Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
|
Journal of Science Policy & Governance | Volume 18, Issue 01 | March 24, 2021
|
White Paper: Towards Inclusive Funding Practices for Early Career Researchers
Charlotte M. de Winde (1,2), Sarvenaz Sarabipour (3), Hugo Carignano (4) , Sejal Davla (5) , David Eccles (6), Sarah J. Hainer (7), Mansour Haidar (8) , Vinodh Ilangovan (9), Nafisa M. Jadavji (10,11), Paraskevi Kritsiligkou (12) , Tai-Ying Lee (13), H. Freyja Ólafsdóttir (14)
Corresponding author: c.m.dewinde@amsterdamumc.nl |
Keywords: funding; early career researcher; fellowship; peer-review; STEMM
Abstract: Securing research funding is a challenge faced by most scientists in academic institutions worldwide. Funding success rates for all career stages are low, but the burden falls most heavily on early career researchers (ECRs). These are young investigators in training and new principal investigators who have a shorter track record. ECRs are dependent on funding to establish their academic careers. The low number of career development awards and the lack of sustained research funding result in the loss of ECR talent in academia. Several steps in the current funding process, from grant conditions to review, play significant roles in the distribution of funds. Furthermore, there is an imbalance where certain research disciplines and labs of influential researchers receive more funding. As a group of ECRs with global representation, we examined funding practices, barriers, and facilitators to the current funding systems. We also identified alternatives to the most common funding distribution practices, such as diversifying risk or awarding grants on a partly random basis. Here, we detail recommendations for funding agencies and grant reviewers to improve ECR funding prospects worldwide and promote a fairer and more inclusive funding landscape for ECRs.
-Read the full article through download.- |
References
- “A Cross-Funder Review of Early-Career Clinical Academics: Enablers and Barriers to Progression.” 2015. A Review led by the Medical Research Council in collaboration with the Academy of Medical Sciences, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research and Wellcome Trust. https://mrc.ukri.org/documents/pdf/review-of-early-career-clinical-academics/.
- “AAMRI’s Budget Priority: Secure the Future of Australia’s next Generation of Talent.” 2020. Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes. August 3, 2020. https://aamri.org.au/news-events/aamris-budget-priority-secure-the-future-of-australias-next-generation-of-talent/.
- Abdill, Richard J., and Ran Blekhman. 2019. “Tracking the Popularity and Outcomes of All BioRxiv Preprints.” ELife 8: e45133. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45133.001.
- Acton, Sophie E., Andrew J.D. Bell, Christopher P. Toseland, and Alison Twelvetrees. 2019. “Research Culture: A Survey of New PIs in the UK.” ELife 8: e46827. http://www.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46827.
- Ahmad, Tariq, and Richard C. Becker. 2014. “The Unmet Need for Philanthropic Funding of Early Career Cardiovascular Investigators.” Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 37: 527–31. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s11239-013-1016-7.
- “ASAPBio-Funder Policies.” November 5, 2018. https://asapbio.org/funder-policies.
- “BBSRC Research Grants Guide.” February 2020. https://bbsrc.ukri.org/documents/grants-guide/.
- Besselaar, Peter van den, and Ulf Sandström. 2015. “Early Career Grants, Performance, and Careers: A Study on Predictive Validity of Grant Decisions.” Journal of Informetrics 9 (4): 826–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.011.
- Bezuidenhout, Louise, Ola Karrar, Javier Lezaun, and Andy Nobes. 2019. “Economic Sanctions and Academia: Overlooked Impact and Long-Term Consequences.” PLOS ONE 14 (11): e0225277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225277.
- Bischler, Ulrike, Pavel Dutow and Friederike Hepp. 2012. “Experiment! – In Search of Bold Research Ideas.” VolkswagenStiftung. November 2012. https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/en/funding/our-funding-portfolio-at-a-glance/experiment.
- Bloch, Carter, Ebbe Krogh Graversen, and Heidi Skovgaard Pedersen. 2014. “Competitive Research Grants and Their Impact on Career Performance.” Minerva 52 (January): 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9247-0.
