Race disparity in grants: empirical solutions vital.

There is a pressing moral imperative to eliminate racial disparity such as the success gap in R01 awards for black researchers reported by D. K. Ginther et al. (“Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards,” Reports, 19 August, p. [1015][1]). However, it was troubling to read the reactionary and unscientific proposals offered in response to the finding (“NIH uncovers racial disparity in grant awards,” J. Kaiser, News & Analysis, 19 August, p. [925][1]). These include NIH “brainstorm” panels to increase success and even the chilling notion of having “reviewers and staff undergo tests to learn about implicit biases,” presumably with the use of questionably valid “implicit association” tests ([ 1 ][2]). The achievement gap in black R01 funding is a correlational result, and mechanistic information is required to determine which, if any, of our intended manipulations might reduce the disparity. Unlike laboratory approaches for identifying causal pathways, disparity-reduction policies represent social experiments with tremendously important consequences, the effects of which could take decades to identify. As scientists, we should not give in to the temptation to value our knee-jerk reactions more than our empirical inclinations. We also cannot ignore morally complicated evidence. Indeed, much of the racial disparity reported could be attributed to black R01 applicants having half the citation count and one-fifth as many last-authored publications as white applicants from similarly ranked institutions. Coupled with the finding that R01s were awarded to highly ranked applications irrespective of race, this suggests that R01 disparity is due to lower research success among black applicants rather than to any problems with NIH review. One possible explanation for black applicants being less successful yet nonetheless having faculty positions at equally competitive institutions is affirmative action hiring policies. Although these policies can have tremendous short-term benefits for individuals, long-term negative consequences can result if race is emphasized over qualification. Such long-term negative consequences have already been suggested for black competitiveness and disparity in the legal profession ([ 2 ][3]). Ginther et al. acknowledge (by discussing the idea of “cumulative advantage”) that racial disparity is a deep societal problem. Although it is comforting to think that we can undo this endemic injustice just by increasing access to R01 grants or faculty positions, current evidence suggests that these efforts at best whittle down the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and at worst exacerbate racial inequalities in research success ([ 2 ][3]). 1. [↵][4]1. H. Blanton 2. et al ., J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 583 (2009). [OpenUrl][5][CrossRef][6] 2. [↵][7]1. R. H. Sander , Stanford Law Rev. 57, 367 (2003). [OpenUrl][8][Web of Science][9] [1]: pending:yes [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [5]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BAppl.%2BPsychol.%26rft.volume%253D94%26rft.spage%253D583%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1037%252Fa0014649%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [6]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/a0014649&link_type=DOI [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DStanford%2BLaw%2BRev.%26rft.volume%253D57%26rft.spage%253D367%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000226545300002&link_type=ISI