Despite efforts to promote diversity in the biomedical workforce, there remains a lower rate of funding of National Institutes of Health R01 applications submitted by African-American/black (AA/B) scientists relative to white scientists. To identify underlying causes of this funding gap, we analyzed six stages of the application process from 2011 to 2015 and found that disparate outcomes arise at three of the six: decision to discuss, impact score assignment, and a previously unstudied stage, topic choice. Notably, AA/B applicants tend to propose research on topics with lower award rates. These topics include research at the community and population level, as opposed to more fundamental and mechanistic investigations; the latter tend to have higher award rates. Topic choice alone accounts for over 20% of the funding gap after controlling for multiple variables, including the applicant’s prior achievements. Our findings can be used to inform interventions designed to close the funding gap.

Several studies have suggested that women in science are less productive than men, and that this gap contributes to their under-representation in the ranks of senior researchers. However, few studies have examined the role of mentoring, and in particular mentor gender, on the productivity of female scientists early in their careers. Such efforts are limited by the difficulties of unambiguously linking mentees to their mentors and measuring the research productivity resulting from those relationships. Here we use our novel author disambiguation solution to investigate the role of self-identified gender in mentorship of 12,932 trainees who either successfully or unsuccessfully applied to the National Institutes of Health for research fellowships between fiscal years 2011 and 2017, applying a multi-dimensional framework to assess productivity. We found that, after normalizing for the funding level of mentors, the productivity of female and male mentees is indistinguishable; it is also independent of the gender of the mentor, other than in measures of clinical impact, where women mentored by women outperform other mentee-mentor dyads.