- Bol, Thijs, Mathijs de Vaan and Arnout van de Rijt. 2018. “The Matthew Effect in Science Funding.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (19): 4887–90. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719557115.
- Brezis, Elise S. 2007. “Focal Randomisation: An Optimal Mechanism for the Evaluation of R&D Projects.” Science and Public Policy 34 (10): 691–98. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207X265394.
- Callier, Viviane, and Jessica Polka. 2015. “Fellowships Are the Future.” Nature 528 (December): 155–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7580-155a.
- Colwell, Rita. 2020. “Women Scientists Have the Evidence About Sexism.” The Atlantic, August 30, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/women-scientists-have-evidence-about-sexism-science/615823/
- Christian, Katherine, Carolyn Johnstone, Jo-ann Larkins, Wendy Wright, Michael R. Doran. 2021. “Research Culture: A survey of early-career researchers in Australia.” ELife 10: e60613. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60613
- Crossley, Merlin. 2015. “The Ins and Outs of Research Grant Funding Committees.” The Conversation. October 29, 2015. http://theconversation.com/the-ins-and-outs-of-research-grant-funding-committees-49900.
- Crow, James Mitchell. 2020. “What to Do When Your Grant Is Rejected.” Nature 578 (7795): 477–79. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00455-0.
- Daniels, Ronald J. 2015. “A Generation at Risk: Young Investigators and the Future of the Biomedical Workforce.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (2): 313–18. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418761112.
- Danthi, Narasimhan, Colin O. Wu, and Michael Lauer Peibei Shi. 2014. “Percentile Ranking and Citation Impact of a Large Cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–Funded Cardiovascular R01 Grants.” Circulation Research 114 (January): 600–606. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.302656.
- Dbouk, Hasehm. 2014. “Show Me the Money—Funding Opportunities for International Graduate Students and Postdocs.” American Society for Cell Biology (blog). January 31, 2014. https://www.ascb.org/careers/show-me-the-money-funding-opportunities-for-international-graduate-students-and-postdocs/.
- Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Anne E. Lincoln. 2011. “Scientists Want More Children.” PLOS ONE 6 (8): e22590. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022590.
- Epifanio, Mariaelisa, and Vera E. Troeger. 2019. “Bargaining over Maternity Pay: Evidence from UK Universities.” Journal of Public Policy, May. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X19000059.
- Faupel-Badger, Jessica M., David E. Nelson and Grant Izmirlian. 2017. “Career Satisfaction and Perceived Salary Competitiveness among Individuals Who Completed Postdoctoral Research Training in Cancer Prevention.” PLOS ONE 12 (1): e0169859. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169859.
- Fernandes, Jason D., Sarvenaz Sarabipour, Christopher T. Smith, Natalie M. Niemi, Nafisa M. Jadavji, Ariangela J. Kozik, Alex S. Holehouse, et al. 2020. “A Survey-Based Analysis of the Academic Job Market.” ELife 9: e54097. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54097.
- Ferric C Fang, Anthony Bowen and Arturo Casadevall. 2016. “Research: NIH Peer Review Percentile Scores Are Poorly Predictive of Grant Productivity.” ELife 5: e13323. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13323.001.
- Ferric C. Fang, Arturo Casadevall. 2016. “Research Funding: The Case for a Modified Lottery.” MBio 7 (2): e00422-16. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00422-16.
- Franzoni, Chiara, Giuseppe Scellato, and Paula Stephan. 2012. “Foreign-Born Scientists: Mobility Patterns for 16 Countries.” Nature Biotechnology 30 (12). https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.2449.pdf?origin=ppub.
- Fraser, Nicholas, Fakhri Momeni, Philip Mayr, and Isabella Peters. 2020. “The Relationship between BioRxiv Preprints, Citations and Altmetrics.” Quantitative Science Studies 1 (2): 618–38. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00043.
- Fu, Darwin Y., Jacob J Hughey. 2019. “Meta-Research: Releasing a Preprint Is Associated with More Attention and Citations for the Peer-Reviewed Article.” ELife 8: e52646. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52646.
