The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997-2010

Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997-2010
Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997-2010
Objectives: There has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for research funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the research and development continuum.

Design: Systematic comparison.

Methods: Data were obtained from several sources for awards from the period 1997 to 2010 and each study assigned to—disease categories; type of science (preclinical, phases I–III trials, product development, implementation research); categories of funding organisation. Fold differences and statistical analysis were used to compare total investment, study numbers, mean grant and median grant between men and women.

Results: 6052 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2.274 billion. Of this, men received £1.786 billion (78.5%) and women £488 million (21.5%). The median value of award was greater for men (£179?389; IQR £59?146–£371?977) than women (£125?556; IQR £30?982–£261?834). Awards were greater for male principal investigators (PIs) across all infectious disease systems, excepting neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. The proportion of total funding awarded to women ranged from 14.3% in 1998 to 26.8% in 2009 (mean 21.4%), and was lowest for preclinical research at 18.2% (£285.5 million of £1.573 billion) and highest for operational research at 30.9% (£151.4 million of £489.7 million).

Conclusions: There are consistent differences in funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science. These differences remain broadly unchanged over the 14-year study period.
1-11
Head, M.G.
67ce0afc-2fc3-47f4-acf2-8794d27ce69c
Fitchett, J.R.
f8f56bf8-924d-40c0-b0b8-772c885a6c7a
Cooke, M.K.
d3bab3d5-1673-4bed-a3de-8f72688e07e0
Wurie, F.B.
b19a0889-1db7-4e97-adea-2dbca1e0c766
Atun, R.
feb620b0-a662-4642-ba73-2ca4b7dae81a
Head, M.G.
67ce0afc-2fc3-47f4-acf2-8794d27ce69c
Fitchett, J.R.
f8f56bf8-924d-40c0-b0b8-772c885a6c7a
Cooke, M.K.
d3bab3d5-1673-4bed-a3de-8f72688e07e0
Wurie, F.B.
b19a0889-1db7-4e97-adea-2dbca1e0c766
Atun, R.
feb620b0-a662-4642-ba73-2ca4b7dae81a

Head, M.G., Fitchett, J.R., Cooke, M.K., Wurie, F.B. and Atun, R. (2013) Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997-2010. BMJ Open, 3 (12), 1-11. (doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003362). (PMID:24327360)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objectives: There has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for research funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the research and development continuum.

Design: Systematic comparison.

Methods: Data were obtained from several sources for awards from the period 1997 to 2010 and each study assigned to—disease categories; type of science (preclinical, phases I–III trials, product development, implementation research); categories of funding organisation. Fold differences and statistical analysis were used to compare total investment, study numbers, mean grant and median grant between men and women.

Results: 6052 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2.274 billion. Of this, men received £1.786 billion (78.5%) and women £488 million (21.5%). The median value of award was greater for men (£179?389; IQR £59?146–£371?977) than women (£125?556; IQR £30?982–£261?834). Awards were greater for male principal investigators (PIs) across all infectious disease systems, excepting neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. The proportion of total funding awarded to women ranged from 14.3% in 1998 to 26.8% in 2009 (mean 21.4%), and was lowest for preclinical research at 18.2% (£285.5 million of £1.573 billion) and highest for operational research at 30.9% (£151.4 million of £489.7 million).

Conclusions: There are consistent differences in funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science. These differences remain broadly unchanged over the 14-year study period.

Text
BMJ Open-2013-Head-.pdf - Version of Record
Available under License Other.
Download (4MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 15 October 2013
Published date: 9 December 2013
Organisations: Clinical & Experimental Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 387027
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/387027
PURE UUID: 3e043ac8-7abe-4e1c-97b6-a6718f87dca3
ORCID for M.G. Head: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1189-0531

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 08 Feb 2016 09:45
Last modified: 10 Dec 2019 01:33

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×