Breaking bias: Strategies for equitable research funding

In 2017– 2018, science granting councils in sub-Saharan Africa awarded twice as many research grants to male researchers (62.8%) than to female researchers (32.7%). This is according to a report published in the National Library of Medicine, which found that men were also more likely to be awarded grants of higher monetary value.

Gender inequality manifests in unequal grant allocations elsewhere in the world, too. At a recent webinar, Interrupting Bias in Research Grants, Rosemary Morgan (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) highlighted studies looking at public health funding in the United States and Canada.

“A study in the NIH in the United States showed, for example, that even when women and men received grants, female applicants received less than male applicants,” Morgan said. A study of Canadian Institute of Health grants found that scores favoured male applicants with past funding successes. Even where women were more experienced, male applicants received higher scores and more grants. In applied science, “female scientists with the highest productivity were being scored equivalent to men with the lowest productivity.”

Such discrepancies persist despite funding allocations being determined by expert peer review – a system designed to enhance objectivity and fairness. Academic peer review typically involves anonymous experts assessing a study or a study proposal for its originality, methodology, significance, and adherence to academic standards. However, unlike in research publishing, research proposals are not anonymised, so individual biases can still creep in.

The review process can also fall prey to systemic bias. The sub-Saharan Africa report found that, while the granting councils did include gender as a criterion for judging research proposals, the other sustainable development goals (such as zero hunger, health, and education) received slightly more emphasis.

As Morgan said, “[peer review] is not a perfect system. It reflects wider norms and belief systems that we find in society. Like all structures, they’re going to reflect the inequalities we see in wider society.” At the webinar, hosted by the Gender Equality and Inclusivity (GEI) Project, Morgan and fellow panellists Jenna Hicks (the Health Research Alliance) and Nsama Mataka (the National Science and Technology Council, Zambia) discussed ways of recognising and interrupting bias in research granting process.

The GEI Project, part of the Science Granting Councils Initiative, brings together SGCs from across sub-Saharan Africa. Its goal is to integrate inclusivity considerations in grant-making, ultimately enhancing research quality and societal relevance. Facilitated by the HSRC’s Ingrid Lynch, the webinar allowed stakeholders to discuss their experiences in interrupting bias in the grant-making process.

Unconscious bias

Since bias is often unconscious, the first step in mitigating it is often simply recognising it. The Health Research Alliance is a group of NGO funders committed to improving health research. In response to its members’ interest, the alliance developed a training programme to help program staff and reviewers identify and mitigate bias.

According to Hicks, the deputy director, the alliance focused on peer review as a common process across its diverse member organisations. The self-directed, online training programme uses interactive cards, case study videos and quizzes to educate participants on addressing different forms of bias in peer review.

The bias reduction strategies fall into three sections: crafting reviewer guidelines to reduce bias, minimising bias in the structure of review meetings (e.g., randomising the order of applications discussed rather than ranking by preliminary scores), and questioning bias during discussions.

Pilot testing of the training involved participants from 22 member organisations, with feedback indicating its relevance, accessibility, and effectiveness. Participants reported finding strategies to probe potential biases during review meetings particularly helpful. For instance, Hicks said, the training programme provides participants with suggested responses to potentially biased comments at review meetings. “Somebody could speak up and ask, ‘Can you discuss how that relates to the review criteria?’ It seems pretty simple, but having these kind of fallback phrases…can be really helpful because it’s not always a comfortable thing to do,” she added.

Systemic bias

To address broader, systemic inequalities, funders can integrate equity and diversity considerations into the process. Through the Gender Equality and Inclusivity project, science councils in sub-Saharan Africa are doing just that. “One of the main strategies that we employ is to promote equity funding opportunities by targeting women, people with disabilities [and] young researchers,” said Mataka, a programme director at a participating council – the National Science and Technology Council of Zambia.

