Cargando…
A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator
OBJECTIVES: To categorically describe cancer research funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs). DESIGN: Systematic analysis of all open-access data. METHODS: Data about public and philanthropic cancer research funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained fr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5931297/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29712689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018625 |
_version_ | 1783319624403648512 |
---|---|
author | Zhou, Charlie D Head, Michael G Marshall, Dominic C Gilbert, Barnabas J El-Harasis, Majd A Raine, Rosalind O’Connor, Henrietta Atun, Rifat Maruthappu, Mahiben |
author_facet | Zhou, Charlie D Head, Michael G Marshall, Dominic C Gilbert, Barnabas J El-Harasis, Majd A Raine, Rosalind O’Connor, Henrietta Atun, Rifat Maruthappu, Mahiben |
author_sort | Zhou, Charlie D |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To categorically describe cancer research funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs). DESIGN: Systematic analysis of all open-access data. METHODS: Data about public and philanthropic cancer research funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value. RESULTS: Of the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82 billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512 million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P<0.001). These apparent absolute and relative differences largely persisted regardless of subanalyses. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate substantial differences in cancer research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean funding awarded and median funding awarded. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5931297 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59312972018-05-04 A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator Zhou, Charlie D Head, Michael G Marshall, Dominic C Gilbert, Barnabas J El-Harasis, Majd A Raine, Rosalind O’Connor, Henrietta Atun, Rifat Maruthappu, Mahiben BMJ Open Health Policy OBJECTIVES: To categorically describe cancer research funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs). DESIGN: Systematic analysis of all open-access data. METHODS: Data about public and philanthropic cancer research funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value. RESULTS: Of the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82 billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512 million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P<0.001). These apparent absolute and relative differences largely persisted regardless of subanalyses. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate substantial differences in cancer research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean funding awarded and median funding awarded. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5931297/ /pubmed/29712689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018625 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) 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/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Health Policy Zhou, Charlie D Head, Michael G Marshall, Dominic C Gilbert, Barnabas J El-Harasis, Majd A Raine, Rosalind O’Connor, Henrietta Atun, Rifat Maruthappu, Mahiben A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator |
title | A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator |
title_full | A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator |
title_fullStr | A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator |
title_full_unstemmed | A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator |
title_short | A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator |
title_sort | systematic analysis of uk cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator |
topic | Health Policy |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5931297/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29712689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018625 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhoucharlied asystematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT headmichaelg asystematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT marshalldominicc asystematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT gilbertbarnabasj asystematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT elharasismajda asystematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT rainerosalind asystematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT oconnorhenrietta asystematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT atunrifat asystematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT maruthappumahiben asystematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT zhoucharlied systematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT headmichaelg systematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT marshalldominicc systematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT gilbertbarnabasj systematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT elharasismajda systematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT rainerosalind systematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT oconnorhenrietta systematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT atunrifat systematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator AT maruthappumahiben systematicanalysisofukcancerresearchfundingbygenderofprimaryinvestigator |