Underrepresented Groups

Archive for the 'Underrepresented Groups' category

Repost- Faces of Neuropsychopharmacology: Percy L. Julian, Ph.D.

Feb 20 2012 Published by drugmonkey under Diversity in Science, Neuropharmacology, Pharmacology, Underrepresented Groups

Sorry folks, I'm swamped lately. Kept meaning to do something for Black History Month that was new but I haven't managed to get to it. So I'll repost this from a few years back. It originally appeared on the SB blog Feb 17, 2009.

sourcePercy Lavon Julian, Ph.D. (1899-1975) was a scientist who rose from humble beginnings, was trained and educated in an adverse cultural era and became a highly accomplished synthetic chemist and entrepreneur (Wikipedia; PubMed; ACS bio). From the American Chemical Society biography:

He was born in Montgomery, Alabama, on April 11, 1899, the son of a railway clerk and the grandson of slaves. From the beginning, he did well in school, but there was no public high school for African-Americans in Montgomery. Julian graduated from an all-black normal school inadequately prepared for college. Even so, in the fall of 1916, at the age of 17, he was accepted as a subfreshman at DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana. This meant that in addition to his regular college courses he took remedial classes at a nearby high school. He also had to work in order to pay his college expenses. Nevertheless, he excelled. Julian was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and graduated with a B.A. degree in 1920 as valedictorian of his class.

2 responses so far

The NIH seeks input on diversity and representation

Jan 11 2012 Published by drugmonkey under Diversity in Science, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding, Underrepresented Groups

Remember the Ginther et al. (2011) report on NIH Grant awards to Principal Investigators sorted by race and ethnicity? The one that showed African-American PIs suffered worse success rates even when controlling for a number of obvious potential contributing factors?

A new Notice (NIH-OD-12-031) seeks input on diversity in the NIH system.

The critical background:

The Advisory Committee to the NIH Director (ACD) has established a working group to examine diversity in the biomedical research workforce (see http://acd.od.nih.gov/DBR.asp for charge and roster) and provide concrete recommendations to the ACD and the NIH Director on ways to enhance diversity throughout the various research career stages, particularly with regard to underrepresented minorities, persons with disabilities, and persons from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Working Group on Diversity in the Biomedical Research Workforce has considered the evidence presented in “Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards” published in the August 2011 edition of Science and additional data provided by the NIH. This data shows that R01 applications from Black or African American PhD applicants between 2000 and 2006 did significantly worse than those applications from White applicants, even after controlling for observable characteristics. The article and a corresponding policy piece by NIH Director Francis Collins and NIH Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak can be found at http://www.sciencemag.org/hottopics/race-nihfunding/.

I offered solutions before, after expressing skepticism about the Advisory Panel approach.

Now it is time for all of us to offer our insight and possible solutions (or reasons why this is a non problem) to the Working Group.

UPDATE: The CPDD Blog review of the recent ACNP meeting notes that a question was asked about this situation in a session featuring a number of NIH IC representatives. Insel, NIMH Director, polled the crowd as to how many people knew what the Ginther report found. There were probably less than 5 hands raised that I could see. I'm not great at room estimates but there were easily over a hundred folks sitting there, probably less than 200. Folks who bothered to attend a session from NIH representatives so likely people with more than average interest in NIH matters.

__
For your convenience, a few links from last August when this arose:

Sally Rockey, Office of Extramural Research
Tom Insel, NIMH
Updated:
Bashir
Chronicle of Higher Ed
National Public Radio

5 responses so far

Either a liar or an idiot

Nov 08 2011 Published by bikemonkey under BikeMonkey, Underrepresented Groups

BikeMonkey PostApparently Tiger Woods' ex-caddie Steve Williams holds a grudge against the Tiger. Upon receiving some caddie award, he apparently said: ""My aim was to shove it right up that black - - - -hole," in the context of his new employer winning a golf tournament. I gotta say, when I finally found the quote after hearing a bunch of breathless coverage of the "racist" remarks on the radio, I was distinctly unimpressed. I mean, yes, perhaps he should have described Tiger's rectum as being "smug" or "arrogant" or "overrated" or something but...c'mon.

