The NIH Requests Your Opinion on Diversity in the Biomedical PhD Workforce

The NIH has put out a request for information concerning diversity in the biomedical workforce. All comments submitted by the February 24, 2012 deadline will be considered by the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director Working Group on Diversity in the Biomedical Research Workforce. You can find more information through the working group's web page. Here is the charge of the committee.

Its charge will focus on five key transition points in the pipeline: (i) entry into graduate degree programs; (ii) the transition from graduate degree to post-doctoral fellowship; (iii) the appointment from a post-doctoral position to the first independent scientific position; (iv) the award of the first independent research grant from NIH or equivalent in industry; and (v) award of tenure in an academic position or equivalent in an industrial setting. The Committee will provide concrete recommendations to the NIH Director on ways to improve the retention of underrepresented minorities, persons with disabilities, and persons from disadvantaged backgrounds through these critical periods. The DBRWG's analysis will include both the NIH intramural research community and the NIH extramural research community.

Also of note, there is a public meeting to be held on February 14. Here is a copy of the agenda. It looks like after opening comments by a representative of the committee, there will be a series of presentations by an array of White House initiatives concerning the various under-represented communities (Note: While the committee's charge is broader, only presentations on ethnic groups are scheduled).  There is also a public comment period. Each organization will be allotted 5 minutes. You may email request a slot (deadline is 5pm February 10, 2012) in advance (see agenda for details). Same day requests will be considered at the discretion of the Chairperson.

Help Wanted! But where to begin?

In the latest issue of Science Bruce Alberts (the magazine's current editor-in-chief and a previous president of the National Academy of Science) sounds a clarion call for science adaptors. Alberts says, "[m]any different parts of society urgently need such scientifically trained people to connect them to the rich resources of the scientific community."


While Alberts tries to convey a sense of urgency, I must take issue with his forewarning of an impending "crisis" in the biomedical sciences. While he claims that, "in this very exciting time to be a biological scientist, there is an ominous sense of a major crisis brewing;" I would claim that it is "brewing" only for those granted the luxury of denial. As biomedical science marches forward, the concept of diminishing returns is all too real and the indicators of a crisis are numerous and personal for a growing cohort of young biomedical scientists.


Not that I don't believe that opportunities exist--it's just that I think we need to be more innovative in how thy are identified. We must think more about where, how and why change needs to happen. Academia is good at churning out pristinely educated and supremely skilled research PhDs. And yes, programs like the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowships have better enabled them to spread their mojo outside of the hallowed halls and to make the world better aware of the "rich resources of the scientific community." Further expanding and adapting this model is valid, but perhaps limiting.


It would be fabulous to devise ways to actively and conscientiously bring change to academia and the disciplines it fosters. How can STEM PhDs and academic postdocs more effectively consider their science in contexts that are not solely lab-based nor purely "scientific"? Is it relevant to ask these questions in a significant way within academia?


So just as Alberts embraces prestigious fellowships for STEM PhDs wishing to shape K-12 education, I would support one for PhDs and postdocs who wish to explore the nuances of their current high-level research in non-scientific, but still scholarly, contexts.


Some projects, like infectious disease research, naturally lend themselves to international and industry collaborations and considerations. Can we somehow probe these and other boundaries for topics that haven't explored the possibilities? This exploration can possibly include the social sciences, economics, history, public policy, education, media etc. as the scientist simultaneously conducts their laboratory experiments. Could this foster the adaptation we want and need?

Moving Beyond Divides...

Motivated by the NYT OpEd piece Moving Beyond Civil Rights by Richard Thompson Ford, this post briefly revisits my Oct. 20, 2011 post named, Dog-eared Culture, Dogged Divide. Ford's article addresses the dilemma that while civil rights legislation and practices have led to a fairer and less divided society, many stark social inequities and injustices persist.

As example, many highly educated female scientists relate well to the persistence of the proverbial glass ceiling that seems to be better tempered as time progresses. Equally relevant is the fact African American scientists remain frustratingly (to themselves and to the NIH) unable to successfully navigate the R01 peer review process.

In Ford's view, addressing social injustice and inequality through additional civil rights legislation and more lawsuits is flawed and likely counter-productive. Any "attempt to achieve collective justice through individual entitlements" is quite simply no good.

An additional problem is the weighty burden of proof. For example, the ritual oblation of African American scientists at the alter of peer review mirrors the circumstances of the recently unsuccessful class-action lawsuit brought by women against their employer, Walmart. In the eyes of the court (and likely to be true of the peer review dons), "statistics can show a pattern of discrimination, but they are not enough to prove that any particular woman was discriminated against."

So...what to do?

Ford asserts:

An effective approach might use carrots and sticks: proof that a business used the best employment practices to reduce discrimination — reviewing decisions for potential bias, monitoring long-term trends and adopting more objective hiring and promotion criteria — might constitute a defense to certain kinds of civil liability, while businesses that failed to make reasonable efforts to prevent discrimination would face fines. Clear goals would replace the constant threat of litigation, and the law would seek to prevent discrimination instead of simply punishing it after the fact.

Peer review is supposed to be an opportunity for ideas to be thoroughly and objectively vetted. Assuming this is the case, it appears that, in the case of American Americans, whatever programs and initiatives designed to level the playing field prior to this stage have proved ineffective. If this is not the case, then we must consider if the peer review process itself is faulty and ripe for further examination.

Either way, perhaps now is a prime opportunity to reconsider the priorities of the peer review system and to fully acknowledge that bias is unavoidable even though the NIH strives for objectivity. It seems that simply seeking evidence of racial bias will prove unfruitful. However, the statistics do show that African American scientists are, for some yet to be understood reason, disproportionally impacted by bias. In this light, it seems possible that in this study, the NIH was looking in the wrong place for a solution to the dogged divide.