Reducing the Impact of Bias

in the STEM Workforce

STRENGTHENING EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION

PRODUCT OF THE

Interagency Policy Group on Increasing Diversity 

in the STEM Workforce by Reducing the Impact of Bias, 

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

NOVEMBER 2016

REPORT DIGEST
About the Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the National 

Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP’s 

responsibilities include advising the President in policy formulation and budget 

development on questions in which science and technology (S&T) are important elements; articulating the President’s S&T policy and programs; and fostering strong 

partnerships among Federal, state, and local governments, and the scientific communities in industry and academia. The Director of OSTP also serves as Assistant 

to the President for Science and Technology and manages the National Science and 

Technology Council (NSTC). More information is available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp

About the Office of Personnel Management

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was established in 1978 as one of three 

organizations of the former Civil Service Commission. OPM oversees all policy created to support Federal human resources departments—from classification and 

qualifications systems to hiring authorities and from performance management to 

pay, leave, and benefits. Along with making those policies, OPM is responsible for 

ensuring they are properly implemented and continue to be adequately carried out. 

About the Interagency Policy Group on Increasing Diversity in the 

STEM Workforce by Reducing the Impact of Bias 

In October 2015, OSTP and OPM established the Interagency Policy Group on 

Increasing Diversity in the STEM Workforce by Reducing the Impact of Bias and 

charged the Group to do the following: identify existing and propose new policies 

aimed at reducing the impact of explicit and implicit biases in the Federal and federally funded STEM workforce; produce a report recommending Government-wide 

policy options; and submit the report and recommendations for leadership approval. 

Copyright Information

This document is a work of the United States Government and is in the public domain 

(see 17 U.S.C. §105). Subject to the stipulations below, it may be distributed and 

copied with acknowledgment to OSTP and OPM. Copyrights to graphics included in 

this document are reserved by the original copyright holders or their assignees and 

are used here under the Government’s license and by permission. Requests to use 

any images must be made to the provider identified in the image credits or to OSTP if 

no provider is identified. Printed in the United States of America, 2016. 
iii

Contents

1 Introduction

4 Best, Promising, and Emerging Practices 

for Reducing the Impact of Bias in the 

STEM Workforce

21 Recommendations and Implementation

25 Conclusion

27 Acknowledgments

1

Introduction

There is enormous opportunity to enrich the science, engineering, technology, and mathematics (STEM) enterprise and the innovations 

and solutions it produces by increasing diversity of the human resource on 

which STEM relies at all levels of participation and leadership. Realizing 

the potential contributions of people from all backgrounds in STEM is a 

national imperative, and critical to continued U.S. leadership and competitiveness in innovative fields. 

The Obama Administration has taken many steps to increase the diversity of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

enterprise by including groups historically underrepresented in STEM such 

as women and girls, certain racial and ethnic groups, and people with disabilities. In October 2015 the White House Office of Science and Technology 

Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) established an Interagency Policy Group to identify steps the government can 

take to increase diversity in the STEM workforce by mitigating the impact 

of implicit, institutional, or explicit bias1 that may exist in both the Federal 

Government and in federally funded institutions of higher education. The 

Interagency Group developed a vision, a goal, objectives, and basic principles to guide its efforts to: inventory current policies and practices; identify 

best and promising practices; develop recommendations for Governmentwide policies and practices; and suggest strategies and next steps. 

Implicit bias refers to unintended and unconscious assumptions, often 

based on stereotypes about gender or ethnicity, which may improperly 

influence judgments about other people or their work; institutional bias 

refers to policies and practices of an institution that may make it more difficult for some members of certain groups to succeed; and explicit bias refers 

1 Use of the terms “bias” or “mitigating or reducing the impact of bias” should be 

understood to mean “where it exists” throughout this report.
2

to intentional, consciously articulated beliefs that result in discriminatory 

attitudes and behaviors toward others.

Diversity refers to representation of people who are members of gender 

and ethnic groups historically underrepresented in STEM, including 

women, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, 

and people with disabilities. The intent, however, is to implement practices 

that benefit all groups, including groups who are underrepresented and may 

experience the impact of bias based on their educational attainment, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and geographic location within the United States. Inclusion refers to fostering a work culture 

in which uniqueness of beliefs, backgrounds, talents and capabilities, and 

ways of living by all backgrounds and at all levels is valued and leveraged for 

learning and informing better decision making.

Why STEM Diversity?

Several imperatives drive the urgency to increase diversity of the STEM 

workforce:

Ë Science and Innovation Imperative: Diversity within groups enables 

them to be more creative and generate higher quality or more defensible decisions, particularly in uncertain and novel situations, such as the 

pursuit of science and innovation.2,3

Ë Workforce Imperative: The demand for STEM workers is expected to 

outpace STEM degree production by about 1 million in 2022.4 As more 

2 Laurel Smith-Doerr, Sharla Alegria, and Timothy Sacco describe “cognitive diversity” 

as involving “training, ideas, and skills relevant to completing the task” in Laurel 

Smith–Doerr, Sharia Alegria, and Timothy Sacco, “How Diversity Matters in the U.S. 

