Table Of Content

The Wellcome Trust helping medical science to flourish PRISM TheWellcomeTrust is an independentcharityand the largest non- UNIT FOR POLICY RESEARCH governmentfunderofbiomedical research in the UK.Within theTrust, IN SCIENCEAND MEDICINE the Unitfor Policy Research in Science and Medicine (PRISM) is responsiblefor providing research and adviceto assistsenior management in making decisions on issues ofpolicy by: • evaluating research outcomes; • auditingscientific activity in different research fields and countries; • applying novel approaches to strategic planningand prioritysetting. Aswell as carryingoutpolicy research,PRISM offerstwo unique services to fundingorganizations,policy makers,governmentdepartments, universities and industrialists: • SPIN (Science Policy Information News) -aweekly round-up ofnews in biomedical science policy. • ROD (Research Outputs Database) -developed by PRISM to track research outputs in biomedical sciences.Forthe firsttime,research- fundingagencies are able to identifyand acquire details ofresearch papers attributableto them. Women and Peer Review An audit of the Wellcome Trust's decision-making on grants LIBRARY •Gi«ja«ml Coflactkms 4% PRISM Report No. 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The study was carried out by Dr Jonathan Grant and Lawrence Low under the direction of Dr Joe Anderson and Dr Suzanne King. MagdalenaVinterand RobertCottrell assistedwith datacollection. Dr GrantLewison providedadditionaladviceonthebibliometricanalyses. We are grateful to all the individuals and organizations who assisted withthestudy. 2 Womenand PeerReview:anauditofthewellcometrust'sdecision-makingongrants CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 EXECUTIVESUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION 1 5 2 THEOUTCOMEOFWELLCOMETRUSTGRANTAPPLICATIONS 6 2.1 Projectgrants, 1996 6 2.2 Programmegrants, 1994-1996 8 2.3 SeniorResearch Fellowships in Basic Biomedical Science, 1994/95-1996/97 10 3 DISCUSSION 13 3.1 Ageandsexcharacteristicsofthebiomedicalcommunity 13 3.2 Conclusionandpolicyimplications 16 REFERENCES 17 ANNEXES 1 Bibliometricanalysis: Methods 18 2 Bibliometricanalysis: Results 19 Women and Peer Review: an auditofthewellcometrust's decision-making on Grants 3 A recent study ofpeer-review scores for postdoctoral fellowships at the Swedish MRC demonstrated that women had to be 2.5 times more productivethantheirmalecolleagues toget thesamepeer-reviewrating forscientificcompetence. We have audited the Wellcome Trusts decision-making on grants and demonstrated that there is no evidence of sex discrimination in the awarding of project grants, programme grants or Senior Research Fellowships in BasicBiomedicalScience (SBBF): • Awardratesareaboutthesameformenandwomen; • Publicationrecordsofsuccessfulapplicantsarealsosimilar. There is evidence that women do not apply to the Trust for project or programme grants in the proportions thatwould be expected from the numberoffemaleacademicsworkinginUKuniversities. This isnotthe caseforSBBF. It is recommended that funding bodies should work together to identifythereasonswhywomendo notapplyforgrants in thenumbers expected. 4 Womenand Peer Review:anauditofthewellcometrust'sdecision-makingongrants INTRODUCTION Overthe pastfiveyears the issue ofwomen in 1 Areapplicationsfrom women morelikelyto science has captured the policy agenda. failthanfrom men? Concern about the failure of women to Byexaminingsuccessfulandfailedgrant advanceto moreseniorgrades in academialed applications,weinvestigatedwhether to the establishment of a Committee on applicationstotheTrustfromwomenare Women in Science and Engineering in 1993 more, orless, likelytofail than which, in its report, The Rising Tide, made a applicationsfrommen. numberofrecommendationsaimedatincreas- ing the number ofwomen in science.1 This 2 Do womenneedtohaveabetterpublication was the impetus for an attitudes survey, pub- recordthan mentowingrants? lished bytheWellcomeTrust's Unit for Policy Wetestedthehypothesisthatwomen Research in Science and Medicine (PRISM), needtohaveamoreimpressivetrack whichhighlightedfactorsthatmaybedissuad- recordthanmentobeawardedgrantsby ing women from entering a scientific career.2 lookingatthepublicationrecordsof More recently, a high-profile analysis of the womenwhoseapplicationsaresuccessful, peer-review system of the Swedish Medical andcomparingthemwithmen. Research Council (MRC) demonstrated that women suffer discrimination because oftheir To answer these questions we examined sex.Theauthorsprovedthatfemaleapplicants applications to the Trust for project grants, forSwedishMRCpostdoctoralfellowshipshad programme grants and Senior Research to be 2.5 times more productive than their Fellowships in Basic Biomedical Science male colleagues to get the same peer-review (SBBF). These schemes were chosen as they ratingforscientificcompetence.3 represent thebroadrange ofsupport provided by the Trust, and are aimed at scientists at Given the results of the Swedish study, the differentstagesintheircareers. objective ofthe current report is to examine whetherthereisinadvertentsexdiscrimination intheTrustsgrant-givingpracticesbyfocusing ontwoquestions: Womenand PeerReview:anauditofthewellcometrust'sdecision-makingongrants 5 THE OUTCOME OF WELLCOME TRUST GRANT APPLICATIONS 2.1 PROJECTGRANTS, 1996 1996werefromwomen,comparedto 18.9per Project grants account for 33 per cent ofall cent ofawarded grants and 19.5 per cent of awards and 27 per cent ofexpenditure bythe failed grants. In otherwords, there is no evid- Trust in 1995/96.a Grants are normallymade ence that applications for project grants