But what really annoyed me about this was a moronic statement made by a legend of the sport, Greg Norman.

Asked if racism is a problem in golf, Norman said he's "never seen it at all."

According to Wikipedia Greg Norman was active from 1975 to 2009 in professional golf. That entry also indicates that Norman played the Masters tournament regularly, including an unbroken streak from 1981-2002.

The Masters is held, of course, at Augusta National which only allowed black members to join in 1990 after being threatened with the loss of their tournament by the PGA.

The action by Augusta National, which is situated in Augusta, Ga., came in the wake of the controversy that surrounded the racial makeup of Shoal Creek Country Club outside Birmingham, Ala., where the P.G.A. Championship was held last month.

In response to the events at Shoal Creek, three of the main administrative bodies in golf, the PGA Tour, the P.G.A. of America and the United States Golf Association, all adopted new guidelines effective in 1991 requiring private clubs that want to host tournaments to demonstrate that their membership policies are not discriminatory against minority members or women by policy or practice.

And in case the lack of black members doesn't convince you ("wayul, them coloreds just don't wanna join our lil' club, Colonel") perhaps this will:

Because of the Masters, one of golf's four major championships, the club has long been one of the nation's most visible bastions of all-white golf. No black player played in the tournament until Lee Elder in 1975. And until 1982, when the competitors were allowed for the first time to bring their regular tour caddies, all the caddies in the tournament were black.

Because it just doesn't look right to have white men carrying the golf bags of other white men, you know?

Greg Norman played at Augusta many, many times. He was a professional golfer of some note when the professional organizations felt it necessary to adopt new guidelines to force old style racist country clubs to modernize or lose the considerable benefits of a PGA event.

Yet he allegedly never saw any racism in the sport "at all"?

Greg Norman, if quoted within reasonable context, is either an idiot or an asshole.

__
Additional Reading

A brief history of black contributions in golf
Decline of black caddies a bad thing?
Robert Lee Elder
Charles Sifford

7 responses so far

Underrepresented Minority Imposter Syndrome

Nov 01 2011 Published by bikemonkey under Diversity in Science, Mentoring, Tribe of Science, Underrepresented Groups

BikeMonkey PostNo, not what you might be thinking. This is not about any disproportional rate of feeling like an imposter on the part of people who are underrepresented in science. (I'm sure that is a reality, btw.) This is going to be about people who feel like they are impersonating an underrepresented class. To the extent that it bothers them to be fulfilling any sort of role where they are expected to be, overtly, a member of that class. I'll let Namnezia explain:

I mean, yea, I'm a minority and I do science, I have not much to say beyond that. What bothers me about these panels is that they imply that if you are somehow different then this difference permeates your every thought all the time, as if every time you walk into the lab you think "Oh I wonder which minority/gay/female/disabled issues I'll be facing today through my unique set of circumstances". I mean no, I'm thinking more along the lines of "I wonder what science will bring today". Or, "my kids were a pain in the ass this morning". Or "I have to pee". To me, being a minority is pretty much a non-issue during my everyday work.

Yeah, pretty much. For most people who are underrepresented and are in a halfway decent workplace. Just like this is the case for most people who are seemingly underrepresented in their other walks of life- perhaps because of the neighborhood they live in, the town or the state. Their socio-economic status. Perhaps because of where their kids go to school or where their spouse works. Or who their family is...or their spouse's family.

Most folks I know of in such situations just bloody go about the business of their lives.

It isn't like shit gets real 24/7.

But sometimes it does. Sometimes.

The fact that one does not have to be on constant alert at all moments of every day for some sort of negative event that is relevant to one's underrepresented class or status does not mean that one will never experience a negative event. The value as a mentor and role model is not dictated by how much adversity one has suffered*. The value is that one has succeeded. After all, the trainees are not seeking advice on how to suffer so much discrimination that they fail...they are looking to succeed.