Science and Engineering Workforce: A Critical Review Considering Teams, Fields, 

and Organizational Contexts.” Under review for publication by Engaging Science, 

Technology, and Society (2016).

3 Joshi, A., and Roh, H. (2009). Aparna Joshi and Hyuntak Roh, “The Role of Context 

in Work Team Diversity Research: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Academy of Management 

Journal 52 (2009): 599–627; Scott E. Page, Diversity and Complexity, (Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press, 2010).

4 Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 
3

students are attracted to STEM, it is essential to draw them from all 

demographic groups to ensure access to the best talent. As the proportion of women and ethnic minorities in the U.S. college population 

increases—currently approaching 70 percent—it becomes even more 

important to engage the brainpower of women and underrepresented 

minorities,5 so that agencies and institutions of higher education are 

drawing from the entire population to hire the best talent. 

Ë Economic Imperative: Research shows that diverse teams outperform 

homogeneous teams when it comes to financial returns.6 While neither 

Government nor nonprofit institutions of higher education are pursuing profits, the same contributing factors to these success metrics, such 

as the ability to attract and retain top talent and improved customer 

or constituent orientation, suggest that many private sector benefits of 

diversity would accrue to these stakeholders as well.

Ë First Principles Imperative: The Federal-merit-system principles, which 

are a foundation for the civil service, provide that agencies should 

recruit, for their workforce, qualified individuals drawn from all segments of society. 

Ë Moral Imperative: To advance the most fundamental American value 

of fairness, it is essential to provide equal opportunities to all members of society, including women, racial and ethnic groups, and persons 

with disabilities, to enter STEM fields. As more members of the diverse 

groups that make up this Nation realize their potential in the STEM 

workforce, they also will experience the personal and financial rewards 

that accompany STEM careers. 

Technology, “Report to the President, Engage to Excel: Producing One Million 

Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics,” (2012).

5 Ibid.

6 Vivian Hunt, Dennis Layton, and Sara Prince, “Why Diversity Matters,” Our Insights, 

McKinsey & Company, (2015), http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/

our-insights/why-diversity-matters
4

Best, Promising, 

and Emerging Practices 

to Reduce the Impact 

of Bias in the STEM 

Workforce

The Interagency Policy Group (IPG) Best Practices Subgroup identified a range of best and promising practices that 14 agencies are using 

to raise awareness about bias and minimize its impact (see visualization 

of agency efforts in Figure 1). This section highlights selected successful 

practices that the Federal science and engineering agencies have used (1) 

to reduce the impact of bias within their own workforce or (2) to generate 

basic research, development, and tested interventions on bias in academia. 
5

Key Word Visualization of Agency Efforts from the 

Collective Summary of Agency Submissions

professional

organizations

work group

career fairs

career

guidance

share best

practices

collaborative

efforts

strategic

recruitment

new opportunities

recruitment

events

organizational

performance

regular

basis

best

practices

team members grant making

process

FIGURE 1. Visualization Summary: In general, best practices for mitigating the 

impact of bias are related to organizational performance and the grant-making 

process. The participating agencies identified the following best practices for 

sharing information: participation in career fairs, collaborative efforts, strategic 

recruitment, work with professional organizations, regular participation in 

recruitment events, the use of inclusive work teams, career guidance resources, 

and sharing new opportunities to reduce bias and promote diversity and 

inclusion. This graphic was created specifically for this report using data 

collected from the IPG agencies. 
6

Best, Promising, and Emerging Practices to Reduce 

the Impact of Bias in the Federal STEM Workforce

USDA

ED

DOE

DHHS/NIH

DHS

DOI

DOL

EPA

NASA

NSF

SI

Number

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

DOT

NOAA/DOC

USPTO/DOC

Best

Emerging

Promising

Number of Agency Efforts Reported
7

 BEST PRACTICES identified with credible evidence include: 

» Analyses of mandated workforce data sets;

» Implicit bias training;

» Conflict resolution; and 

» Promoting work flexibility. 

 PROMISING PRACTICES are defined as those that are consistent with principles 

established by research but have not been the subject of evaluation. The 

following are particularly promising:

» Diversity change agents;

» Diversity toolkits;

» Technical qualifications board; and

» Proposal review experiments.

 EMERGING PRACTICES include:

» Unconscious bias training for search committees; 

» Special training for the entire workforce; 

» Hiring and promotions safeguard pilots; and 

» New inclusive workforce tools. 
8

Mitigating the Impact of Bias in Action: 

Top Strategies in the Federal STEM Workforce

Ë Incorporation of Diversity, Inclusion, and Bias Mitigation into 

Strategic Plan: Federal agencies’ strategic plans should convey the value 

of diversity, inclusion, and equality of opportunity and the importance of 

mitigating the impact of explicit and implicit bias.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) deploys its 

own comprehensive Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Assessment Survey 

to all employees for a more in-depth measurement of its D&I efforts 

and to discover potential areas of bias or perceptions of exclusion that 

might exist in the workplace. NASA first deployed the survey in 2010 

and repeated it in 2014. NASA used the initial survey as a baseline 

assessment, with plans to measure progress by repeating the survey 

approximately every 3 years. The D&I Survey measures respondents’ 

perceptions about the meaning and culture of diversity and inclusion 

at NASA. It indicates strengths as well as areas and opportunities for 

improvement. Survey questions address whether employees believe 

that managers address bias (where it exists) or whether employees have 

felt marginalized or excluded, enabling NASA to measure perceptions 

around the presence of bias and enabling the Agency to shape means of 

addressing bias, such as voluntary education and awareness opportunities that explore methods of bias mitigation. NASA compared the 2014 

survey results with the baseline survey and saw small improvement in 

employee perceptions on the presence of bias. The progress indicated by 

the survey results was presented to senior leadership and used to inform 

the Agency’s D&I Strategic Plan and Agency-wide D&I training. 