from toholdersofestablishedpostsinauniversityor women are more, or less, likely to fail than institution (not to staffof, or fellows funded thosefrommen. by, Research Councils) and typically provide supportforup to threeyears.4 The age andsexdistributions ofproject grant applicants are graphically represented in the All project grant applications that were population pyramid' in Figure 1. The female received bytheTrust in 1996were examined. population is on the left-hand side and the aTexhceluedxepsenadi£t6u0rmefgirgaunrteforthe Dataon thesex,bage andpast threeacademic malepopulationontheright,whilsttheyoung SangerCentre,agenome addresses ofsuccessful and unsuccessful app- areatthebottomandtheoldareatthetop.5 It r1e9s9e2arbcyhtcheenWtreellsectomupeiTnrust lications were recorded. Table 1 describes the is striking from Figure 1 that four times as andtheMedicalResearch Council. outcomes ofthe 1387 applications on which many men apply, and are awarded, project informationwas collated.0The overall success grants as women. That is, for every 100 male bThesexofapplicantswas rate is 27.5 per cent which is similar for applicants thereareonly24 femaleapplicants. dneatmeer.mWinheedrferroemcothredierrsfirwsetre women (26.9 per cent) and men (27.5 per Thefigurealso shows that, whilstthesexratio unfamiliarwiththename,it wasnotedandlookedupon cent).An alternativewayoflookingatTable 1 (thenumberofmen dividedbythenumberof theInternetsite, isto compare theproportion offemaleapplic- women) broadlyincreaseswithage, thesuccess w'Uwnwi.stehx'ebnaabmyensetw.ecroem.shown ants with the proportion ofwomen who suc- rate for men and women is roughly the same totheTruststaff,andwere ceeded and failed in their applications. For for all but the youngest and two oldest age acplapslsiicfainetd'sonsleyxiwfathseknown. example, 19.3 per cent of applications (i.e. bands (where small numbers make the results Theremainingnameswere 268/1387 in Table 1) for project grants in inconclusive). classifiedas'unsexed'. cItshouldbenotedthatsome Table1 Theoutcomeofprojectgrantapplications projectgrantapplications weremissingassomefiles Men Women Unsexed Total wouldhavebeenonloan fromtheregistryand omissionsmayhavebeen Numberofapplications 1097 268 22 1387 madebytherecorders.As Numberofsuccessful applications 302 72 7 381 longastherewasnota systematicsexbiasinthe Success rate (%) 27.5 26.9 31.8 27.5 missinggrantapplications thenthefollowingresultswill notbecompromised. 6 Womenand PeerReview:anauditofthewellcometrust'sdecision-makingongrants Figure 1: Numbersofrejectedandawarded projectgrantapplicationsbyageandsex To examine whether women need to have a journalssuchasNatureandScience,andothers better publication record than men to win will submit papers to less well-known titles. grants, the scientific papers authored by the The second graph (Figure 2b) illustrates the applicants were collated from bibliographic expected number ofcitations a paper would databases. Detailed methods and results of receive in the fiveyears following publication, these analyses are presented in the Annexes onthebasis ofthejournal inwhich thepapers (pp. 18—20).Thepublication recordsofasub- were published. This indicator demonstrates sampleof25 maleand25 femaleprojectgrant thatwomenpublish injournalsofamarginally applicants are summarized in Figure 2 and higherimpactthanmen,althoughthisresultis illustrate that men and women have nearly notstatisticallysignificant (i.e.p>0.05). The identical publication patterns. For example, final indicatorpresented in Figure2c classifies the first graph (Figure 2a) shows that the the research type ofthe journal in which the average number of papers published a year grant applicants' papers appear. This is on a by male and female project grant applicants scaleof1 forclinical observation to4 forbasic to the Trust is very similar (an average of2.5 research, as indicated by the journal inwhich papersayear). thepapersarepublished. Consequently, Figure 2c shows that although women work in 1Throughoutthisreportthe However, in as much as publishing a paper slightly more clinical fields than men, both zd-itfefsetreinscuessebdettoweteesntthe is an indication ofsuccess, some researchers groupsaredoingverybasicwork. bibliometricindices.6 will present their findings in higher-impact WomenandPeerReview:anauditofthewellcometrust'sdecision-makingongrants 7 fHEOUTCOMEOFWELLCOMETRUSTGRANTAPPLICATIONS Figure2: Publication patternsforasampleofsuccessful projectgrantapplications Clinical Basic c: Researchtype observation research 2.2 PROGRAMMEGRANTS, priorto invitation tosubmitafullformalgrant 1994-1996 application,whichisthensubjecttothenormal competitiveevaluationandpeerreview. Itisthe Programmegrants aresimilarto projectgrants outcomesofformalapplicationsforprogramme butareusuallyforlargeramountsofmoneyand grantsacceptedbetween 1994 and 1996which are awarded for typically over five years in the we have examined in this report.As aresultof first instance.4 In 1995/96, 15 per cent ofthe the preliminary screening process the overall Trust'sresearchexpenditurewasonprogramme success rate was quite high (50.4 per cent) grants, although theyonlymade up 3 percent although, as shown in Table 2, women were ofthe awards by number that academic year. more successful than men (62.2 per cent for women versus 47.8 per cent for men). Applicationsforprogrammegrantsgo through Nevertheless, itisalso evidentthatfivetimesas a number ofsteps before an award is made. In manymenapplied to theTrustforprogramme all cases there isapreliminaryapplicationstage grantsthanwomen. 8 Womenand PeerReview:anauditofthewellcometrust'sdecision-makingongrants