sex discrepancies in infectious disease research funding 1997–2010: a systematic analysis
TRANSCRIPT
Meeting Abstracts
44 www.thelancet.com
Sex discrepancies in infectious disease research funding 1997–2010: a systematic analysis Michael G Head, Joseph R Fitchett, Mary K Cooke, Fatima B Wurie, Rifat Atun
AbstractBackground Women are under-represented in biomedical science, with inequalities documented in the UK, USA, and the European Union. Yet no systematic analyses have quantifi ed the extent of these discrepancies. We systematically analysed funding awarded to UK institutions for all infectious disease research from 1997 to 2010 according to specifi c infection and research and development study type.
Methods We obtained data from public and philanthropic funding sources for infectious disease research for 1997–2010. We screened 325 922 studies across all diseases and various funders, and excluded studies not immediately relevant to infection, veterinary infectious disease research studies (unless there was a clear zoonotic component), and studies for which there were UK collaborators but the funding was awarded to a non-UK institution. Unfunded studies were also excluded. We manually read each study and abstract (if provided) and assigned each one to primary disease categories (eg, respiratory, enteric, paediatrics) with subsections for specifi c pathogens or diseases (eg, infl uenza, Escherichia coli, meningitis). We manually allocated studies to preclinical; phases 1, 2, or 3; product development; operational research; and to categories of funding organisation. We used times diff erences and statistical analysis (non-parametric Mann-Whitney rank-sum test, K-sample test, and non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test) to compare total investment, number of studies, mean grant, and median grant between men and women according to disease system, specifi c infection, and funding organisation.
Findings We included 6052 studies in the fi nal analysis, consisting of 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2·274 billion (£1=~US$1·60). Men were awarded £1·786 billion (78·5%) and women £488 million (21·5%). Median grant funding was £179 389 (IQR 59 146–371 977) for men and £125 556 (30 982–261 834) for women. The mean value of funding was £409 910 (SD 840 087) for men and £288 011 (704 474) for women. Funding awards were greater for principal investigators who were men across all infectious disease systems, with the exception of neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. By funder, major diff erences between funding awarded to men and to women principal investigators were greatest by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, with a diff erence of 6·12 times and smallest by UK Government funding streams (Department of Health and National Institute for Health Research), with a diff erence of 1·66 times. The proportion of the total funding awarded to women ranged from a low of 14·3% in 1998 to a high of 26·8% in 2009, with a mean of 21·4%, and was lowest for preclinical research at 18·2% (£285·5 million of £1·573 billion total) and highest for operational research at 30·9% (£151·4 million of £489·7 million).
Interpretation As far as we are aware, this is the fi rst study to present in detail UK research funding data according to sex. There are clear and consistent disparities in the funding received by men and women principal investigators. Women have lower number of funded studies and receive less funding in absolute and in relative terms. It is concerning that the disparities in the studies awarded and funding remain unchanged over the 14-year study period, despite increases in the proportion of women employed in academia and medicine. We were unable to assess the application success and failure rates by sex. We also did not have data for the academic ranking of principal investigators and were hence unable to adjust for seniority. We need innovative approaches to provide greater opportunities for women to lead on submission of research grants.
Funding None.
ContributorsMGH designed the study, with input from RA and JRF, and collated the dataset, which was checked and refi ned by JRF, FBW, and MKC. JRF
undertook data analysis and created the graphs and fi gures with input from MGH and RA. MGH, JRF, and RA interpreted the data and wrote the
fi rst draft. MGH, JRF, and RA refi ned the analysis and abstract with input from MKC and FBW. All authors reviewed and approved the fi nal version.
MGH is guarantor.
Confl icts of interestRA has received research funding from the UK MRC, the UK NIHR, UKCRC, UK EPSCRC, the UK Department for International Development,
and the UK Department of Health. RA is a member of the UK MRC Global Health Group. MGH works for the Infectious Disease Research Network,
which has supported this work and is funded by the UK Department of Health. JRF has received funds from the Wellcome Trust and is a steering
group member for the Infectious Disease Research Network. MKC has received funding from the MRC and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
FBW has received funds from the UCLH Charitable Foundation.
Published OnlineNovember 29, 2013
University College London, Research Department of
Infection and Population Health, UCL Royal Free Campus,
London, UK (M G Head PG Dip, M K Cooke PhD, F B Wurie BSc);
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK (J R Fitchett MSc); and Imperial
College Business School and the Faculty of Medicine,
Imperial College London, London, UK (Prof R Atun FRCP)
Correspondence to: Mr Michael G Head, University
College London, Research Department of Infection and
Population Health, London NW3 2PF, UK