A significant impetus for work by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) to reduce the impact of bias within the agency 

is the Ladder of Opportunity Agenda, a major DOT priority, which 

advances equal opportunities for all, including both DOT’s internal 

and external stakeholders. In 2015, DOT hosted the first in a series of 

planned diversity, self-advocacy, and leadership events entitled, “DOT 
9

Planting Seeds: Select Your Destination.” The department-wide Ladders 

of Opportunity Agenda is an internal program that focuses on the importance of harnessing the talents of each individual, embracing diversity 

and promoting self-advocacy, and considering how these priorities help 

ensure that equity considerations are part of all DOT decisions. 

Ë Recruitment, Hiring, Promotion, and Engagement: Federal agencies 

can provide managers and supervisors with concrete examples of workplace inclusiveness to emulate and can direct that the reviewers evaluate 

all candidates against published guidelines.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed Technical 

Qualifications Boards based on a substantial body of research indicating that when evaluators establish criteria before review, they apply 

less bias to their evaluation of people or their accomplishments. These 

panels review and evaluate qualifications and contributions of all candidates for promotion to senior (GS14–15) levels for research positions 

against published guidelines, in an attempt to ensure consistent, fair, 

and equitable treatment of candidates for promotion throughout EPA’s 

research organization.

Unconscious-bias training at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

is an institutional practice used with scientific directors and the search 

committees in charge of hiring their scientific workforce. This effort 

also will attempt to assess, with data, the effectiveness of implicit bias 

training on hiring outcomes.

Ë Implicit Bias Training: Most Federal agencies include content regarding 

implicit bias in various required training protocols for supervisors, managers, or search committees. 

Implicit bias is not inherent. It is a reaction to experiences, including 

words and actions over the lifetime of an individual. In order to mitigate 

the impact of bias, there needs to be experiential learning opportunities 

to truly change how one approaches an individual and their ability to 

accomplish a task. It is through this learning by doing that Department 
10

of Energy (DOE) will make the impact of bias wane. DOE will make 

the following recommendations for providing experiential learning 

related to implicit bias: 

» Individual Professional Development Training: DOE will encourage employees to take a series of courses made available through the 

online learning center on topics related to bias mitigation and communicating across cultures. DOE will recommend making courses 

mandatory for managers and team leaders on an annual basis and 

optional for non-supervisory employees. Employees will receive a 

certificate in bias mitigation once all courses are completed. 

» Bias Interrupters: DOE will develop and promote “bias interrupters” as a resource for managers and employees who complete training 

related to mitigating the impact of bias. The “bias interrupters” will 

be tips and practices that employees can use to improve the objectivity and quality of decisions related to hiring, promotions, career 

development opportunities, and performance appraisals.

» DOE Community: DOE will leverage its workforce to challenge 

stereotypes in STEM by engaging underrepresented communities 

in hands-on technology demonstrations. By introducing learners 

to new technology applications like the Smartphone Microscope, 

which utilizes a camera and microscope (relatively familiar, non-intimidating technologies), DOE will tap into a learner’s conscious and 

unconscious experiences with STEM. By leveraging the Smartphone 

Microscope, developed by one of its National Labs along with its 

eclectic Federal workforce, DOE can positively impact STEM education efforts in certain targeted communities.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides 

Department-wide online and instructor-led training opportunities through its AgLearn system. Examples of these trainings include: 

“Avoiding Discrimination and Bias; Training and Tips for Leaders/

Managers” and related opportunities such as “Veteran Employment 

Training for Federal Hiring Manager/Human Resource Professionals” 
11

and “A Roadmap to Success: Hiring, Retaining and Including People 

with Disabilities.” 

Ë Diversity Tools and Resources: Valuable resources, including published guides with practical applications to improve objectivity, can be 

made widely accessible for managers and employees. 

NASA’s Promising Practices Guide7 is a catalogue that showcases innovative EEO and D&I efforts of the Agency and its field centers. The 

promising practices are grouped around six themes: leadership commitment, attracting top talent, cultivating excellence, teamwork and innovation, serving the American people, and advancing the STEM pipeline. 

Examples of promising practices cited in the Guide include: D&I training that focuses on implicit bias, is designed for executive leadership, 

managers, supervisors, and employees, and includes opportunities for 

practical application; making the Agency’s Web sites more accessible to 

individuals with vision disabilities; increasing work-life flexibilities; and 

partnering effectively with local educational and business communities 

to engage and inspire young people from all backgrounds. One purpose 

of the Promising Practices Guide is to enhance cross-pollination among 

the NASA Centers. The Guide will be regularly updated. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has developed a new tool, 

the “Inclusive Behaviors Job Aid,” to provide managers and supervisors 

concrete examples of how to be consciously inclusive in the workplace. 