- Gewin, Virginia. 2019. “What Scientists Should Know about Visa Hurdles” 569: 297–99. http://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01428-8.
- Gillies, Donald. 2014. “Selecting Applications for Funding: Why Random Choice Is Better than Peer Review.” RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.13130/2282-5398/3834.
- “Give Chance a Chance.” 2012. VolkswagenStiftung. https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/en/news-press/funding-stories/give-chance-a-chance-%E2%80%93-a-lottery-decides-which-daring-research-ideas-receive-funding.
- “Global State of Peer Review.” 2018. Publons. https://publons.com/static/Publons-Global-State-Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdf.
- Gross, Kevin, and Carl T. Bergstrom. 2019. “Contest Models Highlight Inherent Inefficiencies of Scientific Funding Competitions.” PLoS Biology 17 (1): e3000065. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000065.
- Guest Author. 2015. “Science Doesn’t Only Need Sprinters.” Medical Research Council. March 18, 2015. https://mrc.ukri.org/news/blog/science-doesnt-only-need-sprinters/?redirected-from-wordpress.
- Guglielmi, Giorgia. 2018. “Gender Bias Goes Away When Grant Reviewers Focus on the Science.” Nature 554: 14–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-01212-0.
- Hainer, Sarah, Charlotte M. de Winde, Babak Momeni, Nick Leigh, and Ashley Albright. 2020. “Guidelines Toward Inclusive Practices in Academics by ELife Community Ambassadors.” Open Science Framework. https://osf.io/muk7v/.
- Hatch, Anna, and Stephen Curry. 2020. “Research Culture: Changing How We Evaluate Research Is Difficult, but Not Impossible.” ELife 9: e58654. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58654.
- Hatch, Anna, Veronique Kiermer, Erika Shugart Bernd Pulverer, and Stephen Curry. 2019. “Research Assessment: Reducing Bias in the Evaluation of Researchers.” ELife. https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/1fd1018c/research-assessment-reducing-bias-in-the-evaluation-of-researchers.
- Hoppe, Travis A., Aviva Litovitz, Kristine A. Willis, Rebecca A. Meseroll, Matthew J. Perkins, Ian B. Hutchins, Alison F. Davis, et al. 2019. “Topic Choice Contributes to the Lower Rate of NIH Awards to African-American/Black Scientists.” Science Advances 5 (10): eaaw7238. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw7238.
- “Human Frontier Science Program-Use of Preprint Servers.” 2017. https://www.hfsp.org/Use-of-Preprint-Servers.
- “Is Publishing in the Chemical Sciences Gender Biased?” 2020. Royal Society of Chemistry. https://www.rsc.org/globalassets/04-campaigning-outreach/campaigning/gen der-bias/gender-bias-report-final.pdf.
- Kaplan, Karen. 2012. “Funding: Got to Get a Grant.” Nature 482 (7385): 429–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7385-429a.
- Karikó, Katalin, Michael Buckstein, Houping Ni, and Drew Weissman. 2005. “Suppression of RNA Recognition by Toll-like Receptors: The Impact of Nucleoside Modification and the Evolutionary Origin of RNA.” Immunity 23 (2): 165–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2005.06.008.
- Klaus, Bernd, and David del Álamo. 2018. “Talent Identification at the Limits of Peer Review: An Analysis of the EMBO Postdoctoral Fellowships Selection Process.” BioRxiv, December. https://doi.org/10.1101/481655.
- Kuehn, Bridget M. 2017. “Peer Review: Rooting out Bias.” ELife 6: e32014. http://www.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32014.
- Langin, Katie. 2019. “Scientists’ Grant Writing Styles Vary by Gender. That Can Lead to Bias.” Science, May. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.aax9105.
- Laudel, Grit. 2006a. “The ‘Quality Myth’: Promoting and Hindering Conditions for Acquiring Research Funds.” Higher Education 52: 375–403. https://doi.org/0.1007/s10734-004-6414-5.
- Laudel, Grit. 2006b. “The Art of Getting Funded: How Scientists Adapt to Their Funding Conditions.” Science and Public Policy 33 (7): 489–504. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778777.
