Abstract
A previous report found an association of topic choice with race-based funding disparities among R01 applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) between 2011-2015. The report noted that applications submitted by African American or Black (“AAB”) Principal Investigators (“PIs”) skewed toward a small number of topics that were less likely to be funded (or “awarded”). It was suggested that the lower award rates may be related to biases of peer reviewers against topics preferred by AAB PIs. However, the previous report did not account for differential funding ecologies among NIH Institutes and Centers (“ICs”). In a re-analysis, I find that 10% of 148 algorithmically-designated topics account for 50% of applications submitted by AAB PIs. These applications on “AAB Preferred” topics are indeed funded at lower rates than applications on other topics, but their peer review outcomes are similar. The lower rate of funding for applications focused on AAB Preferred topics is likely primarily due to their assignment to ICs with lower award rates. In probit regression analyses, I find that topic choice does partially explain race-based funding disparities, but IC-specific award rates explain the disparities to an even greater degree.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