In 2016, DHS will also develop a bank of interview questions that focus 

on the candidates’ experience in managing diverse and inclusive workplaces. This effort is founded upon research that indicates that underrepresented groups are often excluded from key positions simply because 

they are not deliberately included, but that by learning about the power 

7 “Promising Practices for Equal Opportunity, Diversity, and Inclusion,” National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, last modified July 2015, http://odeo.hq.nasa.gov/

documents/PromPract_8-20-15_TAGGED.pdf.
12

of implicit bias and ways to mitigate its impact, organizations can create 

more inclusive workplaces.8

Ë Proposal Review Experiments: Research or pilot efforts with the potential for identifying and reducing the impact of any possible bias in grant 

proposal evaluation can be implemented through a variety of techniques 

within the Federal agencies to level the playing field in the review process. 

NSF is continuously experimenting with novel review approaches. One 

new and two recent pilots offer potential to strengthen the review process by: (1) attracting an untapped reviewer pool, (2) removing barriers to scientists serving as reviewers, and (3) reducing evaluation bias, 

if present. Initially, the focus will be on differences in outcomes by 

gender. To extend to, for example, the impact on proposals from African 

Americans, will require the accumulation of data from more panels. 

Experiment 1: Virtual Panels. NSF has experimented with having reviewers participate virtually, using teleconferencing, videoconferencing, or virtual worlds. Motivations for using virtual panels have included enhanced 

opportunities for reviewer training, greater flexibility in how panels are 

structured, and removing barriers for those who may not be able to travel 

due to physical limitations, family responsibilities, or other restrictions. 

In addition to completely virtual panels, many panels now provide the 

option for panelists to attend remotely, if they cannot attend in person. 

For example, looking at those reviewers for whom gender information 

was available in FY 2013, 29 percent of the reviewers who participated in 

hybrid panels by traveling to NSF were women while a larger percent (34 

percent) of those who participated virtually were women. 

Experiment 2: Mechanism Design. The Mechanism Design pilot examined a review mechanism in which the investigators who submit proposals also review some of the competing proposals. The usual policy 

8 Corporate Executive Board, “Beneath the Surface of Diversity Recruiting: Activating 

Inclusion Recruiting,” 2011.
13

on avoiding conflicts of interests was applied. In the pilot, each proposal 

received seven reviews and the average review ratings were used to determine a consensus ranking of all the proposals. The rating of the PI’s own 

proposal was then supplemented with “bonus points” depending upon 

the degree to which is or her order of the assigned seven proposals agrees 

with the consensus ranking. The awarding of bonus points is the step 

that game theory suggests should provide an incentive to each reviewer 

to give a fair and thorough rating and ranking of the proposals to which 

he or she is assigned. This encourages objectivity and promotes openness in the review process by requiring the individual to consider how 

other objective reviewers would assess each proposal. The NSF program 

officer then uses the reviewers’ comments, ratings, and rankings as the 

primary input for his or her funding recommendations. 

Experiment 3: Reviewer Orientation: Beginning in 2017, many research 

programs at NSF will provide an orientation, by Webinar, to panel 

reviewers before they prepare their individual written reviews of proposals. The orientation will include tips on how to structure reviews, 

a reminder of the review criteria, and techniques for consciously mitigating the potential influence of unconscious, cognitive biases. This 

pilot will test whether such an orientation enhances the quality of written reviews. It will also examine whether providing information about 

strategies for mitigating the impact of unconscious biases leads to any 

changes in the distributions of review ratings received by proposals from 

investigators who belong to underrepresented minorities. 

NIH’s Center for Scientific Review (CSR) is playing a key role in understanding the role of implicit bias in unexplained racial disparities in 

R01 grant awards. With the input from a team of experts in implicit 

bias, stereotyping, decision-making, and research training, CSR completed two America COMPETES Act Challenge contests that engaged 

the scientific community in finding new methods to detect possible 

bias in peer review given the unavailability of valid metrics for evaluating implicit bias in the review process. This subcommittee on Peer 

Review discouraged over-reliance on the Implicit Associations Test and 
14

cautioned possible resistance associated with mandatory implicit bias 

training for reviewers. CSR surveyed and conducted focus groups with 

a diverse sample of new investigators to garner their insights on the fairness of NIH peer review and the challenges they face in seeking NIH 

funding. The value of anonymization of grant applications in reducing 

bias will be tested in an upcoming project that examines the effect of 

altering PI race, gender, and university affiliation on reviewer scores of 

R01 applications.

Federal-Academic Interface: 

Research, Development, and Interventions on Bias

The Federal government has had a vast impact on the academic STEM 

workforce by funding a substantial body of basic and applied research on 

bias. Basic research has produced a rich understanding of bias, while the 

applied research has built on this understanding to design evidence-based 

interventions that have been tested on campuses across the Nation. Several 

agencies have advanced these efforts. 