- Laudel, Grit, and Gläser, Jochen. 2014. “Beyond Breakthrough Research: Epistemic Properties of Research and Their Consequences for Research Funding.” Research Policy 43 (September): 1204–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.006.
- Malloy, John. 2020. “Stop Making Graduate Students Pay up Front for Conferences.” Nature, Career Column. http://www.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00421-w.
- Mason, Mary Ann, Nicholas H. Wolfinger, and Marc Goulden. 2014. “Reviewed Work: Do Babies Matter? Gender and Family in the Ivory Tower.” American Journal of Sociology 120 (3): 988–90. http://www.doi.org/10.1086/678475.
- McInroy, Gordon R., Catherine A. Lichten, Becky Ioppolo, Sarah Parks, and Susan Guthrie. 2018. “International Movement and Science: A Survey of Researchers by the Together Science Can Campaign.” The Wellcome Trust — Together Science Can-RAND Corporation, 74. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR2690.
- Mojica, Francisco J.M., and César Díez-Villaseñor. 2010. “The On-off Switch of CRISPR Immunity against Phages in Escherichia Coli.” Molecular Microbiology 77 (6): 1341–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07326.x.
- National Institutes of Health. 2012b. “Postdoctoral Researchers—Facts, Trends, and Gaps.” NIH Extramural Nexus (blog). June 29, 2012. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/06/29/postdoctoral-researchers-facts-trends-and-gaps/.
- Newey, Sarah. 2020. “‘Redemption’: How a Scientist’s Unwavering Belief in MRNA Gave the World a Covid-19 Vaccine.” The Telegraph. December 2, 2020. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/redemption-one-scientists-unwavering-belief-mrna-gave-world/.
- “NIH Grants & Funding: Early Stage Investigator Policies.” 2020. https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/index.htm.
- Ogden, Lesley Evans. 2019. “Women Who Take Extended Maternity Leave Face a Tougher Return to Work.” University Affairs (blog). November 2019. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/women-who-take-extended-maternity-leave-face-a-tougher-return-to-work/.
- Pickett, Christopher L. 2019. “The Increasing Importance of Fellowships and Career Development Awards in the Careers of Early-Stage Biomedical Academic Researchers.” PLOS ONE 14 (10): e0223876. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223876.
- Pier, Elizabeth L., Markus Brauer, Amarette Filut, Anna Kaatz, Joshua Racklaw, Mitchell J Nathan, Cecilia E. Ford, and Molly Carnes. 2018. “Low Agreement among Reviewers Evaluating the Same NIH Grant Applications.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (12): 2952–57. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714379115.
- Pina, David G., Ivan Buljan, Darko Hren, and Ana Marušić. 2021. “Meta-Research: A Retrospective Analysis of the Peer Review of More than 75,000 Marie Curie Proposals between 2007 and 2018.” ELife 10: e59338. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59338.
- Polka, Jessica K., Kristin A. Krukenberg and Gary S. McDowell. 2017. “A Call for Transparency in Tracking Student and Postdoc Career Outcomes.” Molecular Biology of the Cell 26 (8): 1413–15. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E14-10-1432.
- Powell, Kendall. 2016. “Young, Talented and Fed-up: Scientists Tell Their Stories.” Nature, New Feature, 538: 446–49. http://www.doi.org/10.1038/538446a.
- “Publons Grant In Review Focus.” 2019. https://publons.com/static/Grant-Review-in-Focus-web.pdf.
- Payne, David. 2018. “Postdoctoral Training in Sweden: Too Short to Grow.” Nature, January 31, 2018. http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2018/01/31/postdoctoral-training-in-sweden-too-short-to-grow/.
- “Research Assessment Practices.” 2020. Vienna, Austria: Science Europe and Technopolis Group. https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-priorities/research-assessment/research-assessment-processes.
- “Research Funding: The Problem with Priorities.” 2003. Nature Materials 2 (639). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat992.
