Cargando…

Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010

OBJECTIVES: There has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for research funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the research and development co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Head, Michael G, Fitchett, Joseph R, Cooke, Mary K, Wurie, Fatima B, Atun, Rifat
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3865386/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24327360
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003362
_version_ 1782296032990724096
author Head, Michael G
Fitchett, Joseph R
Cooke, Mary K
Wurie, Fatima B
Atun, Rifat
author_facet Head, Michael G
Fitchett, Joseph R
Cooke, Mary K
Wurie, Fatima B
Atun, Rifat
author_sort Head, Michael G
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: There has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for research funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the research and development continuum. DESIGN: Systematic comparison. METHODS: Data were obtained from several sources for awards from the period 1997 to 2010 and each study assigned to—disease categories; type of science (preclinical, phases I–III trials, product development, implementation research); categories of funding organisation. Fold differences and statistical analysis were used to compare total investment, study numbers, mean grant and median grant between men and women. RESULTS: 6052 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2.274 billion. Of this, men received £1.786 billion (78.5%) and women £488 million (21.5%). The median value of award was greater for men (£179 389; IQR £59 146–£371 977) than women (£125 556; IQR £30 982–£261 834). Awards were greater for male principal investigators (PIs) across all infectious disease systems, excepting neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. The proportion of total funding awarded to women ranged from 14.3% in 1998 to 26.8% in 2009 (mean 21.4%), and was lowest for preclinical research at 18.2% (£285.5 million of £1.573 billion) and highest for operational research at 30.9% (£151.4 million of £489.7 million). CONCLUSIONS: There are consistent differences in funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science. These differences remain broadly unchanged over the 14-year study period.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3865386
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38653862013-12-17 Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010 Head, Michael G Fitchett, Joseph R Cooke, Mary K Wurie, Fatima B Atun, Rifat BMJ Open Infectious Diseases OBJECTIVES: There has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for research funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the research and development continuum. DESIGN: Systematic comparison. METHODS: Data were obtained from several sources for awards from the period 1997 to 2010 and each study assigned to—disease categories; type of science (preclinical, phases I–III trials, product development, implementation research); categories of funding organisation. Fold differences and statistical analysis were used to compare total investment, study numbers, mean grant and median grant between men and women. RESULTS: 6052 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2.274 billion. Of this, men received £1.786 billion (78.5%) and women £488 million (21.5%). The median value of award was greater for men (£179 389; IQR £59 146–£371 977) than women (£125 556; IQR £30 982–£261 834). Awards were greater for male principal investigators (PIs) across all infectious disease systems, excepting neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. The proportion of total funding awarded to women ranged from 14.3% in 1998 to 26.8% in 2009 (mean 21.4%), and was lowest for preclinical research at 18.2% (£285.5 million of £1.573 billion) and highest for operational research at 30.9% (£151.4 million of £489.7 million). CONCLUSIONS: There are consistent differences in funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science. These differences remain broadly unchanged over the 14-year study period. BMJ Publishing Group 2013-12-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3865386/ /pubmed/24327360 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003362 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Infectious Diseases
Head, Michael G
Fitchett, Joseph R
Cooke, Mary K
Wurie, Fatima B
Atun, Rifat
Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010
title Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010
title_full Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010
title_fullStr Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010
title_full_unstemmed Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010
title_short Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010
title_sort differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of uk investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010
topic Infectious Diseases
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3865386/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24327360
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003362
work_keys_str_mv AT headmichaelg differencesinresearchfundingforwomenscientistsasystematiccomparisonofukinvestmentsinglobalinfectiousdiseaseresearchduring19972010
AT fitchettjosephr differencesinresearchfundingforwomenscientistsasystematiccomparisonofukinvestmentsinglobalinfectiousdiseaseresearchduring19972010
AT cookemaryk differencesinresearchfundingforwomenscientistsasystematiccomparisonofukinvestmentsinglobalinfectiousdiseaseresearchduring19972010
AT wuriefatimab differencesinresearchfundingforwomenscientistsasystematiccomparisonofukinvestmentsinglobalinfectiousdiseaseresearchduring19972010
AT atunrifat differencesinresearchfundingforwomenscientistsasystematiccomparisonofukinvestmentsinglobalinfectiousdiseaseresearchduring19972010