Ë Proactive Use of Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion Grants: Institutions 

can pursue programmatic support to develop and employ policies, practices, training materials, and recruitment and retention strategies designed 

to mitigate any bias in higher education.

NSF has supported basic research, development, and implementation 

activities. Through its Science of Broadening Participation portfolio, NSF has invested in research on the theories, methods, and analytic techniques of the social, behavioral, economic, and learning sciences to better understand the barriers that hinder and factors that 

enhance the participation of women and underrepresented minorities 

in STEM. Some of the powerful findings that emerge from this type of 

research include:
15

» Gender bias impacts hiring. A male job applicant for an academic 

positions was rated as more competent and would be offered a higher 

salary than an identical female applicant.9

» Assertiveness training does not improve women’s ability to negotiate. Sometimes women did not know that they could ask for what 

they want, and sometimes they did not ask because they had learned 

that society reacts badly to women asserting their own needs and 

desires.10

» Letters of recommendation disadvantage women. Female applicants 

were described in more communal (social or emotive) terms and 

male applicants were described in more agentic (active or assertive) 

terms.11

» Stereotype threat impacts performance. If there are negative 

stereotypes about a specific group, its members are likely to 

become anxious about their performance if attention is called to 

their membership in that group, which may hinder their ability to 

perform at their maximum level in part due to diversion of blood 

away from the cognitive centers of the brain following activation of 

stereotype threat.12,13

9 Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, 

and Jo Handelsman, “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students,” 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 41 (2012): 16474–16479.

10 Hannah Riley Bowles, Linda Babcock, and Lei Lai, “Social Incentives For Gender 

Differences in the Propensity to Initiate Negotiations: Sometimes it Does Hurt to Ask,” 

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103, no. 1 (2007): 84–103.

11 Juan M. Madera, Michelle R. Hebl, and Randi C. Martin, “Gender and Letters of 

Recommendation for Academia: Agentic and Communal Differences,” Journal of Applied 

Psychology 94, no. 6 (2009): 1591.

12 Claude M. Steele and Joshua Aronson, “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test 

Performance of African Americans,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69, no. 

5 (1995): 797; Jason W Osborne, “Linking Stereotype Threat and Anxiety,” Educational 

Psychology 27, no. 1 (2007): 135–154; Anne Maass, Claudio D’Ettole, and Mara 

Cadinu, “Checkmate? The Role of Gender Stereotypes in the Ultimate Intellectual 

Sport,” European Journal of Social Psychology 38, no. 2 (2008): 231–245.

13 Wendy Berry Mendes and Jeremy Jamieson, “Embodied Stereotype Threat: Exploring 
16

NIH also supports basic research on bias, stereotypes, and interventions 

to combat the impact of bias. Some examples are research on causal 

factors and interventions that support careers of women in biomedical and behavioral sciences and engineering14 and the NIH Directors 

Pathfinder Award, designed to encourage exceptionally creative individual scientists to develop highly innovative and possibly transforming approaches for promoting diversity within the biomedical research 

workforce.15

Findings from these NIH-supported basic research include:

» Gender bias in grant reviews. Grant reviewers implicitly hold different standards for male versus female applicants; are more critical of 

female applicants; and give lower priority, approach, and significance 

scores to women in renewal applications.16

» Race bias in grant reviews. Black applicants are less likely to receive 

independent research grants compared to white applicants.17

» Reducing implicit gender leadership bias in academic medicine with 

an educational intervention. Educational intervention on implicit 

Brain and Body Mechanisms Underlying Performance Impairments,” Stereotype Threat: 

Theory, Process, and Application (2011): 51–68.

14 Research on Causal Factors and Interventions that Promote and Support the Careers 

of Women in Biomedical and Behavioral Science and Engineering (R01), Program 

Announcement, RFA-GM-09-012.

15 NIH Recovery Act Grants to Foster Scientific Workforce Diversity, National Institutes 

of Health, Turning Discovery into Health, (2010), https://www.nih.gov/news-events/newsreleases/nih-recovery-act-grants-foster-scientific-workforce-diversity

16 Anna Kaatz, You-Geon Lee, Aaron F. Potvien, Wairimu Magua, ... Molly Carnes, 

“Analysis of NIH R01 Application Critiques, Impact and Criteria Scores: Does the 

Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?” Academic Medicine: Journal of the 

Association of American Medical Colleges, 91, no. 41 (2016): 1080–1088. 

17 Donna K. Ginther, Walter T. Schaffer, Joshua Schnell, Beth Masimore, Faye Liu, Laurel 

L. Haak, and Raynard Kington. “Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards.” Science

333, no. 6045 (2011): 1015–1019.
17

bias reduced faculty members’ implicit bias regarding women and 

leadership (as measured by the Implicit Association Test).18

» Stereotype threat gender differences in academia. Female faculty 

report greater susceptibility to stereotype threat in academic sciences 

and lower confidence in the likelihood of advancement compared to 

males, despite similar career interest and identification.19

Ë Family-Friendly Policies and Programs: Mechanisms such as supplemental support for parental leave or dependent care can be used to minimize institutional barriers that can undermine performance due to parental 

status and family responsibilities. 