The fact that there may be some blessed someones out there who are of underrepresented class or status and will never, ever experience any sort of insult, detriment or other noticeable event because of their class or status does not make those people imposters either. In fact this latter may be highly relevant. After all, if such people exist perhaps others do as well. And they are wondering if they are an imposter and/or what sort of loony world they live in which is discrimination free. So you can mentor them, if you feel this way.

Namnezia's comment was made to a post by GertyZ who was pondering whether she should volunteer to lead a roundtable for GLBT issues at a scientific meeting. The post and commentary circle around the notion that it is possible for many GLBT types to "pass". To operate undetected within a majority culture assumption which one does not seemingly fit. Everyone** passes to some degree or other. Passes for majority class and passes for any of a host of minority classes at other times. Rarely** does anyone inhabit a perfect storm of privilege and rarely does anyone inhabit a perfect storm of the lack thereof.

Given this, who is more authentic? Nobody is. We all just live our lives as they unfold. We gain experiences painful or joyous. We get along and get by. We work, we play, we raise our children.

Diverse as we are, our experiences may help others who come behind us along various pathways. Mentoring is, at the very root, using our experiences to help smooth the path for those followers. There is no obligation that I am aware of for the mentee to fit precisely into the footprints of the mentor for this process to be effective.

__
*Although people who are motivated to dismiss and overlook subtle discrimination are fond of playing this sort of Oppression Olympics and implying that if you've never been jumped in an alley by epithet shouting skinheads that all is peachy-keen. Very fond.

**Well, not white educated librul elite uppermiddle class heteronormative jockosporto hailfellowellmet white doods in science, but you take my point.

53 responses so far

The Dean's Hire

Sep 07 2011 Published by drugmonkey under Academics, Underrepresented Groups

Once upon a time, lo these many years ago, I was watching some career shenanigans in an Academic Department of -ology dear to my professional heart. It was a time in which the University in question was trying to improve the diversity of the professorial staff for a number of reasons. This Department was blessed by the Dean with at least two Dean's Hires.

This refers, in my parlance, to an Assistant Professor line that the University does not count against the Departmental allocation. A Department's ability to hire new faculty is often regulated by the University and the number of 'slots' afforded a Department across time is jealously negotiated. Sometimes, the Dean (or Assistant Vice Provost or whatever) will pick up some of the costs that are usually assessed to the Department as well.

Resulting in a "free" faculty member.

Yay Department of -ology! Free suckers to teach the boring Intro classes. Amirite?

Yes. Well, unless the Department has a little problem with hiring diversity for a reason. However you care to characterize it or dress it up with language about "our standards"* there might just be a leeeetle problemo with the attitude of the rest of the faculty. Or at least a voting majority. Or hell, merely a minority can be a problem if the success of new faculty hinges on the enthusiastic mentoring, assisting and collaborating coming from senior faculty. And it does, my friends, it most assuredly does.

Because if there is a leeeetle problemo, the fate of the Dean's Hire Assistant Professor is sealed before she so much as sets foot on campus and starts designing her new laboratory.

A problem because she starts getting screwed over by the failure of the Department faculty to help her out. Oh, I'm sure they are totally unconscious of their bias. Death of a thousand cuts that in isolation look like no big deal. Except for the blatantly racist and unfair whispering and not-so-whispery** water cooler campaign.

And of course, come time for promotion decisions, well, they have standards, doncha know. It is totally irrelevant that the current person surpasses the standard met by several of the older faculty upon their tenure decision years ago. Irrelevant! The standards are what we claim they are now. Well, yes, we made an exception for OldBoyJr a few years back but....well, he was good straight white folk and trained with some other good straight white folk and dammit, we just like him. Whoops, I mean, "he shows great promise of making a sustained and significant contribution to irrelevant backwater sub-sub-sub-ology that we happen to like around these here parts".

