Whether you receive a grant for your research in the United States depends not only on your qualities, but also on the color of your skin.
Structurally white researchers are more likely to receive research funding than ethnic minorities, according to a new study on funding rates, types of scholarships, grants, and application evaluation in National Science Foundation (NSF), The American equivalent of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Study reveals decades of systemic racism. White master detectives, that is Principal Investigators (PIs)are structurally allocated more funding than nonwhite investment mediators, and that gap has only widened in recent years, according to a meta-analysis of University of Hawaii, it is in Sciences popped up.
“The large numbers and structural nature of these racial funding disparities lead to a significant and growing advantage for white research leaders across the full spectrum of science to this day. NSF is the primary source of government funding, especially in mathematics, information technology, economics, and the social sciences,” the research team wrote.
Each year, NSF receives thousands of proposals. The agency lists funding percentages in its annual public reports, and distinguishes between seven different ethnic groups: white, black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander researchers, and a mixed group. The team analyzed data from more than a million proposals NSF received between 1996 and 2019.
Deep institutional racism
“What we saw in the data was amazing,” said Professor Rosie Alegado. “They force us to confront the uncomfortable reality that white academics strongly favor a system we call the merit system, while other ethnic groups are penalized for their funding. By focusing on ethnic background, we have been able to identify deep institutional racism in the awarding of research grants. It is very important that This data also remains open in the future, so we can continue to monitor improvements in this process until the search leader’s last name is no longer important.”
Each year, NSF funding rates change due to shifts in budgets and changes in the number of proposals submitted. Postdoctoral researcher Christine Yifeng Chen and her team naturally took into account these annual fluctuations and other confounding factors in the data set when drawing conclusions and conclusions. “We see what remains: systematic and persistent disparities in funding rates across ethnic groups,” explains Chen. In the 23 years now, proposals from white senior officials have been approved more often than average. Proposals from Black, Indigenous, and Colored Principal Investigators have a structurally lower chance of receiving funding after their research application has been processed.”
12,820 scholarships were wrongfully denied
NSF has coordinated and supported all basic, non-medical science research in the United States since 1950. The institute’s budget was more than $8 billion in 2019. It received about 42,000 proposals that year, and the study found that in 2019 alone, 798 grants were awarded. Too much” for white scientists. In twenty years, that surplus was no less than 12,820 scholarships, which should have been distributed to non-white scholars.
“The call to eliminate systemic racism in American institutions has grown in recent decades,” says Alegado. There are steps these and other agencies can take to correct this embarrassing trend. Based on the demographics of our student base, the University of Hawaii Classified by the US Department of Education as an Asian American, Native American, and Pacific Islander institution.”
“This gives us a unique opportunity to make a positive impact and eliminate disparities based on racial and ethnic diversity. We do this by actively supporting the careers of students and university staff from ethnic minority groups. The focus is on the recruitment process in different colleges and new university programs that are widely spread, with the aim of retaining the talented people from these minority groups and their flourishing at university,” concludes Alegado.
Devoted music ninja. Zombie practitioner. Pop culture aficionado. Webaholic. Communicator. Internet nerd. Certified alcohol maven. Tv buff.