Family-friendly policies and practices for NIH-grant recipients include 

child care support as part of conference grants, reentry supplements, and 

up to eight weeks of paid parental leave for National Research Service 

Award trainees. NSF’s Career-life Balance Initiative provides a coherent 

set of career-life policies and practices agency-wide to expand dependent 

care and dual career support to improve the STEM work environment 

in higher education.

Ë Compliance Reviews: Federal agency compliance reviews can identify 

and examine any institutional bias in the review of grantees and provide 

feedback to institutional leadership with findings and recommendations to 

reduce the impact of bias.

18 Sabine Girod, Magali Fassiotto, Daisy Grewal, Manwai Candy Ku, Natarajan Sriram, 

Brian A. Nosek, and Hannah Valantine. “Reducing Implicit Gender Leadership Bias in 

Academic Medicine With an Educational Intervention.” Academic Medicine: Journal of 

the Association of American Medical Colleges (2016).

19 Magali Fassiotto, Elizabeth O. Hamel, Manwai Ku, Shelley Correll, Daisy Grewal, 

Philip Lavori, VJ Periyakoil, Allan Reiss, Christy Sandborg, Gregory Walton, Marilyn 

Winkleby, and Hannah Valantine. “Women in Academic Medicine: Measuring 

Stereotype Threat Among Junior Faculty.” Journal of Women’s Health 25, no. 3 (2016): 

292–298.
18

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)/USDA and NASA

both conduct civil-rights and equal-employment-opportunity reviews 

in the institutions they fund. They attempt to ensure that their partners 

in research, education, and extension are in compliance with the rules 

and regulations pursuant to Federal civil-rights laws:

» Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibits discrimination on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, limited English proficiency);

» Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender);

» The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of disability); and

» Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of age).

In assessing grantee compliance, NASA reviews methods of administration that can have unintentional adverse impacts, including policies and 

practices such as admission criteria, student advising, and classroom or 

research participation. Written reports with findings and recommendations that include identifying and addressing implicit bias are provided 

to university presidents or heads of museum and science centers. NASA’s 

compliance reports have made recommendations to STEM programs to 

address the presence of unconscious bias in meaningful ways, such as 

training tailored to a particular audience. NASA has published a “Title 

IX and STEM” series that highlights promising grantee practices that 

assess the presence of bias and steps to address it.20 Holding grantees 

accountable for reducing the impact of implicit bias is a strategic component for promoting diversity in STEM.

20 “Title IX & STEM: Promising Practices for Science, Technology, Engineering, & 

Mathematics,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, http://odeo.hq.nasa.gov/

documents/71900_HI-RES.8-4-09.pdf; “Title IX & STEM: A Guide for Conducting 

Title IX Self-Evaluations in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Programs,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, http://odeo.hq.nasa.gov/

documents/TITLE_IX_STEM_Self-Evaluation_Fillable.pdf.
19

Ë Access to Resources: Online learning tools and other informational 

resources to address bias can be made widely available to administrators, 

faculty, staff, and students at federally funded institutions. 

The National Center for Women and Information Technology, funded 

by NSF and other collaborators, has developed case studies that offer 

solutions to reduce the impact of bias.21 For example, Avoiding Gender 

Bias in Recruitment/Selection Processes, Reducing Unconscious Bias to 

Increase Women’s Success in IT, and Avoiding Unintended Gender Bias 

in Letters of Recommendation can be found at https://www.ncwit.org/

resources/how-can-reducing-unconscious-bias-increase.

21 See https://www.ncwit.org/resources/how-can-reducing-unconscious-bias-increasewomen%E2%80%99s- successit/avoiding-unintended-gender; https://www.ncwit.org/

resources/how-can-reducing-unconscious-bias-increase-women%E2%80%99s-success-it/

avoiding-gender-bias.
20

Agency and Department Websites 

for Summaries on Efforts to Raise Awareness about Bias 

and Mitigate Its Impact

Department of Agriculture (USDA): https://www.ascr.usda.gov/about-oascr

Department of Defense (DOD): http://www.dodstem.us/blog-posts/2016/

dod-agency-final-report-mitigating-bias-in-stem-workforce

Department of Education (ED): http://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/stem/

Department of Energy (DOE): http://www.energy.gov/diversity/bias-mitigation

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS): http://www.hhs.gov/

stem-bias-mitigation-report

Department of Homeland Security (DHS): https://www.dhs.gov/publication/

stem-workforce-diversity

Department of Interior (DOI): https://www.doi.gov/notices/stem-eo

Department of Labor (DOL): https://blog.dol.gov/2016/07/20/strengthening-ourworkforce-through-diversity-and-opportunity/

Department of Transportation (DOT): https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/

about-docr/reducing-impact-bias-stem-workforce

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/

reducing-impact-bias-stem-workforce

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): http://odeo.hq.nasa.