Ahem.

This was all spurred by a Tweet from @CackleofRad who wondered how to advertise positions to a diverse pool of faculty candidates. It emerged that the University was unhappy with the representative-ness of a Department. My point is pressure from above to hire someone, anyone*** can be counterproductive if there are substantial and entrenched attitudes of the faculty that brought that situation about in the first place.
__
**hahaha, dudes you do realize that any fool graduate student can assess your CV, right?

**in the hearing of all and sundry fool graduate students, of course

***it is true that I do favor this approach of "just get some overt recognizable diversity by any means necessary". However it is not the stopping point to hire some less-pasty faces. And it can be really friggin hard on the new hire.

16 responses so far

Any racial disparity in NIH Centers and Program Projects?

Aug 30 2011 Published by drugmonkey under Grant Review, NIH Careerism, NIH funding, Underrepresented Groups

The BigMechanisms are rare compared with R01 awards but they sure are a big deal to those Investigators who are supported by them. In some walks of academic research, your BSD-ness is practically defined by having one.

The NIH doesn't know if the diversity problem extends to the larger mechanisms.

I will be eagerly awaiting the followup data.

No responses yet

Racial Disparity in NIH Grants: Solutions from Your Humble Narrator

Aug 24 2011 Published by drugmonkey under NIH Careerism, Peer Review, Postdoctoral Training, Underrepresented Groups

A comment by Halophile on a prior post asks:

I'm honestly interested in how a hypothetical NIH Director DrugMonkey would handle the situation.

This was in response to my expressed skepticism that putting together an advisory panel was the right solution. Especially when they are tasked with:

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.

These are age-old concerns of academia and the solutions are not at all simple. And the obvious stuff comes up over and over again. With little success*. I am making the leap here that the primary motivation of this new panel is a response to the recent revelation that African-American Principal Investigators who apply to the NIH for research grant funding are having poorer outcomes than are white PIs. Correspondingly I think they should be focusing on the proximal problem and not letting themselves get distracted into the larger problem. Yes, even if the proximal issue is a death-of-a-thousand-cuts type of dealio. Yes.

My take with respect to the NIH response is as follows.

i) and ii) are things the NIH is supposedly already doing and tracking with their NRSA programs, MARC training grants and assorted other topics. So first, this is being taken care of elsewhere in the institution. Second, it is pretty damn far away from the prize and you would have to start with a hypothesis that somehow the good African-American scientists are being disproportionately shelled out at grad school and postdoctoral transitions. Thus, those that make it through to apply for grants are only the mediocre ones and this relationship differs for white scientists. I think this is a low probability hypothesis. Move on.

iii) is certainly a concern, particularly with the recent focus of the NIH on transition, creation of the K99/R00 mechanism and general worry about "the next generation". At this point I'm doing the facepalm and thinking "yeaaah, that should have been an obvious component of this K99/R00 flurry but damn I bet it wasn't." However. Much like my response to items i and ii, this is still a bit distant from the grant outcome issue that has been revealed.

iv and v are where the money is. This is where the NIH needs to focus. The fate of existing junior and not-so-junior faculty particularly where it comes to winning grant support from the NIH. Stop getting distracted with "tenure" though, except where you can identify that clearly with disparity in NIH grant awards, the need for African-American investigators to submit more times for a given award, etc.

I am dismayed that the charge is not to delve further into the causes of disparate grant review outcome. To go right at the proximal problem, now, with great dispatch and figure out how to fix it. As soon as possible. Why? Because this news has an immediate and discouraging effect on our current trainees! Not to mention the PIs...

Now, maybe further data mining has already been conducted or is in the works but we don't know that. Tabak and Collins referred to some preliminary analyses that may or may not go beyond what Ginther et al reported. Here's what I would commission from the CSR data miners.

-Outcomes for black versus white applicants on a study section by study section basis.

-Participation of African-American and white reviewers on each panel; heck throw in the same racial/ethnic breakdowns used by Ginther while we're at it.

