I just got my first R01! I should be super excited, right? It’s such an honor, right? It’s the grand mark of achievement in academia to receive an R01. Or is it?
This R01 was obtained after a revise and resubmit. The thing doesn’t sit right with me, though, is that a big criticism of the original application was that there wasn’t a White comparison sample included. From the summary statement: “Reviewers expressed a difference of opinion regarding whether it was necessary to include a control group of White participants; with some stating that such a control group would be valuable, particularly if differences between White and AA students’ academic achievement is highlighted in the application, but others noting that the project is not set up to address disparities.”
Guess what I changed in the revision? Very little. In my letter for the revision, I stated that “The project is not set up to address disparities. The purpose of this project is to examine African American children, not in comparison to White children, but in their own right. Therefore, a White comparison sample has not been added”. I should not have had to do that.
In fact, NIH funded the first phase of the project for which I just received the R01, through an R15 mechanism. But, the same criticism was expressed by reviewers on that application, which I submitted in 2013. A comment from the summary statement was that “One issue carries over from the previous review and centers on the project’s exclusive focus on African-American children…”. A comment from the 2012 (the previous review that was referenced in 2013) summary statement was that “the exclusive focus on African American children potentially limits the extent to which comparisons can be drawn between the proposed study and other studies involving children from other racial/ethnic groups." They meant studies on White children, because most studies on the topic have primarily been conducted on White children.
Thus, from 2012 to today, in my individual funding history, reviewers have had an issue with research focused only on Black children. I am not alone regarding issues that reviewers have with research topics. See here for a report on disparities in funding due to funding topic. In general, there are reported racial disparities in NIH R01 (and equivalent) funding. Although recent reports suggest that the gap in federal funding might be narrowing, the gap is still there. The gap will continue to persist if changes are not made.
This semester is the start of my 13th year as a professor. I am only one of the few Black women who have even made it to the rank of Full Professor (promoted in 2019). I have submitted over 20 grant applications in my academic career. See below for my funding history. As can be seen, many grants that I submitted were denied. Some were not even discussed, and a few were revisions that were not discussed after being discussed on the first submission (ouch!). Clearly, this R01 did not come easy to me. But, it could easily have been funded the first round, without the need for the revision, were it not for concerns about adding a White sample.
Reviewers, if the biggest criticism you can make about a study focused on Black children is that White children are not included, ask yourself this: when you reviewed the other applications for which data collection focused on White children, did you see that to be a problem? If not, then don’t criticize research that focuses on non-White children. Program officers, when you see such reviews, do something-- say something. If during the discussion of an application, the main focus is on the fact that the sample is not White, then something is not right. There might be other issues with an application that might need to be revised to improve the science, but adding White people is not it.
So yay, I got an R01. Wonderful. The project is important and necessary. I am excited about the knowledge that will be gained and the opportunities the grant will provide for students and others to be involved in research. But, the process of obtaining this specific grant, and for obtaining grants in general, has problems. Some people will never reach this “milestone” because of unnecessary hurdles in the way.
My advice to junior folks who keep getting rejection after rejection, is to stick with it. You have to apply to get funding. That’s a fact. “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” But also, know that it’s not you, it’s them, with “them” being the sometimes unfair and biased process. Also, don’t modify your project idea, unless it is to improve the science behind the research. It’s ok to stand by your idea.
Importantly, my advice to those on tenure and promotion committees and others who make decisions about tenure is that credit must be given for attempts to secure funding, whether the application is funded or not. Submitting a grant proposal is no easy feat. There is also a whole lot that goes into funding decisions that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the researcher. That funded grants play such a large role in the survival of so many academics is unfair, and it is particularly unfair to Black scholars, who are not only underrepresented in academia, but underrepresented in obtaining funding as well.
This R01 was obtained after a revise and resubmit. The thing doesn’t sit right with me, though, is that a big criticism of the original application was that there wasn’t a White comparison sample included. From the summary statement: “Reviewers expressed a difference of opinion regarding whether it was necessary to include a control group of White participants; with some stating that such a control group would be valuable, particularly if differences between White and AA students’ academic achievement is highlighted in the application, but others noting that the project is not set up to address disparities.”
Guess what I changed in the revision? Very little. In my letter for the revision, I stated that “The project is not set up to address disparities. The purpose of this project is to examine African American children, not in comparison to White children, but in their own right. Therefore, a White comparison sample has not been added”. I should not have had to do that.
In fact, NIH funded the first phase of the project for which I just received the R01, through an R15 mechanism. But, the same criticism was expressed by reviewers on that application, which I submitted in 2013. A comment from the summary statement was that “One issue carries over from the previous review and centers on the project’s exclusive focus on African-American children…”. A comment from the 2012 (the previous review that was referenced in 2013) summary statement was that “the exclusive focus on African American children potentially limits the extent to which comparisons can be drawn between the proposed study and other studies involving children from other racial/ethnic groups." They meant studies on White children, because most studies on the topic have primarily been conducted on White children.
Thus, from 2012 to today, in my individual funding history, reviewers have had an issue with research focused only on Black children. I am not alone regarding issues that reviewers have with research topics. See here for a report on disparities in funding due to funding topic. In general, there are reported racial disparities in NIH R01 (and equivalent) funding. Although recent reports suggest that the gap in federal funding might be narrowing, the gap is still there. The gap will continue to persist if changes are not made.
This semester is the start of my 13th year as a professor. I am only one of the few Black women who have even made it to the rank of Full Professor (promoted in 2019). I have submitted over 20 grant applications in my academic career. See below for my funding history. As can be seen, many grants that I submitted were denied. Some were not even discussed, and a few were revisions that were not discussed after being discussed on the first submission (ouch!). Clearly, this R01 did not come easy to me. But, it could easily have been funded the first round, without the need for the revision, were it not for concerns about adding a White sample.
Reviewers, if the biggest criticism you can make about a study focused on Black children is that White children are not included, ask yourself this: when you reviewed the other applications for which data collection focused on White children, did you see that to be a problem? If not, then don’t criticize research that focuses on non-White children. Program officers, when you see such reviews, do something-- say something. If during the discussion of an application, the main focus is on the fact that the sample is not White, then something is not right. There might be other issues with an application that might need to be revised to improve the science, but adding White people is not it.
So yay, I got an R01. Wonderful. The project is important and necessary. I am excited about the knowledge that will be gained and the opportunities the grant will provide for students and others to be involved in research. But, the process of obtaining this specific grant, and for obtaining grants in general, has problems. Some people will never reach this “milestone” because of unnecessary hurdles in the way.
My advice to junior folks who keep getting rejection after rejection, is to stick with it. You have to apply to get funding. That’s a fact. “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” But also, know that it’s not you, it’s them, with “them” being the sometimes unfair and biased process. Also, don’t modify your project idea, unless it is to improve the science behind the research. It’s ok to stand by your idea.
Importantly, my advice to those on tenure and promotion committees and others who make decisions about tenure is that credit must be given for attempts to secure funding, whether the application is funded or not. Submitting a grant proposal is no easy feat. There is also a whole lot that goes into funding decisions that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the researcher. That funded grants play such a large role in the survival of so many academics is unfair, and it is particularly unfair to Black scholars, who are not only underrepresented in academia, but underrepresented in obtaining funding as well.
Note: I did not include any internal awards, conference grants, or other awards for which I was not lead PI. I also did not include whether the application was scored and/or discussed, for the ones that were denied.