gov/documents/NASA_Mitigating_Bias_Agency_Progress_Rpt_6-23-16_tagged.pdf

National Science Foundation (NSF): http://www.nsf.gov/od/broadeningparticipation/

bp.jsp

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a Bureau of the 

Department of Commerce: http://www.epp.noaa.gov/

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), a Bureau of the 

Department of Commerce: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/organizational-offices/

office-equal-employment-opportunity-and-diversity/reducing-impact 

Smithsonian Institution (SI): http://www.si.edu/oeema/DivInitiatives.htm
21

Recommendations and 

Implementation

The reduction of the impact of bias in STEM disciplines and the workforce is critical if America is to maintain its competitive edge in the 

global economy of the 21st century and fully utilize the Nation’s vast diversity of talent. Strategies for addressing the impact of bias in the STEM 

workforce, both internally and in federally funded institutions of higher 

education, must start with a commitment from top leadership to advance 

equality and cultivate the best talent, independent of demographic affiliations. The practices that reduce the impact of bias must be integrated into 

each agency’s core mission and at all levels of the organization. Predicated 

on these essential principles, the Interagency Policy Group developed the 

following policy recommendations to mitigate biases in the Federal STEM 

workforce and STEM programs in institutions of higher education that 

receive Federal funding. See the full report for more discussion of each 

recommendation.22

In the Federal STEM Workforce

Recommendation 1. Each Federal agency should exercise leadership at all 

levels, including senior officials, STEM program and administrative managers, human capital officials, and diversity and inclusion officials (or their 

equivalent), to reduce the impact of bias in their internal operations through:

Ë Incorporation of the agency’s diversity and inclusion objectives in its 

strategic plan; 

22 Office of Science and Technology Policy – Office of Personnel Management. “Reducing 

the Impact of Bias in the STEM Workforce: Strengthening Excellence and Innovation,” 

2016.
22

Ë Visible participation, deep engagement, and demonstrated accountability by agency and department leaders in the dialogue and activities to 

increase diversity; 

Ë Implementation of an organizational cycle of recruiting, hiring, and 

promotion practices that encourages diversity and inclusion, in part by 

reducing the impact of bias; 

Ë Engagement and empowerment of employees through policies, practices, and programmatic activities across all groups, including managers; 

Ë Expanded education and training on implicit- and explicit-bias mitigation; and

Ë Establishment of bias-mitigation goals, techniques, and accountability 

mechanisms. 

In Federally Funded Institutions of Higher Education 

Recommendation 2. Each Federal agency should incorporate bias-mitigation strategies into its proposal-review process and offer technical assistance 

to grantee institutions to implement bias-mitigation strategies. Such strategies and activities should include:

Ë Emphasizing to the academic community the importance of using 

bias-mitigation strategies to achieve fairness and quality in the STEM 

endeavor;

Ë Ensuring diversity in membership of grant-review panels to include representation of all, including women, underrepresented racial and ethnic 

groups, and people with disabilities; 

Ë Establishing a systematic means of collecting and analyzing data on the 

entire cycle of the grant-making process to analyze success rates in getting grants across groups; 

Ë Providing grantees with information about methods to reduce bias and 

enhance diversity and inclusion in their research groups and institutions; and
23

Ë Collecting best practices from grantee institutions and sharing them 

among agencies and other grantees, including by supporting communities of practice. 

Cross-Cutting Government Leadership—

STEM Workforce and Federally Funded 

Institutions of Higher Education 

Recommendation 3. OSTP, OPM, and the Department of Justice (DOJ), 

as appropriate, should exercise leadership to reduce the impact of bias in 

the Federal STEM workforce and federally funded institutions of higher 

education by:

Ë Serving as focal points, clearinghouses, and distribution points for 

bias-reduction strategies and best practices for both Federal agencies and 

federally funded institutions of higher education; 

Ë Coordinating civil-rights-compliance efforts; 

Ë Providing guidance to agencies related to performance and accountability in efforts to mitigate the impact of explicit and implicit bias (where 

it may exist) by investigation of potential measurement tools;

Ë Spurring greater strategic coordination, sharing, and collaboration on, 

successful programs aimed at reducing the impact of bias and increasing 

diversity in federally funded institutions of higher education; and

Ë Strengthening university-community partnerships to mitigate the 

impact of bias and to increase access to Federal STEM employment.

Implementation and Next Steps 

To implement the recommendations, the Interagency Policy Group proposes the following actions. Targeted timelines for implementation and 

completion should be provided for each of the proposals. 
24

Ë An interagency body, acting as a community of practice and comprising staff drawn from OSTP, OPM, and Federal agencies should coordinate and review the Government-wide implementation and scaling of 

best and promising practices; develop principles for appropriate local 

adaptation of practices; identify gaps; develop a tool, including a set of 

quantitative metrics and strategies, to track increased diversity in the 

Federal STEM workforce by the reduction of the impact of bias where it 

may exist; and develop a comprehensive, living inventory of policies and 

practices by the Federal government and federally funded institutions of 

higher education that reduce the impact of bias in the STEM workforce. 

Ë OSTP, OPM, and Federal agencies should implement a public-engagement campaign, strategically targeted to key stakeholders, to highlight 

the existence, challenges, and impacts of bias and ways to reduce it in 

the STEM workforce.

