CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Diversity and Career in MedicineCareer Development and DiversityGender Diversity and Inequality

NIH Director's Pioneer Awards: could the selection process be biased against women?

Carnes, Molly, Geller, Stacie, Fine, Eve, Sheridan, Jennifer, Handelsman, Jo·2005·Journal of Women's Health
DOI 10.1089/jwh.2005.14.684
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

One of the first National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap initiatives to be launched was the Director's Pioneer Award. This award was established to "identify and fund investigators of exceptionally creative abilities and diligence, for a sufficient term (five years) to allow them to develop and test far-ranging ideas." Nine excellent scientists were chosen as NIH Pioneers, but the selection of all men is at odds with the percentage of women receiving doctoral degrees for the past three decades, serving as principal investigators on NIH research grants, and achieving recognition as scientific innovators in non-NIH award competitions. The absence of women Pioneers provokes the following question: In the context of extant research on the impact of gender-based assumptions on evaluation of men and women in traditionally male fields, such as science, were there aspects about the process of nomination, evaluation, and selection that inadvertently favored men? We present evidence to suggest that women scientists would be disadvantaged by the following components of the NIH Director's Pioneer Award initiative: (1) time pressure placed on evaluators, (2) absence of face-to-face discussion about applicants, (3) ambiguity of performance criteria, given the novelty of the award, combined with an emphasis on subjective assessment of leadership, potential achievements rather than actual accomplishments, and risk taking, (4) emphasis on self-promotion, (5) weight given to letters of rec…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/jwh.2005.14.684

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • After removing the emphasis on risk-taking from the selection criteria for the NIH Director's Pioneer Award, there was a marked increase in the number of female scientists who applied for and won the award.

    “In a vivid example of this, after removing the emphasis on risk-taking from the selection criteria for the prestigious National Institutes of Health Director's Pioneer Award, there was a marked increase in the number of female scientists who applied for and won the award (Burgess et al., 2012;Carnes, Geller, Fine, Sheridan, & Handelsman, 2005).”

    From Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership (2016) · cites this paper as Carnes, Geller, Fine, Sheridan, & Handelsman, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Carnes, M., Geller, S., Fine, E., Sheridan, J., & Handelsman, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Women's Health
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2005-10
Volume
14
Issue
8
Pages
684-691
ISSN
  • 1059-7115 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-9996
  • 1931-843X
DOI
10.1089/jwh.2005.14.684
OpenAlex
W2086672633
Cited by
64
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.liebertpub.com/nv/resources-tools/text-and-data-mining-policy/121/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Women s Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
Keywords
gender bias in science, peer review, women scientists, evaluation criteria, letters of recommendation, self-promotion, leadership assessment, NIH Roadmap, gender equity in science
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Awards and Prizes, Female, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Male, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Physicians, Women, Research Personnel, United States, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review