A Seat at the Table: Minority-Serving Institutions and Grant Review Free

Minority-serving institutions (MSIs) play a crucial role in providing postsecondary education to students of color. As has frequently been noted, scientists employed at these institutions are often underfunded when compared with their counterparts at traditionally White institutions (TWIs). In fact, in one 2014 study, the total federal, state, and local government funding to just four TWIs was more than the combined funding for 89 4-year historically Black colleges and universities (https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.85.2.0097). Because bias in the grant review system may contribute to these disparities, the Scientific Peer Advisory and Review Services division of AIBS has embarked on the Science of Peer Review initiative, using research tools to interrogate the process of grant review itself.

In this issue of BioScience, we publish the results (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab130) of surveys of scientists working at MSIs and compare them to the previously collected responses of those working at TWIs. Our article is focused on the participation of scientists in grant peer review, the competitive process by which subject-matter experts determine which research proposals are most deserving of funding.

The impetus for this investigation is the importance of funding for most scientists' career development, not only in paying for the actual research performed but also in determining tenure and promotion decisions, as well as research impacts. It is our hope that by teasing out biases in grant review, we might reveal ways to address other entrenched inequities in science.

The results of our surveys highlight significant discrepancies: Despite similar levels of submitting grants, only 45% of scientists working at MSIs reported participating in grant peer review, compared with 76% of scientists at TWIs. This disparity does not appear to result from a lack of interest or motivation among MSI-based scientists; 76% reported an interest in participating in the grant review process. The most frequently cited barrier to their participation was, quite simply, that they were not invited. Other respondents noted that high teaching, administrative, and service workloads acted as obstacles.

A worrisome implication of our findings is that grant review may be acting as a closed feedback loop—one that fails to fund MSI-based scientists while also failing to provide them a reasonable entrée to the funding ecosystem. Because panel participation confers benefits to those who serve in the form of privileged knowledge of reviewer preferences, review norms, and cutting-edge science, as well as networking opportunities, being unable to participate places MSI-based scientists at a disadvantage when preparing their own proposals. This, in turn, decreases their likelihood of being funded and attaining eligibility to participate in future panels—and so on.

Developing interventions to crack open the closed loop of grant funding is of crucial importance, and the article identifies some promising interventions, such as the relaxation of panel eligibility requirements and collaboration between funders and MSIs to support greater recruitment. Ultimately, it is our hope that improving the diversity of review panels may also unravel implicit bias in funding decisions, enabling a funding system that better meets the ideals of promoting meritorious proposals and funding science that reflects the diversity and values of the society it serves.