Ë Federal agencies should develop plans to implement and institutionalize policies and practices for reducing the impact of bias on the education, employment, and advancement of members of groups historically 

underrepresented or underserved in STEM fields. Such policies and 

practices should be designed to make careers in STEM more attractive 

and conducive to the success of all people, including women, members 

of underrepresented ethnic and racial groups, and people with disabilities. Agency plans should be best-practice driven, include measurable 

goals, and be published in easy-to-understand forms to be reviewed by 

OPM on an annual basis. 

Ë Federal agencies, institutions of higher education, and the proposed 

interagency-implementation body should develop accountability measures that can be used to assess progress and should review ongoing 

research to accelerate progress in the emerging fields of bias mitigation, 

diversity, and inclusion policies and practices; best practices emerging 

from research should also be brought back into agencies to accelerate 

implementation of new research-based tools and strategies. 
25

Conclusion

America’s role as a global leader in innovation and equity will be fortified by tapping into one of America’s foundational strengths—the 

unparalleled diversity of the American people. Efforts to draw on a diverse 

community in STEM, however, are undermined, at least in part, by systemic barriers. Prominent among these are both implicit and explicit biases 

generated by stereotypes and expectations of what a STEM professional 

should look and act like. The Nation must continue to address the biases 

that may constrain the STEM workforce; there is a “fierce urgency of now”23

to do so in order to maintain competitiveness as a Nation.

23 Martin Luther King, Jr., Why We Can’t Wait, (New York: Harper & Row, 1963); Martin 

Luther King, Jr., “I Have a Dream,” (Washington, DC, 1963).
26
27

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the policy group that worked over the past several months to produce the full report from which this digest was 

developed. Key to the group’s work was the identification of agency efforts 

to reduce the impact of bias on the science, technology, engineering, and 

technology (STEM) workforce, identification of evidence-based best and 

promising practices; the generation of Government-wide recommendations 

to mitigate the impact of bias; and development of a Government-wide 

tool on bias mitigation. The report was developed under the direction of 

Wanda E. Ward, Assistant Director for Broadening Participation, Office 

of Science and Technology Policy. Contributors that provided significant 

support to the activities of the Interagency Policy Group include those who 

served on the report writing team, the best practices development subgroup, 

the Government-wide recommendations subgroup, and the dashboard 

development subgroup. We would also like to thank Brenda R. Manuel, 

Associate Administrator for Diversity and Equal Opportunity at NASA, 

and NASA for the layout and production of this digest.

Report Prepared by

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY POLICY

John P. Holdren

Assistant to the President for Science 

and Technology and Director 

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Jo Handelsman

Associate Director for Science

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Megan Smith

U.S. Chief Technology Officer

Office of Science and Technology Policy

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT

Beth F. Cobert

Acting Director

Office of Personnel Management
28

Interagency Policy Group on Increasing Diversity in the 

STEM Workforce by Reducing the Impact of Bias

CO-CHAIR

Wanda E. Ward

Assistant Director for Broadening 

Participation

Office of Science and Technology Policy

CO-CHAIR 

Bruce Stewart

Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, 

Training, and Compliance,

Office of Diversity and Inclusion

Office of Personnel Management 

MEMBERS

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Sonny Ramaswamy 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Kevin Kelly 

Diann McCants

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Joiselle Cunningham

Christina Chhin

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

David Klaus

La Doris Harris 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES

Hannah A. Valantine 

H. Anna Han

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY

Alitza Vega

Nimesh M. Patel

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Suzette Kimball 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pronita Gupta 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Stephanie Jones

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

Donna Vizian

Lynnann Hitchens

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 

ADMINISTRATION

Brenda R. Manuel 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Suzanne C. Lacono

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

A BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE

Marlene Kaplan

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, 

A BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE

Bismarck Myrick

Jamie Simpson 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

James D. Douglas

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT

Sharon Wong

DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL

Roy Austin 

Irene Hsu 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

Dexter Brooks
29

BEST PRACTICES DEVELOPMENT SUBGROUP 

Bernice Anderson, National Science Foundation 

Christina Chhin, Department of Education

Joiselle Cunningham, Department of Education

Amber Haggins, Department of Energy

H. Anna Han, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services

Suzanne C. Iacono, National Science Foundation (Subgroup Lead)

Marlene Kaplan, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

a Bureau of the Department of Commerce

Bismarck Myrick, United States Patent and Trademark Office, 

a Bureau of the Department of Commerce

F. Michael Sena, Department of Defense

GOVERNMENT-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBGROUP

Ray Campbell, United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior

David Chambers and Sharon Wagner, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Brenda R. Manuel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Subgroup Lead)

Nimesh M. Patel, Department of Homeland Security

DASHBOARD DEVELOPMENT SUBGROUP

Ray Campbell, United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior

H. Anna Han, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services

Bruce Stewart, Office of Personnel Management (Subgroup Lead)

REPORT WRITING TEAM

Bernice Anderson, National Science Foundation

David Chambers, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Andrew Hanus, OSTP Fellow 

Suzanne E. Iacono, National Science Foundation

Brenda R. Manuel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Osaremen Okolo, OSTP Intern

Sana Surani, OSTP Intern

Sharon Wagner, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Wanda E. Ward, OSTP (Writing Team Lead)