Such opportunities can help to level the playing field for women and marginalised groups. At a societal level, more inclusive grant making can produce more diverse and relevant science. To illustrate how the absence of gender considerations can undermine research results, Mataka spoke about the exclusion of pregnant women in most COVID-19 vaccine trials. She said that the resultant knowledge gaps reduced people’s trust in the vaccine.

Despite their facing an elevated risk of health complications from COVID-19, pregnant women were excluded even from trials of treatments like ascorbic acid, which were known to be safe during pregnancy. Ioanna Voyatzaki (University College Hospital, London) writes in the journal BMJ, ‘…is it truly about safety and ethics? Perhaps it is more so about societal perceptions and expectations, coupled with a historical distaste for including pregnant women in trials… that results in disregard for their autonomy and ability to consider the risks and benefits of taking part in a clinical trial themselves.’ Ultimately, Voyatzaki and others argued, excluding pregnant women from the trials posed a greater risk to their health.

Sharing her journey to becoming a champion for diversity and inclusion in research, Mataka said, “I came to realise it’s not just about the numbers… When you’re dealing with health, with issues of gender and inclusivity, diversity becomes very key, because it’s no longer just about how many men are PIs [principal investigators] or how many women are PIs, but how useful is the research for the people out there?”

Turning the lens inward

How can a marginalised individual bring implicit bias to the attention of decision-makers? Hicks suggested leveraging published evidence to advocate for addressing implicit biases in organisations. Evidence-based arguments, backed by systematic analysis, are harder to dispute and can effectively raise awareness among decision-makers.

Increasing the representation of women and marginalised groups on review boards can help increase reviewers’ awareness of biases. However, even people committed to fairness and inclusivity may harbour unconscious biases. The panelists underscored the importance of researchers examining their own practices and blind spots.

Individuals with power—and positions related to privileged identities—have a particular responsibility to turn the lens inward and examine how their actions may perpetuate unconscious bias, said Morgan. “Because their identity is part of the status quo, [they] often don’t recognise that that bias is happening and that discrimination is happening.”

Watch a recording of the webinar here:

These are the participating panellists:

Professor Rosemary Morgan, Associate Research Professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Rosemary Morgan is an Associate Research Professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the Department of International Health. She is the Associate Chair in Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE) for the International Health Department. She is a co-Director of the Gender and Health Summer Institute and Coordinates the Gender and Health Certificate at JHSPH. Dr. Morgan is recognised as a specialist in gender analysis in health and health systems research, interventions, and programmes and leads projects focusing on gender responsive monitoring and evaluation and women’s leadership. 

Dr. Jenna Hicks, HRA’s Assistant Director

Dr. Jenna Hicks is the Assistant Director of the Health Research Alliance (HRA), a collaborative organisation of 100+ non-profit research funders working together to maximise the impact of biomedical research. Dr. Hicks leads the Inclusive Grantmaking Initiative, an effort to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) among HRA members and across the wider biomedical research funding community. As part of the Inclusive Grantmaking Initiative, Dr. Hicks led the development of a Bias Mitigation in Peer Review Training module for program staff at HRA member organisations.  Dr. Hicks received her PhD in biomedical sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and completed postdoctoral training in biology education research at the University of Minnesota. 

Ms. Nsama Mataka, Sub-Saharan Africa regional member of the Global Research Council’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity working group

Nsama Mataka is a board member of the National Technology Business Centre, serves as a member of the Knowledge Translation Technical Working Group of the National Health Research Authority and SGCI GEI project change team member at the National Science and Technology Council. 

Dr. Ingrid Lynch, Chief Research Specialist, Human Sciences Research Council

Dr Ingrid Lynch is a Chief Research Specialist in the Human Sciences Research Council’s (HSRC) Public Health, Societies and Belonging (PHSB) Division. She holds expertise in gender, sexuality and diversity studies, with current projects focused on Eastern and Southern Africa. She uses intersectional, participatory methods to create contextualised solutions for equitable social change. 

Written by Andrea Teagle, for Jive Media Africa. Jive Media Africa is the communications partner on the HSRC SGCI GEI project.