Gender Distributions in NIH Grant Awards for Transplant Research, 2019-2023

Background: Lower publication rates and higher attrition among female faculty are often linked to reduced institutional support and fewer start-up grants. This study investigates gender disparities in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant awards, specifically in the Organ Transplantation and Transplantation funding categories. We assess differences in the number of awards, total funding, and average funding between male and female first-time NIH awardees from 2019 to 2023. Methods: We analyzed NIH grant awards from fiscal years 2019 to 2023 in the Organ Transplantation and Transplantation funding categories. Data included the number of grants, total funding (direct and indirect costs), average funding per recipient, and distribution of top grant types (R01, U01, P01) by gender. Statistical significance was determined using t-tests. Results: From 2019 to 2023, a total of 7,561 NIH grants were awarded in the selected categories, with a significant gender disparity in recipients: 5,218 (69%) male and 2,343 (31%) female, resulting in a 38% gender gap. The total funding distribution reflected this disparity, with males receiving 69.3% of the total cost ($2.53B) compared to females (30.7%, $1.12B) .When comparing average grant funding per recipient, there was no significant gender disparity: Direct Costs: Female: $319,919.55; Male: $323,798.07 (gap: 0.6%),Indirect Costs: Female: $127,888.73; Male: $132,196.17 (gap: 1.7%) Total Costs: Female: $477,068.45; Male: $484,610.88 (gap: 0.8%),Top awarded grants differed slightly by gender:,Females: R01 (37.7%), U01 (6.8%), P01 (6.3%),Males: R01 (41.4%), P01 (9.5%), U01 (7.2%) No significant difference was observed in the average funding of R01 and U01 grants between genders (p > 0.05). Notably, female researchers exhibited a higher year-over-year increase in both total and average funding compared to males, with an 11.79% increase in total funding from 2022 to 2023, versus a 2.54% decline for males. Conclusion: Despite a lower number of female NIH grant recipients and overall funding, the average funding per grant remains comparable between genders. The most funded grant types (R01, U01, P01) showed no significant funding disparities between male and female researchers. Encouragingly, female researchers demonstrated a higher annual growth in funding, suggesting potential progress toward equity in NIH grant distributions over time.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.2025vepb3dtc
Primary Topic
Diversity and Career in Medicine
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Gender Distributions in NIH Grant Awards for Transplant Research, 2019-2023

Ohm S. Tripathi
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Diversity and Career in Medicine
article

Gender Distributions in NIH Grant Awards for Transplant Research, 2019-2023

Ohm S. Tripathi
article en

Abstract

Background: Lower publication rates and higher attrition among female faculty are often linked to reduced institutional support and fewer start-up grants. This study investigates gender disparities in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant awards, specifically in the Organ Transplantation and Transplantation funding categories. We assess differences in the number of awards, total funding, and average funding between male and female first-time NIH awardees from 2019 to 2023. Methods: We analyzed NIH grant awards from fiscal years 2019 to 2023 in the Organ Transplantation and Transplantation funding categories. Data included the number of grants, total funding (direct and indirect costs), average funding per recipient, and distribution of top grant types (R01, U01, P01) by gender. Statistical significance was determined using t-tests. Results: From 2019 to 2023, a total of 7,561 NIH grants were awarded in the selected categories, with a significant gender disparity in recipients: 5,218 (69%) male and 2,343 (31%) female, resulting in a 38% gender gap. The total funding distribution reflected this disparity, with males receiving 69.3% of the total cost ($2.53B) compared to females (30.7%, $1.12B) .When comparing average grant funding per recipient, there was no significant gender disparity: Direct Costs: Female: $319,919.55; Male: $323,798.07 (gap: 0.6%),Indirect Costs: Female: $127,888.73; Male: $132,196.17 (gap: 1.7%) Total Costs: Female: $477,068.45; Male: $484,610.88 (gap: 0.8%),Top awarded grants differed slightly by gender:,Females: R01 (37.7%), U01 (6.8%), P01 (6.3%),Males: R01 (41.4%), P01 (9.5%), U01 (7.2%) No significant difference was observed in the average funding of R01 and U01 grants between genders (p > 0.05). Notably, female researchers exhibited a higher year-over-year increase in both total and average funding compared to males, with an 11.79% increase in total funding from 2022 to 2023, versus a 2.54% decline for males. Conclusion: Despite a lower number of female NIH grant recipients and overall funding, the average funding per grant remains comparable between genders. The most funded grant types (R01, U01, P01) showed no significant funding disparities between male and female researchers. Encouragingly, female researchers demonstrated a higher annual growth in funding, suggesting potential progress toward equity in NIH grant distributions over time.

Journal of the American Society of NephrologyVol. 36(10S)
University of Connecticut (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Diversity and Career in Medicine
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.