despite increasing gender diversity in the field. Women now make up about 55 percent of doctoral degree holders in U.S. life sciences, up from 32-38 percent in the mid-1980s. However, this shift hasn’t translated into equal opportunities for research funding or career advancement.
Senior Women Scientists Benefit Most from Funding
A study published in Nature Biotechnology shows that among biomedical scientists, senior women have gained more than their junior counterparts in both research funding amount and likelihood. Associate Professor Waverly Ding from the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business led the research, which examined 2.3 million National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants awarded between 1985 and 2017.
The findings highlight a persistent gender disparity in tenure rates. Ding and her colleagues note: “Women haven’t entered the tenured ranks in biomedical sciences at a rate commensurate to that of their entrance into the field.” For the past three decades, the probability of achieving tenure has remained at about 20 percent for women and nearly 40 percent for men. This gap has led to a significant difference in NIH research awards, with men receiving $8.73 billion compared to women’s $4.16 million.
Structural Barriers Hinder Progress for Junior Scientists
The researchers identified several systemic factors contributing to this disparity. While academia has embraced workforce diversity, the concept of indefinite tenure now prioritizes job and resource stability as prerequisites. This shift has created a challenging environment for younger scientists, especially women.
Ding and her co-authors explain: “With fewer resources accruing to junior-career-stage scientists, shortened career profiles and muted chances of achieving tenure, the scientific benefits that accrue from gender diversity will not be fully realized until junior members of the disadvantaged group (namely women) achieve more improvement in funding resources to narrow the gap to their more advantaged peers.”
Young scientists face increased competition from peers and decreased attention compared to established senior researchers. While improved funding outcomes for senior women scientists help close gaps with their male counterparts, the authors caution that “funding concentration is problematic if it systematically hinders the chances of funding for a specific subset of scientists, such as junior scientists in disadvantaged groups.”
To address these issues and fully realize the benefits of diversity in scientific research, Ding suggests implementing targeted measures. These could include designating research funding specifically for young women scientists and providing grant-writing assistance.
The study cites a recent initiative by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which committed $1.5 billion to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion among early-career scholars. The authors emphasize the importance of such programs, stating: “Without initiatives such as this one, there is little doubt that a continued lack of improvement in funding resources for junior members of disadvantaged groups will lead to the degradation of the vitality of the scientific workforce.”
As the biomedical research landscape evolves, addressing these funding disparities and structural barriers will be crucial for fostering innovation and ensuring equal opportunities for all scientists, regardless of gender or career stage.
