LJWorld.com weblogs Heard on the Hill
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.
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Club Magic manager says he's trying to turn around a new business at an old, and troubled, location May 25, 2013 · 10 comments
- Blog: Two new senior housing projects getting under way in Lawrence May 24, 2013 · 4 comments
- Opinion: Discrimination more than just poor service May 25, 2013 · 6 comments
- Former area Boy Scouts react to decision allowing gay scouts May 24, 2013 · 21 comments
- Police department's case for a new facility not likely to show on next year's budget, officials say May 25, 2013 · 5 comments
- Simons' Saturday Column: KU’s legislative lobbying effort lacks clout, continuity May 25, 2013 · 9 comments
- Proposed cuts to corrections system could endanger Kansans, secretary says May 24, 2013 · 15 comments
- 59 minors, several local businesses, cited for alcohol violations in state regulator's patrols in May May 23, 2013 · 33 comments
- Opinion: Why gay role models matter May 23, 2013 · 45 comments
- Senate Republicans approve sales tax increase, cuts in income tax rates, lower food sales tax May 23, 2013 · 60 comments
- Club Magic manager says he's trying to turn around a new business at an old, and troubled, location May 25, 2013
- Simons' Saturday Column: KU’s legislative lobbying effort lacks clout, continuity May 25, 2013
- Graduation and 'stepping up' an all-school event at Bishop Seabury May 24, 2013
- Bill Self: Security tricky subject May 25, 2013
- Wool ballcaps go out with a whimper as baseball flips its lid April 15, 2007
- Former Lawrence resident Sri Srinivasan confirmed for prestigious D.C. Court of Appeals May 23, 2013
- Wichita might fine residents over use of water May 24, 2013
- Kansas baseball moves to 2-0 in Big 12 tournament May 25, 2013
- Doctor finds 'A Healthier Wei' to treat kids May 14, 2013
- Thread of pain ran through Jackson’s career June 28, 2009




Comments
Cant_have_it_both_ways 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Looks like a good lesson in keeping your nose in your own business. Another black eye for KU.
merickson 3 months, 3 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 3 months, 3 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.