- Rockey, Sally. 2012a. “Age Distribution of NIH Principal Investigators and Medical School Faculty.” National Institutes of Health Extramural Nexus (blog). February 13, 2012. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/13/age-distribution-of-nih-principal-investigators-and-medical-school-faculty/.
- Sarabipour, Sarvenaz. 2020. “Research Culture: Virtual Conferences Raise Standards for Accessibility and Interactions.” ELife 9: e62668. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62668.
- Sarabipour, Sarvenaz, Benjamin Schwessinger, Fiona N. Mumoki, Aneth D. Mwakilili, Aziz Khan, Humberto J. Debat, Pablo J. Saez, and Tomislav Mestrovic. 2020. “Evaluating Features of Scientific Conferences: A Call for Improvements.” BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.02.022079.
- Sarabipour, Sarvenaz, Humberto J Debat, Steven J Burgess Edward Emmott, and Zach Hensel Benjamin Schwessinger. 2019. “On the Value of Preprints: An Early Career Researcher Perspective.” PLoS Biology 17 (2): e3000151. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151.
- Sawarkar, Ritwick, Ruth Scherz‐Shouval, Martin S. Denzel, and Juha Saarikangas. 2019. “Chaperoning Junior Faculty.” EMBO Reports 20 (1): e47163. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847163.
- Scheiner, Samuel M., Lynette M Bouchie. 2013. “The Predictive Power of NSF Reviewers and Panels.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, October. https://doi.org/10.1890/13.WB.017.
- Schiebinger, Londa, and Shannon K. Gilmartin. 2010. “Housework Is an Academic Issue.” American Association of University Professors. https://www.aaup.org/article/housework-academic-issue#.X2fXAtZ7nAJ.
- Sever, Richard, Michael Eisen, and John Inglis. 2019. “Plan U: Universal Access to Scientific and Medical Research via Funder Preprint Mandates.” PLOS Biology 17 (6): e3000273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000273.
- Sever, Richard, Ted Roeder, Samantha Hindle, Linda Sussman, Kevin-John Black, Janet Argentine, Wayne Manos, and John R. Inglis. 2019. “BioRxiv: The Preprint Server for Biology.” BioRxiv, November. https://doi.org/10.1101/833400.
- Shailes, Sarah. 2017. “Peer Review: To Fund or Not to Fund?” ELife 6: e32015. http://www.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32015.
- Sheltzer, Jason M., and Joan C. Smith. 2014. “Elite Male Faculty in the Life Sciences Employ Fewer Women.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (28): 10107–12. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403334111.
- Sinkjær, Thomas. 2018. “Fund Ideas, Not Pedigree, to Find Fresh Insight.” Nature, World View, 555: 143. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02743-2.
- Solans-Domènech, Maite, Imma Guillamón, Ignacio Ferreira-González Aida Ribera, Gaietà Permanyer-Miralda Carme Carrion, and Joan M. V. Pons. 2017. “Blinding Applicants in a First-Stage Peer-Review Process of Biomedical Research Grants: An Observational Study.” Research Evaluation 26 (3): 181–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx021.
- Subbaraman, Nidhi. 2020. “Sputnik Moment or Budget Breaker: How Will the Pandemic Alter Research Funding?” Nature, Feature, 582 (June): 164–65. http://www.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01519-x.
- “Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering Fall 2017: Citizenship of Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Appointees in Science, Engineering, and Health: 1980–2017.” n.d. National Science Foundation. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/gradpostdoc/2017/html/gss17-dt-tab001-3a.htmlhttps://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/gradpostdoc/2017/html/gss17-dt-tab001-3a.html.
- Taffe, Michael A., and Nicholas W. Gilpin. 2021. “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: Racial Inequity in Grant Funding from the US National Institutes of Health.” ELife 10: e65697. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65697.
- Tamblyn, Robyn, Nadyne Girard, and James Hanley Christina J Qian. 2018. “Assessment of Potential Bias in Research Grant Peer Review in Canada.” CMAJ 190 (16): E489–99. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170901.
- The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. 2020. “Press Release: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2020.” Nobel Prize. October 7, 2020. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2020/press-release/.
