LJWorld.com weblogs Heard on the Hill
Posted
by Matt Erickson
February 1, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.
New study challenges KU economist's findings on racial disparity in NIH funding
Advertisement
Back in December we told you about how the National Institutes of Health had announced some new diversity-related measures because of a study led by KU economist Donna Ginther that showed black scientists were less likely than their white counterparts to receive grant funding from the NIH.
Now the journal Science, which published Ginther's original article, reports that a study by some other researchers questions some of its conclusions.
This new study shows the "evidence for racial bias is scant" at the NIH, its author told Science, and black and white researchers who've done about the same amount of work tend to receive about the same amount of funding.
This hardly throws Ginther's work out the window, though, as her study did not say the NIH was racially biased. It just said black researchers were receiving fewer grants. That's a different statement entirely.
Her original article wasn't able to pin down a reason for that. But when I talked to her in December, she told me some further work was beginning to suggest there's a lack of racial diversity all the way through the pipeline that produces medical researchers: in graduate-school programs, university faculties and academic journals.
She said it's possible the grant approval process is biased, perhaps because the people reviewing grants are more likely to award them to people they know. But of the new measures announced by the NIH, Ginther was focusing more on mentoring programs for college students and less experienced researchers, which could make the system more diverse from the ground up.
Because of that, Ginther told Science that this new study really just complements her research. She did quibble with some of the researchers' methods, though.
Don't forget to get those KU news tips in to merickson@ljworld.com.
- Armed employees could invalidate school districts’ insurance policies June 20, 2013 · 11 comments
- Letter: Energy folly June 15, 2013 · 45 comments
- Consultants raise concerns about proposed LMH wellness center at city's new recreation center June 19, 2013 · 14 comments
- On the street: What is your favorite Shakespearean play? June 19, 2013 · 13 comments
- Letter: Yoder votes June 20, 2013 · 5 comments
- Illinois man sentenced to 30 months in prison in case where children were bound and blindfolded in parking lot June 19, 2013 · 11 comments
- County takes no action on controversial rock quarry June 19, 2013 · 2 comments
- City approves Menards store next to Home Depot at 31st and Iowa streets June 18, 2013 · 90 comments
- Editorial: Core standards June 17, 2013 · 2 comments
- Kobach considering filing charges against protesters who came to his home June 17, 2013 · 134 comments
- Daytripper: We're in the money May 20, 2013
- Professional dancer to flutter through Kansas milkweed to help save butterflies June 19, 2013
- Day 2: From the Emerald Triangle to the Sunflower State May 27, 2013
- Andrew Wiggins scores seven points in Bill Self campers game June 19, 2013
- Consultants raise concerns about proposed LMH wellness center at city's new recreation center June 19, 2013
- Police investigate string of almost 20 auto burglaries in west Lawrence June 18, 2013
- Shooting reported Tuesday night during road-rage incident; police looking for driver June 19, 2013
- KU football lands two oral commitments June 19, 2013
- County takes no action on controversial rock quarry June 19, 2013
- Editor to receive 2014 William Allen White Foundation honor at KU June 18, 2013
Comments
Cant_have_it_both_ways 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Looks like a good lesson in keeping your nose in your own business. Another black eye for KU.
merickson 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Well, you can't really say that Ginther was sticking her nose in someone else's business: the NIH commissioned her to lead the study. She didn't just do it on her own.
See our story from December:
Thanks,
Matt
gudpoynt 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Discrediting good science without any evidence is just as unscrupulous as presenting bad science as good.
Why do you bother claiming her report is bad science when it's pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.