SCISIPBIO: Examining the Career Barriers Confronting African American or Black Biomedical Scientists

美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)是世界上最大的科学资助机构。与NIH资助有关的发现为美国人口的健康和长寿做出了贡献。NIH的资金对生物医学研究领域的学术生涯也是必不可少的。一些研究人员已经记录了种族和民族在接受NIH资助的可能性方面的差异。然而，对于来自历史上代表性不足的群体的科学家所面临的职业挑战的全面描述，一直受到缺乏与其出版物和拨款相关的科学教职员工数据的阻碍。这项研究将构建一个数据集，通过链接2009-2023年学术分析、国家科学基金会获得博士学位调查、NIH报告、综合高等教育数据系统(IPEDS)和网络搜索的200多万名教师的数据，确定个别科学家的种族、性别、学术领域、学术等级、出版物、引文和拨款。这些数据将被用来检查研究密集型大学科学家职业道路上的种族/民族差异。这项研究将有五个具体目标。这项研究的目标1将创建人口统计学学术职业(DAC)数据集，该数据集将存储在国家科学与工程统计中心(NCSES)的数据飞地中，以便研究界能够利用这些丰富的数据来了解学术职业以及其他科学研究问题。Aim 2将记录全美427所研究密集型大学和医学院的教职员工的种族/民族分布情况，以及他们对有色人种学生的影响。尽管许多研究人员对医学院的师资队伍进行了研究，并报告了汇总的统计数据，但对培养未来科学家的本科生的研究机构的师资队伍的人口结构关注较少。这一目标将检验拥有更多色彩学院的机构是否会培养出更多色彩本科生和研究生。目标3将审查在晋升副教授和正教授方面的种族/族裔差异，以及性别和种族/族裔的潜在双重约束。研究资金被认为是促进生物医学科学学术发展的关键。这项研究将考察种族/民族NIH资金缺口是否会导致类似的学术晋升缺口。目标4将检查研究独立和资金长寿年龄的种族/民族差异。尽管研究人员对这些主题进行了总体或针对妇女的研究，但还没有按种族/族裔进行同样的研究。在目标1中开发的纵向数据是此类研究的理想选择。Aim 5将审查NIH R01续签(类型2)奖项中的性别和种族/民族差异。研究人员已经证明，女性和有色人种不太可能获得类型2和续签。该项目将确定出版物、引文、以前的资助和机构关联是否解释了这些差异。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的智力优势和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest science funding agency in the world. Discoveries linked to NIH funding have contributed to the health and longevity of the population in the United States. NIH funding is also essential for academic careers in biomedical research fields. Several researchers have documented race and ethnicity differences in the likelihood of receiving NIH funding. However, a full account of the career challenges facing scientists from historically underrepresented groups has been hampered by a lack of access to data on science faculty linked to their publications and grants. This study will construct a dataset that identifies the race, gender, academic field, academic rank, publications, citations and grants of individual scientists by linking data on over 2 million individual faculty from Academic Analytics for the years 2009-2023, the National Science Foundation’s Survey of Earned Doctorates, NIH Reporter, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and web searches. These data will be used to examine race/ethnicity differences in the career paths of scientists at research-intensive universities. This study will have five specific aims. Aim 1 of this study will create the Demographic Academic Careers (DAC) data set that will be housed in a data enclave at National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) so that the research community can make use of this rich data to understand academic careers as well as other Science of Science Research questions. Aim 2 will document the race/ethnicity distribution of faculty at 427 research-intensive universities and medical schools across the United States and their impact on students of color. Although many researchers have examined the demographic makeup faculty of medical schools, and aggregate statistics have been reported, less attention has been given to the demographics of faculty at research institutions that train undergraduates who will become future scientists. This aim will examine whether institutions with more faculty of color produce more undergraduate and graduate students of color. Aim 3 will examine race/ethnicity differences in promotion to associate and full professor as well as the potential double-bind of gender and race/ethnicity. Research funding is considered essential for academic promotion in biomedical sciences. This study will examine whether the race/ethnicity NIH funding gaps contribute to similar academic promotion gaps. Aim 4 will examine race/ethnicity differences in the age of research independence and funding longevity. Although researchers have examined these topics in the aggregate or for women the same has not been done by race/ethnicity. The longitudinal data developed in Aim 1 is ideal for this kind of study. Aim 5 will examine gender and race/ethnicity differences in NIH R01 renewals (Type 2) awards. Researchers have documented that women and faculty of color are less likely to receive Type 2 and renewals. This project will determine whether publications, citations, prior funding, and institutional affiliations explain these differences.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.