on Access By Minority Investigators
to NSF Extramural Support
Emory University, Atlanta - November 6, 1999
I. CONFERENCE PURPOSE AND PARTICIPANTS
Both anecdotal and statistical evidence suggest that African
American investigators are underrepresented in the pool of successful
applicants for NSF support. To discover the reasons for this
phenomenon and to devise strategies to reverse existing trends,
a workshop was held in Atlanta on Nov. 6, 1999. Participants
in the workshop were:
George H. Jones - Emory University
Agnes Day - Howard University
Vassie Ware - Lehigh University
Sandra Murray - University of Pittsburgh
Ernest Moore - Northwestern University
Lena Austin - Howard University
Bruce Jackson - Boston University
Jill Bargonetti - Hunter College
Gwenith Jones - University of Virginia
Andrew Campbell - Brown University
Fedora Sutton - South Dakota State University
George Hill - Meharry Medical College
Maryanna Henkart - NSF
Thomas Smith - NSF
John Browne Clark Atlanta University
II. TOPICS CONSIDERED BY THE CONFEREES
- What features characterize the applications process for minority
applicants? Do they solicit input from colleagues about the application
process? Do they contact appropriate persons at NSF for help and
suggestions prior to writing a grant? If so, is the feedback NSF
provides helpful? Do they ask colleagues to review their grants
prior to submission?
- What sort of institutional support is provided to this group of
applicants? Does the institution provide advice regarding the writing
of successful grants? Are there specific ways in which institutions
might be more supportive of NSF applicants in the application process?
Might NSF, for example, assist investigators in identifying appropriate
collaborators or consultants? Could some formal program be established,
sponsored and funded by NSF, to pair minority investigators with
potential collaborators or consultants?
- What else can NSF do, perhaps in cooperation with the institutions,
to facilitate the process of grant writing and submission? Are
there databases that NSF might maintain that would contribute to
greater success rates for African American and other minority applicants?
What else can the institutions do?
- What are the "grant histories" of African Americans
who have submitted proposals to NSF? If they submitted an unsuccessful
grant, did they resubmit? If so, what was the outcome of the
resubmission? If they were successful the first, second (or subsequent)
time, what factors may have contributed to that success? If they
did not resubmit, why not and what could have been done to encourage
them to do so?
- One of the factors that contribute to the absolute number of successful
grant applicants is the total number of applicants. What more can
NSF do to increase the number of minority scientists?
III. SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- It would be useful to have NSF Program Officers visit institutions
to the extent possible to encourage applications from minority
investigators and to assist them in developing such applications.
Institutions that might be targeted (at least initially) for such
visits would be HBCU's and other institutions with significant
minority enrollments and numbers of African American and other
- NSF should conduct workshops (e.g. regionally or nationally) for
minority postdoctoral fellows and for junior faculty to assist
them in developing grant writing skills. These workshops should
provide assistance to the participants in all phases of the grant
preparation process. One element of proposal preparation that should
be emphasized in such workshops is the need to provide substantive
evidence that it will be possible to conduct the proposed research
at the applicant institution.
- A mechanism should be established to ensure that junior faculty
have the opportunity to have their proposals read by experienced
investigators. One way to facilitate such a process would be to
establish a web site listing funded PI's who are willing to read
draft proposals and to provide feedback and assistance with their
refinement (see further below).
- NSF might provide copies of appropriately expurgated grants that
have been funded to junior investigators for use in preparation
of their own submissions.
- The workshop participants were unanimous in the view that support
from NSF should be connected to a commitment by potential PI's
to actually submit proposals. While such a commitment could not
be required, perhaps it could be stated, e.g., as a condition of
acceptance for participation in a grantsmanship workshop that the
participants are expected to submit a proposal to NSF for the next
available application cycle.
- As an essential adjunct to the suggestions above, NSF needs to
keep accurate records of the outcomes of the application process
for minority investigators. In addition to success rates, it is
essential to be able to determine: (a) whether an unsuccessful
applicant re-applies; (b) what the outcome is for applicants that
do re-apply; (c) if they were successful the first, second or subsequent
time, what factors may have contributed to that success? (d) if
they did not resubmit, why not and what could have been done to
encourage them to do so?
B. SUPPORT OF MINORITY INVESTIGATORS BY MINORITY (AND OTHER)
- As indicated above, a web site listing potential grant readers
might be established under NSF auspices. This site might also list
minority (and other) investigators who are willing to serve as
mentors, collaborators and as supporters generally of junior faculty.
- Such a web site might be linked to other extant sites,
e.g., those established by journals, scientific societies
and perhaps some "popular" science
sites, e.g., Discovery. Such a site might be developed
as an offshoot of the Just/Garcia/Hill site developed
by Dr. Robert Dottin.
C. CHANGING THE CULTURE
- It was apparent from the discussion that many of the
workshop participants had received written reviews of their
own submissions to NSF that reflected reviewer biases that
were totally inappropriate to the scientific review process.
Indeed, some members of the group had participated on NSF
panels where such biases were in evidence. One manifestation
of such biases specifically discussed by the group was "pedigree discrimination." Program
Officers need to be especially sensitive to the possibility
that such prejudices may arise in the review process, even
when the intent is not malicious, and the PO's must ensure
that such prejudices are not allowed to affect the outcome
of a scientific review.
D. SUPPORT OURSELVES, PART II
- The workshop participants were unanimous in their view that the
time is right for the creation of a national organization of Black
biologists. It was suggested that an initial meeting to explore
the creation of such an organization be held in conjunction with
the 2000 annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology.
Although the national organization would include biologists of
other ilks, the Cell Biology annual meeting would still be an excellent
locus for the initial organizational effort.
- It was agreed that Drs. Browne, Ware and Murray would contact
the umbrella minority affairs committee of the FASEB societies
to broach our suggestions with that group and that Drs. Okpodu,
Day, Sutton, Jackson and Jones would serve as a steering committee
to organize the initial convention of Black biologists at the ACB
meeting in 2000.
Back to BIOAC Workshop Reports main page