4.7 Article

Predoctoral MD-PhD grants as indicators of future NIH funding success

Journal

JCI INSIGHT
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.155688

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIGMS
  2. National Institute on Aging
  3. National Cancer Institute of the NIH [5T32GM008208-32, 5T32AG021885-18, 1F30CA264963-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used data from the NIH RePORTER database to track the funding trajectory of physician-scientists who received predoctoral grant support. Researchers found that male F30 grant awardees were 2.6 times more likely than female awardees to receive R funding. The results highlight the need for analysis of factors contributing to the disproportionate loss of female physician-scientists between the predoctoral F30 and independent R grant-supported stages.
MD-PhD trainees constitute an important source of physician-scientists. Persistence on this challenging path is facilitated by success in garnering independent (R grant) support from the NIH. Published research tracks academic appointments and global R01 success for MD-PhD trainees but has not included information on future funding success of individual MD-PhD predoctoral grant holders. Here, we used data from the NIH RePORTER database to identify and track the funding trajectory of physician-scientists who received predoctoral grant support through the F30 mechanism, which is specific for dual-degree candidates. Male and female F30 awardees did not differ in their success in garnering K (postdoctoral training) grants, but, among F30 grant awardees, men were 2.6 times more likely than women to receive R funding. These results underscore the need for analysis of factors that contribute to the disproportionate loss of NIH-supported female physician-scientists between the predoctoral F30 and the independent R grant-supported stages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available