-Outcomes on a IC by IC basis as well.

These are important bits of information. Is there any relationship with particular scientific domains, review panels or review panel makeups? That would recommend one set of fixes. If not, we'd have to move on to other considerations.

Next up.....um, why not actually talk to the applicants? Supplementary Table 2 of Ginther says there were only 2,942 applications with Black PIs from 2000-2006, 285 awards. I think the 16 member panel could make a serious dent in interviewing this population of investigators. A couple of emails and badabing! What do they think has been helpful and detrimental to their successes and failures as applicants? Where do they point the finger? I'm not saying they will have the same viewpoint or even necessarily be correct (with respect to the broader problem) but for goodness sake this is a place to generate some hypotheses, is it not?

Finally, I come to the most immediate response of all. Programmatic alterations in funding priority. This disparity is a bias in the system, like it or not. Not dissimilar to the bias against new investigators that has been a repeated topic of my blogging. Familiar, in fact, to an older (yet sadly ongoing) discussion of bias against female investigators.

The NIH has responded quite directly in the most recent case of new investigators by putting a finger on the scale to rebalance outcomes. The less established investigators are still getting crappier scores from review panels (and maybe even worse), but the NIH is choosing to pick them up out of the review order in recognition that poorer review outcome is a bug in the system.

This is no different. So my clearest answer to the question raised by Halophile is that I'd put out the word, informally if I had to**, that I was expecting the IC heads to fix the problem pronto. To examine their portfolios of scores in each round to make sure they were prioritizing*** black PI apps in their above-payline pickups.
__
*Sorry but I am exhausted by us majority white institution folks fruitlessly pointing the finger at the supply chain below us. It dilutes the blame and gives a handy out when you fail to improve. There are two methods, only, that work. They are related to each other. The pull side, "attractiveness" of a career, a University, a training program, etc, solves itself as a self-fulfilling prophesy. When women, gays, the poor and minorities inhabit specific roles in society, that makes them more imaginable to subsequent generations. Make the job "look" diverse and dismantle any real hurdles that exist and you are most of the way over the hump. How to get there? I am on record as a big fan of creating overt, visible diversity by any means necessary. This brings me to the second method- money. Making your graduate program, postdoctoral environment or faculty ranks more diverse is simple- outbid the competition for the limited resource.

**think, rightwing anti-affirmative action political bigots

***By way of disclaimer, yes, this would theoretically benefit people who's careers are of direct personal and professional interest of mine.

14 responses so far

Racial bias in NIH Grant review?

Aug 18 2011 Published by drugmonkey under Diversity in Science, NIH, Underrepresented Groups

oh boy.

This is going to be explosive. Jocelyn Kaiser reports:

But an in-depth analysis of grant data from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) on page 1015 in this issue of Science finds that the problem goes much deeper than impressions. Black Ph.D. scientists—and not other minorities—were far less likely to receive NIH funding for a research idea than a white scientist from a similar institution with the same research record. The gap was large: A black scientist's chance of winning NIH funding was 10 percentage points lower than that of a white scientist. [emphasis added-DM]

The report by Ginther et al is here, the key figure is below:

Let the race-splainin' begin....

[h/t: Academic Lurker]

__
Additional commentary:
Sally Rockey, Office of Extramural Research
Tom Insel, NIMH
Updated:
Bashir
Chronicle of Higher Ed
National Public Radio

33 responses so far

Eleven percent TeaBagger

May 26 2011 Published by drugmonkey under Underrepresented Groups

A study in Perspectives in Psychological Science by Norton and Sommers is getting a lot of attention. It shows that eleven percent of White people in their sample think that there is maximum anti-White bias in US culture in the 2000's compared with just 2% of Whites who gave a maximum rating to anti-Black bias. The mean rating of White subjects for anti-White bias in the present day is actually higher than their mean rating for anti-Black bias.

I really don't have much more to say than this to those poor deluded teabagging souls...