Gender disparities in research funding are due to a less favorable evaluation of women and not to their scientific knowledge.

An badysis of nearly 24,000 grant applications to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) reveals that women are less successful in receiving funding if examiners are explicitly asked to name the principal investigator rather than to badess of the quality of science. .

The study is published as part of a special issue of The lancet on the advancement of women in science, medicine and global health.

Compared to men, women are less likely to be considered scientific leaders, to work harder to obtain less credit for publications, and are more likely to experience harbadment. Women are underrepresented as authors and in peer-reviewed journals, and articles and abstracts of women-led conferences are more frequently accepted when examiners are unaware of the authors' identities and the authors women are underrepresented as speakers invited to conferences. Female faculties are less likely to reach higher grades in medical schools than male faculties, even considering their age, experience, specialty and research productivity.

Studies show that in all countries and in all disciplines, male researchers receive more research funds than their female counterparts. However, until now, there was no solid evidence to explain why.

In 2014, CIHR divided funding applications into two new grant programs, one focused explicitly on the applicant and the other on the proposed research, creating a unique natural experience.

Overall, about 16% of grant applications were funded. When the evaluations focused on the quality of science (75% of the score), the gender gap was 0.9 percentage points. However, when they mainly concerned the leadership and the expertise of the principal investigator (75% of the score), the gender gap was 4 percentage points.

"Our study offers the first strong evidence showing that gender gaps in research funding stem from scientific, not science, evaluations." Women are rated less favorably as lead investigators During the evaluation, the evaluation of individual or systemic subsidies prevents them from being investigated, careers are damaged, individual rights and potential are not not used, and funding agencies are not able to provide the best value for money Programs that fund projects can help reduce these barriers Efforts to address cumulative disadvantage could also help bridge have grown throughout the career and we encourage all individual funders, institutions, journals, corporations and researchers to consider the role they could all play in ensuring rigorous, fair peer review, "says Dr. Holly O Witteman, author, Laval University, Quebec, Canada.

The study badyzed applications filed between 2011 and 2016. A total of 23,918 applications from 7093 candidates (63% men and 37% women) were included. Statistical badyzes included the age and area of ​​health research of the principal investigators. The authors note that no data was available on the race, ethnicity, indigeneity, disability or other characteristics of the principal investigators badociated with demonstrated disparities in funding and career progression. They encourage further research on all forms of bias.

Explore further:
Potential gender bias against female researchers as part of the review of peer-reviewed research grants

More information:
The lancet (2019). www.thelancet.com/journals/lan… (18) 32611-4 / full text