- “U.S. Research and Development Funding and Performance: Fact Sheet.” 2020. United States Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44307.pdf.
- Vesper, Inga. 2018. “Peer Reviewers Unmasked: Largest Global Survey Reveals Trends.” Nature, New article, , September. http://www.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06602-y.
- Waruru, Maina. 2018. “African and Asian Researchers Are Hampered by Visa Problems.” Nature, September. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06750-1.
- Weissgerber, Tracey, Yaw Bediako, Charlotte M. De Winde, Hedyeh Ebrahimi, Florencia Fernández-Chiappe, Vinodh Ilangovan, Devang Mehta, et al. n.d.2020. “Point of View: Mitigating the Impact of Conference and Travel Cancellations on Researchers’ Futures.” ELife 9: e57032. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57032.
- “Wellcome Trust Grant Funding Data Report 2018/19.” 2020. United Kingdom: Wellcome Trust. https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/grant-funding-data-2018-2019.pdf.
- Wennerås, Christine, and Agnes Wold. 1997. “Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review.” Nature 387: 341–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/387341a0.
- Wilke, Carolyn. 2018. “Steep Funding Cuts for Australian Science Announced.” The Scientist, December 18, 2018. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/steep-funding-cuts-for-australian-science-announced-65227.
- Winde, Charlotte M. de, Elisa Floriddia, David Eccles, Tai-Ying Lee, Orsolya Symmons, Freyja Olafsdottir, and Vinodh Ilangovan. 2019. “What Makes Funding Programs Fair?” EcrLife (blog). April 5, 2019. https://ecrlife.org/what-makes-funding-programs-fair-2/.
- Witteman, Holly O., Michael Hendricks, Sharon Straus, and Cara Tannenbaum. 2019. “Are Gender Gaps Due to Evaluations of the Applicant or the Science? A Natural Experiment at a National Funding Agency.” The Lancet 393 (10171): 531–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32611-4.
- Wright, Charles B., Nathan L. Vanderford. 2017. “What Faculty Hiring Committees Want.” Nature Biotechnology 35 (September): 885–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3962.
The authors are a group of early career researchers—PhD students, postdocs and junior PIs—with a global representation. They have all been eLife Community Ambassadors throughout 2018-2020 where they have collaborated on the topic of inclusive funding of early career researchers with this work as end result of their research and discussions.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Orsolya Symmons (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States; Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing, Cologne, Germany) for significant contribution to the part on lottery-based schemes; Dr. Alan Weids for critical reading of the manuscript; Alexandra Stolyarova (University of California, Los Angeles, United States), Amreen Mughal (University of Vermont, United States), Elisa Floriddia (Karolinska Institute, Sweden), Andy Tay (National University of Singapore, Singapore), Devang Mehta (University of Edmonton, Canada), Carolina Quezada (Universidad Bernardo O’Higgins, Chile), and Julia Riley (Stellenbosch University, South Africa) for valuable input and discussion; and the entire early career researcher community of cohorts 2018-2020 of eLife Community Ambassadors, and those who support them, for supporting this work. S.J.H was supported by the National Institutes of Health grant R35GM133732. N.M.J was supported by the American Heart Association grant 20AIREA35050015.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Orsolya Symmons (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States; Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing, Cologne, Germany) for significant contribution to the part on lottery-based schemes; Dr. Alan Weids for critical reading of the manuscript; Alexandra Stolyarova (University of California, Los Angeles, United States), Amreen Mughal (University of Vermont, United States), Elisa Floriddia (Karolinska Institute, Sweden), Andy Tay (National University of Singapore, Singapore), Devang Mehta (University of Edmonton, Canada), Carolina Quezada (Universidad Bernardo O’Higgins, Chile), and Julia Riley (Stellenbosch University, South Africa) for valuable input and discussion; and the entire early career researcher community of cohorts 2018-2020 of eLife Community Ambassadors, and those who support them, for supporting this work. S.J.H was supported by the National Institutes of Health grant R35GM133732. N.M.J was supported by the American Heart Association grant 20AIREA35050015.
DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.
ISSN 2372-2193
ISSN 2372-2193